If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:26:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote: John Kulp wrote: Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are stealing what money is already being paid for? What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation? Because that is exactly what it is designed to do? I didn't say anything about paying more. What I suggested in this forum a month or so ago was the same net cost just make it cheaper off peak and more expensive on-peak. That's how economics should work. Things should cost more when they are in higher demand and less when they are in lower demand. Well, I didn't see your post then so I can't comment |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation? Because that is exactly what it is designed to do? It _may_ be able to more precisely control separation out in the airways, and get them set up for landing sequence, but notice I said "may." They do a pretty good job with radar, right now. What it _can not_ do is put more aircraft on the runways per hour in the big airports operating with all of the landing slots full. The separation for wake turbulence is always going to be the limiting factor in how many aircraft can land at a given busy airport at peak times. GPS is not going to change that. -- Jim in NC |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
John Kulp wrote: What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation? Because that is exactly what it is designed to do? Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway. If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out. The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the runways we have now. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Newps posted: [...] The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the runways we have now. Isn't that somewhat dependent on the definition of "...the runways we have now"? The problem is easily addressed by abandoning the hub system that overburdens a few locations and barely worked when demand was low. Alternatively, add hubs to some of the underutlilzed airports. Of course, the airlines would probably find this to be a threat to direct service to locations of highest demand, but from a passenger's point of view, it's becoming more difficult to get a flight direct to very many places anyway. Neil Sure that will work but to do it would mean more smaller aircraft in the system, which I don't personally think is a bad thing but it could bring about another problem where the ATC is over burdened. Of course it is a lot easier to hire and train mor controllers than it is to build more runways. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:04:04 -0600, Newps wrote:
John Kulp wrote: What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation? Because that is exactly what it is designed to do? Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway. If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out. The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the runways we have now. Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build. So just what do you know that those running the business don't? |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
John Kulp wrote: Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway. If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out. The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the runways we have now. Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build. So just what do you know that those running the business don't? GPS was designed and built by the military. Imagine that, the airlines not wanting to change anything but have others change to meet their outmoded business plan. You can't change basic physics. GPS can generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that 2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures? Many studies have been done that the optimal runway occupancy time is approx 45 seconds for a landing aircraft. More typical is 1 minute, in good weather. That's approx 2.5-3 miles separation. You want more operations? Lay more concrete. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
Recently, Newps posted:
[...] The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the runways we have now. Isn't that somewhat dependent on the definition of "...the runways we have now"? The problem is easily addressed by abandoning the hub system that overburdens a few locations and barely worked when demand was low. Alternatively, add hubs to some of the underutlilzed airports. Of course, the airlines would probably find this to be a threat to direct service to locations of highest demand, but from a passenger's point of view, it's becoming more difficult to get a flight direct to very many places anyway. Neil |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
John Kulp wrote:
Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build. So just what do you know that those running the business don't? Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps wrote:
John Kulp wrote: Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway. If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out. The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the runways we have now. Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build. So just what do you know that those running the business don't? GPS was designed and built by the military. So what? I use it all the time in my car to find where I am and where I'm going. Just like the airlines want. Imagine that, the airlines not wanting to change anything but have others change to meet their outmoded business plan. Imagine you not knowing what you're talking about. The airlines have made huge changes in their business plans which you obviously know nothing about. You can't change basic physics. GPS can generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that 2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures? Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math? Many studies have been done that the optimal runway occupancy time is approx 45 seconds for a landing aircraft. More typical is 1 minute, in good weather. That's approx 2.5-3 miles separation. You want more operations? Lay more concrete. a. what studies? b. that would increase efficiency about 50% if it is currently 6 miles wouldn't it? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Travel aid | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel aid | [email protected] | Restoration | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel aid | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel aid | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel Supplements | Jetnw | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 15th 04 07:50 AM |