Slashdot Mirror
FAA's Aging Flight-Plan System Having Problems
Eddytor takes us to eWeek for a look at the FAA's air-traffic control system, which, after 20 years of continuous operation, is in desperate need of an overhaul. Recent crashes have caused major delays, but the system's scope and importance make it difficult to test upgrades and improvements.
"Many technologies are used in air traffic control systems. Primary and secondary radar are used to enhance a controller's 'situational awareness' within his assigned airspace; all types of aircraft send back primary echoes of varying sizes to controllers' screens as radar energy is bounced off their skins. Transponder-equipped aircraft reply to secondary radar interrogations by giving an ID (Mode A), an altitude (Mode C) and/or a unique callsign (Mode S). Certain types of weather also may register on a radar screen."
How often do you see a plane fall out of the sky because the engine died?
Well, first of all, for someone that just completed an aviation program, you should know better than to make statements like, "plane fall out of the sky", as related to engine failure. Planes glide, not "fall", when an engine quits. Second of all, engine failure in GA piston aircraft is far more common than you think. The causes range from fuel exhaustion to mechanical failure, but it does happen far more often than people hear on the news. In fact, it happens often enough, it is not considered an uncommon event. This is why twin engines are typically considered a requisite for ocean crossings.
Telling people to return to trains is ridiculous, and who has time for that anyway?
You have no time for trains, but you have time to poison our planet. Slow speeds are quite a valid complaint. Voicing them in a disgustingly selfish way is not.
I can go from my house here in Ohio to my parent's house in Des Moines, IA, in 12 hours in the car, probably 6 hours by plane (factoring in wait times at airports), or 24 hours by bus OR a train, and the train will require an additional hour of driving at the end because it doesn't even have a route to a city as big as Des Moines! Let me clue you in: I'm not going to take that 24 hour train, and I don't think anyone else will either.
That's right. Do you know why this is? It's because Amtrak sucks. Do you know why Amtrak sucks? Because they've been operating on a shoestring budget for 60 years in a government that subsidizes car and air travel as a matter of policy. Now imagine a modern train system like ICE or TGV for your Ohio-Iowa trip. About the same time spent and a much more pleasant trip (have you ever ridden in a TGV or ICE?)
Even if we were willing to take a 24 hour train, you aren't getting one anyway, no matter how fast the engine is. The reason the train between Ohio and Iowa takes 24 hours is because of all the stops at stations, including a big one in Chicago. I don't care if your train goes 300 mph, those stops are still going to happen, and you aren't going to get across the country in 24 hours unless there is an express.
That's bullshit. What makes you think there can't be a point-to-point Des Moines-Columbus express with just one stop in Chicago? All high-speed rail links have expresses.
If there was an express, it still doesn't do most people any good. You talk about reducing airline routes, but did you stop to think why there are so many? It's because the people in this nation are spread out in small cities and towns all over the country, and airlines have to service those smaller population centers. Having some fast 300 mph train express routes between LA and NY isn't going to fix anything, because you still have to connect all the other towns and cities for most people to be able to start taking the train. And you can't have an express route between every pair of towns in the system, so you have to start setting up lines and making stops. And if you start making stops all over, your trip gets a lot slower.
Yeah, Americans love sprawl. But rail links can be done basically everywhere commercial aviation goes, although you would have to revive some local rail from a coma.
what makes you think this train of your is going to be so vastly more efficient anyway? You start hitting 300 mph and your train will start dealing with the same huge air resistance forces that planes have to overcome. And how are you going to power and propel this thing? Maglevs and wires by the rail? Well, again to clue you in, the energy has to come from somewhere, and it's either coming from gasoline or it's coming from wires connected to power plants that probably burn coal or something. So all your idea really does is wastes billions of taxpayer dollars to build unneeded infrastructure for a slower system that probably isn't any more efficient anyway.
Please actually educate yourself a little more on the subject before spewing this bullshit. High speed rail is at least 4 times more efficient than jet aircraft (0.15 MJ/passenger-mile in a TGV, 0.03 L/passenger-mile in aircraft which is about 1 MJ/passenger-mile. Transmission losses are less than half) and sometimes significantly more. So while your prior points are valid, the fact that you pulled this argument out of your ass discredits you quite a bit.
It's true that crossing the Rockies is hard on a train. That doesn't negate the need for high speed rail elsewher
[an error occurred while processing this directive]