Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 02:18:10 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  "34 Close Calls Reported At Hopkins Airport"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: "34 Close Calls Reported At Hopkins Airport"  (Read 3920 times)
avalon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« on: September 04, 2007, 02:45:21 PM »

The article below I believe is a bit deceiving as it states the "close calls" in the headline with reference to KCLE when it should be referring to "enroute traffic"  huh


http://www.newsnet5.com/travelgetaways/14041737/detail.html
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2007, 06:43:32 PM »

The article was done by the Associated Press, and appeared in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of publications. I thought it had a lot of good, valid information. It also had quotes from the FAA's Laura Brown and Marion Blakey. On balance, it should scare the heck out of anybody that might be thinking of travelling by air.

It was apparently someone at the local level that attached that headline to it. When you consider that most of the media knows less about aviation, and ATC in particluar, than the least experienced member of this site, the inaccuracy of the headline is no surprise.
Logged
rpd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2007, 09:11:35 PM »

I would not consider anything Blakey or Brown says as good or valid points.  Brown just babbles the FAA lines fed to her.  Everything is fine, everyone is happy, and safety was never compromised.  Blakey has the solution to all problems- NextGen.  Nevermind the fact all these aircraft need runways to land and depart on.  Go ahead and reduce seperation and spacing in the air, then hold at the destination for a runway.  All of this is beside the fact Blakey has taken a job with a company which is a major player in NextGen.  How convenient for her.  We could run airplanes 1 mile apart on final now with current technology, but the runway would not be clear.  You need at least 2-3 miles for the landing aircraft to taxi off the runway.

These jokers at the FAA don't have clue.
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2007, 05:41:28 AM »

Quote
I would not consider anything Blakey or Brown says as good or valid points.

Exactly.

  grin
Logged
MathFox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 262


The Flying Fox


« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2007, 07:35:47 AM »

It's a pity that the people in charge are in such denial that they cook the statistics... If we compare the 2006 incident statistics under the old norm with the 2007 statistics under the new norm, we see that the new norm finds less incidents. angry (No, the FAA isn't doing better.)

Indications are that FAA is doing worse (it would be good to have comparable incident numbers over several years) but that real bad things haven't happened yet. A competent organization would take corrective action, improve operations, instead of employing a cry head-in-the-sand statistics cook-up.
Logged
zmeatc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2007, 01:27:45 AM »

A lot of the lower stats for this year is due to the FAA chainging the  rules for whats a deal and whats not. In enroute you need 5 miles and 1,000 feet. It used to be that if 2 planes came within 4.9 miles of each other it was a deal. Now if planes come within 4.9 miles its called a "proximity event" which is no longer counted as a deal. This all came into effect back in June of this year.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!