|
Download your free copy of the award winning ForPilots LogBook program today! |
>Warren Jones wrote in message > why we are often
> "on the land line" when you transmit and we dont reply right away. :-) Seems yall are on landlines more frequently when there is a good game on TV. :-) > We are all wrong! The small tactical advantages of DRVSM to ATC will > be swiftly overwhelmed by the amount of aircraft that will be able to be > crammed into a sector (and they will be). That echoes the sentiments my European pilot friends have about RVSM. They tell me that the biggest advantage is having more choices for finding smooth air. Their block times havent changed. >slow jets being smoked by fast turboprops in the > climb (Citation 500 versus the Cheyenne 400 LS is a great example Gotta love the 400LS! (if it only had bigger gas tanks) >That means we will need more frequencies to cover new sectors, and more >controllers to man them. Since we are about tapped out on frequency >spectrum coverage with the current technology, we need new answers. How far will controller-pilot datalink communications go towards solving this problem? >Those answers wont be in play in Dec 2004. Also, even if we hired 15,000 >new enroute controllers today, we cannot possibly have even one new hire >fully certified by that date. In fact, by December of 2004, my Area alone will >be down to 40 CPCs or so. The minimum Area staffing number is 53 to >meet the absolute minimum acceptable level of watch coverage. Right now, >we have 46. So what we will have with DRVSM is more airplanes in the > same number of sectors with fewer controllers and less capability to manage > flow and no chance of manning an airspace restratification. The >slide continues... Is this the appropiate time to ask about privatization? (I feel another rant coming on :-) ) > OK D, talk to you up there buddy. Thanks for listening to me whine. :-) Thanks for taking the time to reply. D. |
| [BACK] | Return to the ForPilots.com archive page |