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)

[JContad]

I agree. It's plane retarded.

*ducks*

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.

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

[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.

Government Software

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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.