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."
This idea will never take off.
I think they could make the whole flying experience better if they banned the TSA people from the security checkpoint... but that's just me. meh
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
they aren't flying through storms, they fly AROUND storms- they aren't stupid. their choices increase from just straight up delays to either flying around a storm or a delay [they didn't do this already?] it is a good improvement- the delay could be a lot less and if it works well things will get better.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Software written for the feds. That usually turns out well...
What kind of software company uses PowerPoint to illustrate their application?
Read my Very Short "Stories"
It seems like this is a partial response to the backlash of people getting stranded on planes on the ground during bad weather. Now the airlines have the option of putting the planes in the air, and flying the long way around to avoid the weather.
The end result is that people will still be spending more time in airliners.
I've done the math, I know the odds, but I'm still disappointed when I don't win the lottery.
Is flying through storms all that good of an idea? Really?
"Flying through storms" isn't an accurate description - it's what happens when the mainstream press reports on a technical issue.
Nobody flies through thunderstorms. At least knowingly and on purpose. You fly between them (or over them if you're not stuck in a A320.)
Delays happen in the summer because the traffic trying to pass an area or line of thunderstorms enroute has to squeeze into the areas between cells. Controllers have to maintain a specified spacing between aircraft, so when you have less space for traffic, you have to accept less traffic.
In the past, the FAA would hold aircraft on the ground to keep traffic at a rate the affected area could handle. As I read the summary, it looks like they're going to give airlines the option sitting it out on the ground (rate limiting) or of rerouting well outside of the affected area - effectively a choice between a departure delay or a longer route with ahe increased fuel burn.
Choice is good.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
And you'll arive without your checked bags anywhere in sight I'm sure. I think some of the companies they outsource bag handling to must hire chimps... no wait, chimps know how to arrange items.
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.
I feel safe already!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If routing around weather is an option, I can only wonder what percentage of passengers who will simply be stuck in another city after missing their connecting flights.
It's been my experience that the airlines like to get you up and out of your destination city rather than rebook you at your option.
Choice may be good for the airline companies, but not for all the passengers.
-Bedammit
guess i better take a aisle or centre seat then.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Yippee for burning more fuel!
I guess somebody didn't get the memo about reducing our nation's dependence for foreign oil.
I do not like the idea of anything that give airlines an incentive to fly through storms.
There is a certain amount of hubris in the idea that we have tamed nature to that extent. It is not always obvious where the downdrafts are. Tornadoes, after all, begin inside clouds and are invisible until they start to pick up moisture, dirt, houses, etc.
On several occasions I've been on commercial flights that were hit by lightning while in flight. The times it happened, it was no big deal... but it shouldn't be taken for granted that it is never a big deal. Particularly with the increasing dependence of basic aircraft flight systems on electronics.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The terrorist of the future will fly first class. Since you simply CAN'T piss off an exec by not letting him get into the plane with his gadgets.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Seriously. In 2000, a trip to the US took the flight and approximately 1-2 hours at immigration.
In 2007, you can count at standing at the very least 4 hours. Though you don't feel it as such since they invented many funny pastime activities to keep you entertained. Shoe-roulette, where everyone gets to take off his slippers and, hey, take the cheap sneakers for the flight, you might return with a more valuable pair! Not to mention that my sex life definitly improved since they tweaked the metal detectors to react to the iron in your blood. God, that sexy grabber at Heathrow... mmm... every time a delight to feel him feel me up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This might help, but it won't stop the real problem, which is all the flights trying to depart at the same time. Look at the departure board, ever wonder how all those flights can leave simultaneously? Multiple runways help, but they can only use ~2 at a time. A limited number of planes can depart in a finite amount of time. Once they stop that (yeah, right) then the delays will be reduced.
Every little bit helps, but they have a long way to go.
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson
The flight could be delayed, Cancel or Allow
hmm. i've been on many a jetblue flight from jfk to sea or oak throughout the year. i've never had an issue with needing to stop an refuel.
:(
also "pushed to the limits?"
the distance from jfk to sea is 2421 mi, the service range of the a320 is 3000 mi, jfk to oak is 2576 mi.
the plane is designed to fly these distances. being that a plane can't take off without enough fuel to reach it's destination AND at least one of it's diversion airports, you're in no dnager of anything on a cross country flight on an a320.
that being said, i do enjoy a 737-800/900 better but no tvs
FWIW, I do stress analysis on the wings of the A380...
To within 3.33%, I assume.
8-)
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
The problem is that the security is there to cover someones ass, and to make people feel safe.
Two serious questions:
1) Who are the people who felt unsafe before security theatre was introduced, and what were they scared of?
2) Who are the people who feel safer now because of it?
Everyone I know who flies a) was not scared of bombs or hijackers, and b) is just becoming more and more pissed off because this "security" rubbish.
I ask these questions because the answers I hear are "the public" and nameless "people". I don't know any of them. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who feels this way.
And I'm calling shenanigans on it.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
It makes me feel better to pretend that 'they' exist. There is the issue that the people are afraid only show up in that they aren't flying, so asking people that do actually fly may miss them.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.