Slashdot Mirror
FAA Software Aims to Make Flights Easier
coondoggie writes "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week expanded a program that it says will reduce flight delays during the peak summer season. The Airspace Flow Program gives airlines the option of either accepting delays for flights scheduled to fly through storms or flying longer routes to maneuver around them. The agency said that it rolled out a new software program that ensures airports impacted by bad weather receive the maximum number of flights that can safely fly to them."
I suggest leaving the decision about whether or not to take off up to the airline with the following conditions: either they take off in their time slot, or they go back to the terminal and immediately unload the passengers. No other options.
Does the software allow you to skip check-in? That'd make flights a lot easier.
The end result is that people will still be spending more time in airliners.
You make it sound like routing around a thunderstorm actually adds a significant amount of time to the flight, as compared to spending several hours on the ground waiting for the weather at a destination to clear up.
For en-route weather, the additional time spent in flight is minimal (on the order of seconds to a few minutes, occasionally as much as 10-15 minutes). For weather at the destination airport, there isn't anything that can be done once the holding fuel is burned anyway -- the flight has to divert to its alternate unless the destination airport has become an option (not the case most of the time).
This software will not affect the amount of time people spend in the airplane at the alternate one bit. Yes, it may increase the time they spend *airborne* by some immeasurably small percentage, but it's more likely to *decrease* the overall time spent in the aircraft, since its whole purpose is to reduce ground delays at the departure airport.
Disclaimer: I work in the industry, so I might possibly have a clue what I'm talking about.
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
You make it sound like routing around a thunderstorm actually adds a significant amount of time to the flight, as compared to spending several hours on the ground waiting for the weather at a destination to clear up.
Not only that, but going around weather isn't something new... aircraft have been doing that for as long as they've been in the air.
It sounds to me that all this new software does is fill empty arrival slots with other aircraft whenever a cancellation or delay occurs. I'm surprised they haven't been doing this the whole time.
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
Probably never, these days they actually do some calculations to decide how much fuel to carry.
There are a few different configurations for the route taken by a plane. The most common is from a departure point to an arrival point and from there the possibility to reach a alternate airport. Other configurations are for two alternates and such things as replanning while in flight to decide if they should continue to the destination or head for the alternate.
Anyways, the regulations say that you should carry enough fuel to reach the airports on your route, which includes the alternates. So on a regular flight there will always be some fuel left when landing. In the case as described by the GP they probably wont run out of fuel while flying around the storm. And if fuel runs low there are always the regulation that for every point on your flightplath you should never have more than one hour to the nearest airport.
Don't worry, flying is actually pretty safe.
Yippee for burning more fuel!
I guess somebody didn't get the memo about reducing our nation's dependence for foreign oil.