Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reality is safety should be the FAA"s primary responsibility and is.......unless it interferes with operational efficiency. There are numerous radio transmissions whereby pilots are questioning TRACON's use of JFK's 22L for arrivals due to prevailing wind conditions. Safety does take a back seat when the FAA is in heavy arrival mode & the wind conditions are not co-operating!
The reality is safety should be the FAA"s primary responsibility and is.......unless it interferes with operational efficiency. There are numerous radio transmissions whereby pilots are questioning TRACON's use of JFK's 22L for arrivals due to prevailing wind conditions. Safety does take a back seat when the FAA is in heavy arrival mode & the wind conditions are not co-operating!
dont they call it "22 late", or something to that effect, I seem to have read somewhere????
they need to put the flight paths back to the same routes, just using nextgen, wouldn't that make everything better for the environment, not to mention all us taxpayers.
dont they call it "22 late", or something to that effect, I seem to have read somewhere????
they need to put the flight paths back to the same routes, just using nextgen, wouldn't that make everything better for the environment, not to mention all us taxpayers.
Agreed, but unfortunately -- what makes sense isn't always in the best interests to those that benefit from the misdeed.
By your previous comments you are unaware of the mission of the FAA - Hint: It is not to guarantee you a cozy silence. As a service to you and yours, after you demonstrated you were unaware of it, I have supplied the Mission of the FAA as well as its vision and values, which, I am sure, you will choose to ignore as you ignore anything which interferes with your empty argument.
Instead, you have once again resorted to juvenile name calling.
We get it, airplanes make noise. You used to be free of aircraft noise but due to the utilization of modern technology the air traffic control system is now safer, more orderly and more expeditious. A side effect of this is that you now claim to be affected more by aircraft noise and would rather rale at the system than understand it.
It is clear your understanding of the physics of airplane operational capabilities is insufficient to comprehend why planes must operate in regard to prevailing winds and why the complex nature of three dimensional intersecting traffic serving three major airports necessitates routing that may disturb you.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Literally every single thing you write here has already been addressed substantively in my prior post.
For example: I acknowledge that the FAA is not charged with guaranteeing you a cozy silence (something I never claimed in the first instance, by the way), but instead to weigh the interest of all parties involved to achieve of air safety and efficiency. You completely ignore the nuance of the point, specifically that notwithstanding the FAA's remand, they are nevertheless obligated to weigh practical considerations when conducting operations and promulgating rules. Again, the FAA is not directed to ensure safety and efficiency at all costs, but to evaluate the circumstances and implement the most tenable requirements with all relevant considerations in mind.
Second, I never suffered with aircraft noise and do not suffer from aircraft noise now. If you were unable to glean that from my crystal-clear point on that issue, then I suggest you go back to reading picture books and sounding out two-syllable words to yourself.
With respect to your allusion to "prevailing winds" and "complex nature" of 3 dimensional traffic, you fail to acknowledge that the FAA has been dealing with these issues for five decades prior to NextGen with no mid-air collisions (a "safety" point which I see you have jettisoned, along with the rest of that meritless argument). I understand the technology perfectly well (its not that difficult, actually) and NextGen offers no safety benefit whatsoever. It was safe before NextGen and it is equally safe after NextGen. The only difference is that NextGen allows planes to safely land more frequently. But that's not a safety improvement, it is an efficiency measure.
And given that you appear to have skipped reading the contents of my prior post altogether, I do appreciate the irony of your closing proverb regarding those who refuse to see.
Literally every single thing you write here has already been addressed substantively in my prior post.
For example: I acknowledge that the FAA is not charged with guaranteeing you a cozy silence (something I never claimed in the first instance, by the way), but instead to weigh the interest of all parties involved to achieve of air safety and efficiency. You completely ignore the nuance of the point, specifically that notwithstanding the FAA's remand, they are nevertheless obligated to weigh practical considerations when conducting operations and promulgating rules. Again, the FAA is not directed to ensure safety and efficiency at all costs, but to evaluate the circumstances and implement the most tenable requirements with all relevant considerations in mind.
Second, I never suffered with aircraft noise and do not suffer from aircraft noise now. If you were unable to glean that from my crystal-clear point on that issue, then I suggest you go back to reading picture books and sounding out two-syllable words to yourself.
With respect to your allusion to "prevailing winds" and "complex nature" of 3 dimensional traffic, you fail to acknowledge that the FAA has been dealing with these issues for five decades prior to NextGen with no mid-air collisions (a "safety" point which I see you have jettisoned, along with the rest of that meritless argument). I understand the technology perfectly well (its not that difficult, actually) and NextGen offers no safety benefit whatsoever. It was safe before NextGen and it is equally safe after NextGen. The only difference is that NextGen allows planes to safely land more frequently. But that's not a safety improvement, it is an efficiency measure.
And given that you appear to have skipped reading the contents of my prior post altogether, I do appreciate the irony of your closing proverb regarding those who refuse to see.
Regarding the bolded: citation please.
And we shall agree to disagree on the difference between "safe" and "safe enough."
And we shall agree to disagree on the difference between "safe" and "safe enough."
If we were to accept your premise (that the FAA must require the imposition of the highest possible safety measures no matter what the cost or effect on the airlines, passengers, environment, economy, or general population), then the FAA should be requiring full cavity searches, and extensive background and intense psychological examinations for each passenger before boarding a plane. Likewise, dozens of redundant (e.g., backup) pilots and air marshals should be aboard each and every flight. No international flights originating from airports not run exclusively security experts hand-picked by the best security apparatus the US has to offer should be permitted to fly to the US. The list of other safety measures available if one were to disregard practical and fiscal considerations can, of course, go on.
The fact that we do not see these types of measures implemented is irrefutable proof that the FAA takes other considerations into account when promulgating safety requirements. To believe otherwise is either willful ignorance or astounding naivety.
But, again, given that NextGen is an efficiency (rather than a safety) measure, why are you rambling on about "safe" compared to "safety"?
If we were to accept your premise (that the FAA must require the imposition of the highest possible safety measures no matter what the cost or effect on the airlines, passengers, environment, economy, or general population), then the FAA should be requiring full cavity searches, and extensive background and intense psychological examinations for each passenger before boarding a plane. Likewise, dozens of redundant (e.g., backup) pilots and air marshals should be aboard each and every flight. No international flights originating from airports not run exclusively security experts hand-picked by the best security apparatus the US has to offer should be permitted to fly to the US. The list of other safety measures available if one were to disregard practical and fiscal considerations can, of course, go on.
The fact that we do not see these types of measures implemented is irrefutable proof that the FAA takes other considerations into account when promulgating safety requirements. To believe otherwise is either willful ignorance or astounding naivety.
But, again, given that NextGen is an efficiency (rather than a safety) measure, why are you rambling on about "safe" compared to "safety"?
Why not just supply your source for your understanding of the FAA's requirements?
Surely you can't believe that "the airlines, passengers, environment, economy, or general population" are not all affected by safety considerations affecting the physics of air traffic.
And this is the last time I will remind you that efficiency is a key component of "safety", which happens to make things "safe," although that will not keep you from ignoring that reality.
Why not just supply your source for your understanding of the FAA's requirements?
Surely you can't believe that "the airlines, passengers, environment, economy, or general population" are not all affected by safety considerations affecting the physics of air traffic.
And this is the last time I will remind you that efficiency is a key component of "safety", which happens to make things "safe," although that will not keep you from ignoring that reality.
Of course I believe that the airlines, passengers, environment, economy, or general population are all affected by safety considerations. But you appear to believe that the airlines, passengers, environment, economy, or general population are only affected by safety considerations. I certainly believe that safety is paramount, but for better or for worse, we live in an imperfect world and the government (as well as individuals) must regularly balance the import of safety against practical considerations. For example, my #1 priority is to keep my family to be safe. Given the number of car accidents, it is inherently dangerous to drive anywhere. I can either (a) lock my family in a panic room for the rest of their lives; or (b) take a calculated risk of driving them somewhere. That doesn't mean that I am disregarding the import of safety, it is just being practical in the real world. The FAA must do a similar type of evaluation when promulgating rules.
Again, however, the "safety" is completely bunk. You were yammering on about mid-air collisions until it was pointed out that commercial airliners had not had a mid-air collision in 50 years, despite the absence of NextGen. Again, it was safe then and it is equally safe now.
Oh, and efficiency is not a key competent of safety. They are totally different things. Saying it over and over again doesn't make you right. It makes you look like you don't have a solid grasp of the English language.
I would argue against this point. KJFK is the perfect example. When 22L&R are in use for arrivals (most of the time), then they are essentially pointing airplanes OUT east to start the 'separation of aircraft' and create a giant U-turn. Airplanes that would have arrived 20 minutes earlier, now have to wait at least that much longer to touch down.
Some pilots can even be heard over ATC comms referencing 22L as "22Late".
This, is not the most direct path to the airport.
This, is not how you save fuel, using MORE fuel is more like it.
This, IS a substantial environmental impact.
@skiesovernassau on Twitter documents this flight track pretty well, and sadly, too often.
THIS. THIS. THIS.
This is precisely what I was describing a few days ago. This is a set pattern where a path of residential regions are disproportionately hit, incessantly, with no rational purpose.
I flew in from Amsterdam two years ago into JFK, on a plane that followed a path quite similar to what is illustrated. We came in from the North Shore, traveled down to the South Shore of Suffolk County, then the plane turned again at an angle to fly north through Nassau County in a curve-like, horseshoe form, then traveled again south to land at JFK. All this time, during descent, we were in the plane for a longer period of time, through this insanely navigated path, and, flying over thousands of homes through the process. I couldn't understand why the pilot embarked upon this path--now, in retrospect, this was NextGen in action. It was unsettling to be on the plane as it made this type of curve, angled in descent, and, it is unsettling knowing so many of these planes, (now even larger in size as the extended runway now accommodates apartment buildings with wings), are doing so daily.
This is undermining my safety, my neighbors safety, truly, the safety of the entire County. What occurs when a plane flying a 2,000 miles over a neighborhood 30 miles away of 30,000 experiences an issue, and crashes? These are highly populated regions that never experienced flight patterns such as this. What occurs when these planes, flying in this set path, continue to spray their carcinogenic fumes throughout our neighborhoods? Cancer. Our safety, health, and well-being, are undermined. There is no argument.
I am impressed that you have managed to cram so much misinformation into two short paragraphs.
First, NextGen has nothing to do with safety. Literally, nothing. The distinction between the old system and NextGen is purely using a graduated descent rather than a step by step descent and consolidating an approach path using satellite positioning (rather than ground-based markers). This allows for a increase in fuel efficiency (and related minor decrease in flight time), allows for more aircraft to land in a shorter time-frame and potentially reduces delays. It is not, and will never be, a safety measure. If you cannot comprehend even the most basic elements of the technology and continue to tout your "safety" argument, then go find a different board that is populated by mouth-breathing fools willing to listen to your nonsense because no one is buying what you're selling here.
Also, simply saying "[e]fficiency is a large part of safety" is just buffoonery and making that the cornerstone of your claim highlights its lack of merit. Efficiency is efficiency and has literally no correlation to "safety" in this context. If you want to weigh the importance of environmental impact, market economy, or passenger convenience (all laudable goals) against the severe impact to local quality of life (which the FAA should have done) then that's a rational, although not a winning argument on the merits. But your misguided focus on "safety" as no place here.
Secondly, I never claimed NextGen was "criminal" or even mentioned the word "criminal". Although an argument could be made that airlines and technology firms lobbying and donating huge sums of money to Congress in order to fast-track NextGen without environmental studies is more akin to bribery than it is like the democratic system is progress, I don't think anyone is actually claiming that overt criminal activity is afoot. I would, however, be far more receptive to an argument that the increased, consolidated aircraft noise is akin to a governmental taking that requires just compensation vis-a-vis the 5th Amendment (pro tip: start with reading US v. Causby and take it from there).
Third, insofar that you claim that I "infer that there is some acceptable rate of midair collisions that negate the need for an air traffic control system" - I said no such thing. I said that pre-NextGen technology was more than adequate in avoiding mid-air collisions. To that point, maybe you ought to consider that there have been ZERO mid-air collisions between commercial airplanes in the US in fifty (50!) years. In other words, the rate of such mid-air collisions in the last half century is, quite literally, zero. In the entire history of aviation (which goes back to the Wright Brothers in the 1800s), there have only been two mid-air collisions between commercial airplanes in the US.
According to the US Department of Transportation, there have been 231,498,639 commercial flights in the US from 1975 to 2014, which would put the number of commercial flights since the last mid-air collision somewhere to be around 250 million. Put in context, the odds of a mid-air collision between commercial airliners in the US are greater than the odds of you being struck by lightning more than 20,000 times. So, to answer your question - do I believe that the pre-NextGen rate of mid-air collisions is acceptable? My answer would be yes, as would any rational person's answer.
Fourth, if you believe that the mission of the FAA is purely to increase efficiency at all costs, then yes, NextGen is "accomplishing" the mission of the FAA. I posit, however, that the FAA's mission (like any governmental agency) requires the balancing of all interests involved - including the interest of the airlines, the general public, the US economy, and the passengers. If you reject that proposition, so be it, but irrespective of whether or not you do, reality does not back up a "safety and efficiency" only claim. Indeed, safety can always be improved, but at what cost? For example, the FAA could require 10 pilots to be on a plane (in case something happens to the first 9) and further require flights to operate only in optimal weather conditions. But they do not do so. Why? Because they balance the cost/benefit to the airlines, general public, US economy, the passengers and determine that such measures are not feasible or warranted. Likewise, they could mandate that each passenger be strip searched and subjected to a lengthy mental evaluation before boarding a plane in the interests of "safety" but, again, a rational balancing of the interests of all parties affected by air travel prevents them from doing so.
Whether expressly part of their "mission" (as you put it), the reality is that every governmental agency (the FAA included) is required to implement this type of balancing of interests when implementing policy. After all, unless you subscribe to some deranged Hobbes-Machiavellian belief that has had no place in the express purposes of our republic since its inception, at its core, the government exists for the benefit of and to serve the people, not the other way around.
Fifth, while it is true that the impact of aircraft noise is inherently "subjective," that does not mean that controls cannot be implemented to limit the impact on local communities. Indeed, the number of quality of life and noise-pollution statutes that exist based on what could be equally classified as "subjective" is mind-bogging. And numerous State and Federal Courts (including the US Supreme Court) has found that such activity can be measured. In other words, whether or not the impact of noise pollution is "subjective", it is beyond question that it can be evaluated and regulated in a reasonable manner.
Sixth, I fail to detect any "histrionics" in my posts. Maybe you could use a dictionary to look up that word and, while you're at it, see if "safety" is a synonym for "efficiency" (hint: it isn't).
Finally, take note of two things: (1) I have immediate family who works in the airline industry who could benefit from NextGen. (2) I suffer from little, if any, aircraft noise, so NextGen does not affect me at all. Put differently, I have no dog in this particular hunt so any particular "acceptable noise level" is not the issue. However, the principle that a governmental entity (particularly an unelected one like the FAA) could take such steps without considering the effects on local property owners is disturbing. It today its approach routes, tomorrow if could be something else. People have to take a stand because I can promise you that once you surrender your rights, you're not getting them back any time soon.
"They came first for the Socialists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Socialist; and then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; and then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; and then they came for me..."
Although surely nowhere near as impactful or important as the subject of this well-known adage by Martin Niemoller, the point remains the same: Ceding to the government simply because something does not affect you is a slippery slope. I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if they decided to build LIRR tracks at the edge of your property without conducting an environmental study or compensating your for lost property value and you would object if everyone else simply shrugged their shoulders and said "I don't care because it doesn't affect me - you have to live with it because your chose to live on Long Island and there was always a chance that new LIRR tracks could be laid," which is an argument equally preposterous to the one you're making now.
A sincere thank you for this eloquently written, highly insightful, completely on point post.
I can't spread more reputation points, hence, it deserves a public thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
