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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... Actually those companies make up perhaps 25% of the market. Semicondutor market will be about $170B this year. Also note that MOT's semiconductor business doesn't make money very often. Mike MU-2 Yup...I was thinking of CPU's and the like. 'Scuze me. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:00:25 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote: More seriously: that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking of a "bubble" of a certain size that must be kept clear. I'm sure there's an official term, but I don't know it. I'd imagine that this "bubble" needs to be larger around a fast-mover than a slow-mover. In other words, a sky of 172s could be permitted to be more densely packed than a sky of 747s. At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct. Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?). This means that a sky full of 747s can be packed as densely as a sky full of 172s. What really messes up the works is a mixed sky of fast-movers and slow-movers. Morris (slow mover) |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"journeyman" wrote in message u.com... What really messes up the works is a mixed sky of fast-movers and slow-movers. Kinda like the freeway at rush hour. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message [snip] Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is. I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have been saved. You mean you got him to do something for one of his constituents? I thought he last represented his district 20 years ago when he understood that DoD operations impact a large portion of the people of his district. He's now so busy wheeling and dealing inside the Beltway that I'm not certain he could find his district on a map. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
journeyman wrote:
At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct. Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?). Interesting, and somewhat surprising to me. If you view separation as a function of time (ie. targets are separated based upon how much time it would take for them to reach one another), this model appears to offer the fast-movers less of a cushion. Ah, well. It'll certainly not be the last thing that surprises me. - Andrew |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gideon wrote:
journeyman wrote: At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct. Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?). Interesting, and somewhat surprising to me. If you view separation as a function of time (ie. targets are separated based upon how much time it would take for them to reach one another), this model appears to offer the fast-movers less of a cushion. No, it's not an issue of time to act so much as it is the certainty of the location of the aircraft. It's the controller's job to take into account the relative speeds of the aircraft and to act so that the 5 mile bubbles don't burst. He has to look further ahead of faster movers. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Natalie wrote:
No, it's not an issue of time to act so much as it is the certainty of the location of the aircraft. I'd think both were factors. That is, a fast-mover can move further from it's last known point between RADAR queries, and a fast-mover can move further between the time it takes to notice a problem and correct it. It's the controller's job to take into account the relative speeds of the aircraft and to act so that the 5 mile bubbles don't burst. He has to look further ahead of faster movers. Ah...so there's a second bubble. One is the legal "requirement", and the other is what is used for planning into the future. That makes sense to me. However (and this is where the thread diverged onto this subtopic), doesn't that "look further ahead" warrant an increased ATC service fee grin? - Andrew |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" writes: "Chip Jones" wrote in message [snip] Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is. I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have been saved. You mean you got him to do something for one of his constituents? Yes. Several years ago we had a box installed IAW AC143.13, instead of our installation manual. The report back was, "cockpit filled with smoke" and so Iwent down to the ACO to get athority to write the installs myself. I discovered that Douglas didn't want professional engineers and I couldn't play. FAA thought I was very funny when I expected them to fix their problem. I thought he last represented his district 20 years ago when he understood that DoD operations impact a large portion of the people of his district. He's now so busy wheeling and dealing inside the Beltway that I'm not certain he could find his district on a map. Thomas still comes here and meets the Republicans. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Well it is and it is not, one needs to know a little about govenment
to understand the system. Just like commercial fuel taxes at the gas station pays for the interstate highway system, the fuel tax and other fees pay for the airway jetroute system. Each system of transportation is mostly self supporting. It is also very interesting how much each system ties into the other. Ever wonder why a VFR C150 can fly into ORD on the busiest day and why at such a busy commerical place they dont try and restrict slow private aircraft. Once they do, then Grayhound Bus could demand the same thing over the George Washington Bridge into NYC. And we all know the little guy driving the VW Bug has the same right to the road as the driver of the Greyhound bus. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... My understanding: The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket) taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the system, not he general taxpayer. It is one of the few government agencies that has been self supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due to the way congress lets them have their own money. My understanding is that Air Traffic is about 85% funded by the trust fund, at least it was several years ago. It shouldn't be funded exclusively from aviation taxes because Air Traffic also provides services to the military. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
"John" wrote in message om... Ever wonder why a VFR C150 can fly into ORD on the busiest day and why at such a busy commerical place they dont try and restrict slow private aircraft. A VFR C150 can't fly into ORD on the busiest day and private aircraft of all speeds are restricted at such busy airports. ORD is in Class B airspace and on the busiest day a VFR aircraft seeking entry will be told to remain clear of the Class B airspace. ORD is a high density traffic airport under FAR Part 93, it is limited to just ten IFR operations per hour by general aviation aircraft. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|