Responder al tema

Mensaje: <blockquote data-quote="TotoJuan" data-source="post: 247884" data-attributes="member: 283">No encuentro el topic original en que se discutieron las peliculas del alarmista Pineyro (FAA-SA y WRZ), pero este topic de la "cuasi colision" viene a cuento y muy bien para lo que quiero postear. Link: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-05-faa-collision-risk_N.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-05-faa-collision-risk_N.htm</a>Para los que manyan un poco de inglís (que no es lo mismo que comerse la ingle), basicamente nos demuestra que en todos lados hay interesçses sectoriales y "ranchitos propios" que defender. Si bien aquí en Argentina tenemos alos campiones en "arrimar agua al propio molino" (lease Pineyro y sus ambiciones de carrera política, Garre y su extraña dualidad monto-Anibal Fernandeza, la FAA y su necesidad de encubrir a algunos pescados podridos, INAC y su lavada de manos, los gremios de pilotos y sus prevendas, gremios de controladores aereos y sus reclamos salariales, las lineas aereas y sus extraños modos de justificar la cancelación de vuelos anti-economicos con la excusa del "radar"....todos quieren un pedazo de la torta, o plantar la banderita, o por lo menos zafar lo mejor posible de quedar pegados...) en USA (donde no tienen a Garre) se hacen los mismos "retoques" esteticos a la seguridad aerea (nada menos que en USA, el pais donde terroristas secuestraron cuatro aviones el mismo dia y los estrellaron en pleno Manhattan) para defender o al menos salvaguardar intereses sectoriales.Sigue el article de USA Today (para brindar un poco el marco, ese diario es como Clarin tirando a Diario Popular, por hacer una comparación con los medfios locales....no crean que es el NY Times...)Some say FAA move could hide midair collision risk Updated 9h 34m ago | Comments 6  | Recommend 8  E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |     Enlarge By Ted S. Warren, AP Under a new Federal Aviation Administration air-traffic system, controllers are "encouraged to bring planes closer to the safety limits without fear of being cited for violation," says Tony Ferrante, director of the FAA's Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service. Some fear this will raise collision risks.  "It's going to make them look like geniuses when really they've done nothing. You improve safety by reducing operational errors, not recategorizing them." --Bryan Zilonis, a regional vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers AssociationBy Alan Levin, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — Federal aviation regulators have changed the way they track mistakes that bring planes too close together, a move that some safety experts say could hide risks of midair collisions. Federal Aviation Administration officials say their new system will enhance safety and simplify a cumbersome process for classifying midair incidents. Instead of using a complex formula, the FAA's new system ranks the severity of such incidents solely on how close planes get. For example, jets at the same altitude must stay 5 nautical miles apart. Under the old system, an incident would be classified as high-risk if two planes breached the 5-mile limit, were flying directly at each other and a collision was avoided by the pilots taking evasive action, according to FAA regulations. Jets headed directly for each other could cover those 5 miles in about 20 seconds.The identical circumstances would be classified as low-risk under the new system if the two jets got no closer than 4 miles. According to FAA data, the number of incidents considered high-risk will fall by more than half using this new formula. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Federal Aviation Administration | Oversight Near-collisions are considered a key gauge of safety in the air-traffic system. There were 1,104 such errors last year, including 610 judged high-risk under the old formula.In addition, the most minor incidents will no longer be counted as errors in FAA statistics, automatically decreasing error totals by about 25%."It's going to make them look like geniuses when really they've done nothing," says Bryan Zilonis, a regional vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association union who helped draw up the old system. "You improve safety by reducing operational errors, not recategorizing them," Zilonis says. The changes involve how the FAA tracks "operational errors," incidents in which controllers allow aircraft to come closer than rules allow.Each error is classified for risk. Under the old system, many incidents categorized as high-risk were actually minor, says Tony Ferrante, director of the FAA's Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service.The new system takes that into account, Ferrante says. It also is designed to improve capacity at congested airports by encouraging controllers to bring planes closer to the limits without fear of being cited for violations, he says.Under the new system, controllers who breach the standard by 10% — allowing planes to get 4.5 miles apart instead of 5 — will not be considered in violation.Several aviation experts voice concerns about the new system. Former Transportation Department inspector general Ken Mead, whose office wrote several reports on midair incidents, says he fears that the FAA is, in effect, endorsing bringing planes closer together without conducting the complex safety analysis required to justify the change. "Do you want planes coming that close together or not? If you don't, then you ought to say that," Mead says.George Donohue, a former FAA official who now teaches at George Mason University in Virginia, says the multiple factors considered in the old system were necessary to understand how controllers made mistakes. "It seems to me that they are going in the wrong direction," he says.Posted 9h 41m ago TotoJuan</blockquote>

Verificación: ¿Cuanto es 2 mas 6? (en letras)