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."

Comments

(sorry)

[The New Andy]

This idea will never take off.

Re:(sorry)

[SpaceLifeForm]

Actually, you're probably correct.

The outbound flights (at the airport with bad weather),
will be the ones that are delayed, instead of other
flights whose destination is the airport with the bad
weather being delayed.

Ever sit on the plane at the gate for hours
because of bad weather at your destination?

Hot, no drinks, no food, no information, and
you can't go back inside the terminal.

With this plan, it will be the other way around,
because it will mess up less airports.

Re:(sorry)

[JContad]

I agree. It's plane retarded.

*ducks*

Re:(sorry)

[StikyPad]

You guys are taking these aeronautical puns to new heights.

Re:(sorry)

[CapsaicinBoy]

Meaningless. 9% is not statistically significant.

Please turn in your geek card on the way out.

Anybody that has passed intro stats at any level knows (or should know) that effect size and statistical significance are two completely separate measures. You can have a 2% improvement that is highly significant or you could have a 20% improvement that isn't - without the actual data you cannot know.

Now, the question you are trying to ask is if, in medical terms, a 9% improvement is clinically meaningful. If I can show a new drug lowers blood pressure by 2mm hg every single time, the improvement will be statistically significant, but not in any way useful. Just yesterday I was running a hierarchical regression where the final predictor only improved the fit of the model by 3.3%, but the change in fit was certainly significant (p=.004)

If you want to use the word significant as a synonym for meaningful that's ok I guess (I wouldn't). But please don't add the word "statistically" to the phrase in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter. It just makes communicating statistics to the public that much harder for those of us that actually do it for a living.

Re:(sorry)

[maxume]

I figured there was a 75% chance that you would slam him for making up his 90% figure. I'm 100% disappointed.

Re:(sorry)

[GigG]

"When I lie awake at 3:00 am, listening to large, low-flying jet aircraft as they roar directly over my house at full throttle, I will take comfort in that fact. After all, it's significant!"

When you bought your house did you not notice that huge place with the long strips of concrete? That was an airport.

If you asked me

[zappepcs]

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

Re:If you asked me

[Timesprout]

I was just thinking the same thing going thru the airport yesterday. It used to be a few security personnel at the metal detectors and at least they were courteous. Now there is a legion of staff, most of whom seem to have been recruited with a 'Would you like to be a petty tyrant?' ad and who speak to you with a 'do as I say or I will fuck your day up so badly' manner because an environment has been created where what they say goes. Travelling is enough of a nuisance without these prats trying to piss you off as well.

Re:If you asked me

[dnahelix1]

Off-topic to the original subject, but the TSA security just gets me agitated. I fly about once a month. First you show your id (which could be fake) and your boarding pass you printed at home (which could be fake). Then, ten feet later, you do it again. Why? who knows. Then I have to unpack. I take my router with me, chargers, ipod, camera, phone, laptop and the usual crap that goes with it. I usually pack them in a separate bag that goes in my carry-on, but have that bag out separately because then I don't have to go into the bag to get it out. Half the time, this causes an argument with the TSA person b/c I have now have too many bags. So I have to put the bag in the bag to get into screening only to have to pull it out again. The laptop has to be in a separate bin. The shoes have to come off, the sweater, laptop bag go in one bin. Then the carry-on bag. Now, let's not forget about the gels and liquids. They've literally spent four minutes telling me how I'm allowed a bigger bag. I tell them I don't need a bigger one, everything fits nicely in this small bag, thanks. They tell me again, I'm allowed a bigger bag. I roll my eyes. Let's remember the time where I had my inhalers without the prescription for them (it's usually on a box that the inhaler comes in) and they wanded it, swabed it, etc. I've had them look at my mascara and lip gloss with the utmost scrutiny, yet first-class people go by with their water bottles. So now, my stuff is in four bins, all over, they want my id and boarding pass, again (third time in probably 30 feet). I fly out of Chicago a lot and now it's winter and I had to take my shoes off so my socks are wet. I can't monitor my stuff because it's in four bins, they want to wand me for whatever reason (I didn't set the alarm off). They're going through my stuff, my feet are wet and now I get to pay $5 for a bottle of water that I could have filled for free. When I fly out of the small airport, they swab the bag there because it's only one flight going out at a time. If it sets off the detector, they call you up, you watch while they unpack your bag, stuff all over the place in plain view and then they shove it all back in the bag that took 2 hours to pack because it's Christmas. If you try and repack it to protect the breakables, they pitch a fit. And then, they want your ID and you to sign a form that says it's your bag. You ask for a copy of the form and what it's going to be used for and they won't tell you, just that it's for their 'records'. So let's review: They still don't know if I am me. My feet are wet, there's some slight public humiliation for underwear being thrown about, probably sick because I can't keep properly hydrated on the plane and I'm pretty sure I'm in some database that I will never be able to find out for why. We're really really safe now, aren't we?

Re:If you asked me

[glarbl_blarbl]

I don't fly that often, but my dad is a retired airline pilot so I get to see the industry from a different angle..

Three years ago my family traveled to Ft. Bragg to see my brother off to the Iraq war (he's fine after serving two tours - he's now in the Army Reserve). On the way out, my mom (like my dad and brother, a military veteran) was stopped by the TSA because she set off the metal detector. She explained to the officer that she had a metal valve in her heart after a recent surgery. The officer told my mom that regulations required a pat-down search in that circumstance. My mom offered to show the officer the scar in private to avoid a strange person touching the still-healing scar, but the officer was adamant that the rules be followed. Add to this the fact that the airport is a two-hour drive and the flight left at 6AM and you get a fairly stressful situation.

We spent a few days with my brother before he left for war, and on the way back my mom tried to be pro-active by telling the officer in Raleigh about the artificial heart-valve before she went through the metal detector. This time the woman doing the searching had a really nasty attitude (especially for 4:30 in the morning) and not only patted down my mother with her dirty gloves but actually made my 57 year-old mother take off her shirt not in a separate room but behind s flimsy screen adjacent to the security checkpoint.

Yeah, "petty tyrants" sounds about right to me. Underpaid and overworked, too.

Re:If you asked me

[maxume]

None of your 'pack smarter' tips would be necessary if the actual goal of the checkpoint was to make you safe. The problem is that the security is there to cover someones ass, and to make people feel safe. They don't need to check that you don't have big bottles of fluids, they need to be able to say they checked that you don't have big bottles of fluids.

The fact that it is just plain stupid makes it all the more objectionable.

better all around

[wizardforce]

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.

Re:better all around

[A Holstenson]

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.

Re:better all around

[mpe]

How long 'til a plane runs out of fuel because someone forgot to add some more to cover the extra distance?

Depends if the pilots are from Canada, in which case it would probably not be too much of a problem.

Government Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Software written for the feds. That usually turns out well...

Just moving the delay into the air

[PDMongo]

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.

Re:Just moving the delay into the air

[Timesprout]

It will mean longer flights but I guess the airlines feel it's less expensive to burn the extra fuel rather than deal with or compensate stranded and irate passengers.

Re:Just moving the delay into the air

[DigiShaman]

It will mean longer flights but I guess the airlines feel it's less expensive to burn the extra fuel rather than deal with or compensate stranded and irate passengers.

Last week, I took a flight from Shanghai to Xiamen (SSS airline). Due to air traffic issues, we were stranded on the ground for an hour or so. In fact, the same amount of time it would have taken to fly to Xiamen had we left as scheduled. Needless to say, one guy was shouting and yelling about this. You could also hear everyone's irate attitude toward this airline even through it wasn't there fault. Shit happens, and air traffic control is there to make our flights safer. Unfortunately, customers only view what's directly in front of them as the fault.

While I'm not in favor of burning more fuel, it just makes economic sense. It's worth the extra fuel expense to keep loyal customers. Besides, they'll just roll up the extra costs in the ticket price next time around.

Re:Just moving the delay into the air

[the pickle]

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.

Re:Just moving the delay into the air

[AlphaOne]

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.

Re:.ppt?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

These developers should have been REAL men and developed from scratch their own presentation software and released the presentation in their OWN format.

To me as a consumer, that says: "These guys are serious."

Flying Through storms...

[DieByWire]

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.

Re:Flying Through storms...

[daBass]

or over them if you're not stuck in a A320

I am not sure what you mean; an A320/319/321 has a higher service ceiling than all but the newest 737-700/800. And the difference between 39K and 41K isn't that big anyway.

In fact, most pilots who have flown both will tell you the A320 is a much smoother ride in rough weather because the fly-by-wire responds so much faster to any unwanted movement than a non-FBW plane that just bounces around and with the auto pilot responding only to longer term deviations. (ie: the auto-pilot is happy as long as the course and altitude are OK, short pitch and roll changes aren't important) Having been a passenger way too many times on both, I have noticed the same.

Use it or lose it

[Joaz Banbeck]

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.

Skip check-in?

[sc0ob5]

Does the software allow you to skip check-in? That'd make flights a lot easier.

FAA Clippy

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It looks like you're trying to fly. Can I help you?

I feel safe already!

Burning more fuel

[hey]

Yippee for burning more fuel!
I guess somebody didn't get the memo about reducing our nation's dependence for foreign oil.

Don't underestimate Mother Nature

[dpbsmith]

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.

In other words

[Opportunist]

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.