It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Avoid travel on Northwest Airlines

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
As a frequent traveler and one who is intimately familiar with the industry, I can't emphasize enough how serious the problems described here are.

While one would be right to question the source (AMFA), if you read between the lines of statements like this...:

"The U.S. Department of Transportation is conducting an investigation into maintenance safety at Northwest Airlines, based on serious allegations reported by one of the FAA's most experienced inspectors. The FAA itself is conducting a separate investigation based on the same allegations."

...you will know how serious the problem is. FAA inspectors have no ax to grind as they have no need to make any particular company look good or bad. The fact that the DOT is investigating based on accusations made by an FAA inspector is extremely alarming!

Not only would I avoid traveling on Northwest, but I would encourage friends/loved ones to avoid booking on them as well--at least until the outcome of this investigation is made public.

Please pass this article around.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
i'm not going to say that this is complete BS, as it is a very scary prospect and i eagerly await the findings of the inspectors.

but lets take into account who generated the report:

union members who after striking were replaced. so these guys lost there jobs. of course they are going to go after the company with all kinds of claims. thats how the game is played....send a few back in so they can make outrageous claims that get the FAA involved, and scare the crap out of the consumers, so profits go down.

again, i'm not making light of the issue, but you have to look at it from both sides.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
again, i'm not making light of the issue, but you have to look at it from both sides.


That is why, Snafu, I included this statement:

While one would be right to question the source (AMFA), if you read between the lines of statements like this...:

"The U.S. Department of Transportation is conducting an investigation into maintenance safety at Northwest Airlines, based on serious allegations reported by one of the FAA's most experienced inspectors. The FAA itself is conducting a separate investigation based on the same allegations."

Are you suggesting that AMFA somehow controls the actions of the FAA and the DOT?

The DOT/FAA investigations described in the article are facts that are independent of AMFA motivations.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Are you suggesting that AMFA somehow controls the actions of the FAA and the DOT?

The DOT/FAA investigations described in the article are facts that are independent of AMFA motivations.


of course i'm not suggesting that. but as an FAA employee, i can tell you that if it were as bad as this report suggests, operations would have been suspended immediately. if one of the FAA's most experienced investigators had found steps being skipped or faulty maintenance of any kind, operations would have been suspended. the agency takes these things very seriously. right now, they seem to be nothing more than accusations.

i guarantee that if the investigation finds anything wrong at all operations will be suspended immediately. it has been done before, and it will be done again if necessary.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
but as an FAA employee, i can tell you that if it were as bad as this report suggests, operations would have been suspended immediately.


Not necessarily. It would be extremely risky (politically) to shut down such a large company based on accusations alone--even if those accusations come from an FAA inspector. I suspect this is why the DOT is getting involved (normally they don't). Normally, if a discrepancy is found, the FAA demands an immediate fix and imposes a fine against the carrier. I offer Alaska Airlines as an example: Despite a fatal accident, the airline was not shut down to correct the serious flaws that led to that accident.


Originally posted by snafu7700
...right now, they seem to be nothing more than accusations.


That's correct; and neither I nor the article suggest that they are anything more. However, given the current environment at NWA (paycuts/employee morale, bankruptcy, etc) along side these accusations; well, let's just say I believe from a risk management point of view that travel via other means/mode/company would be in order.


Originally posted by snafu7700
i guarantee that if the investigation finds anything wrong at all operations will be suspended immediately. it has been done before, and it will be done again if necessary.


Nope. Not likely--for the reasons I stated previously. I just hope that corrective action will be taken before a hull loss



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Not necessarily. It would be extremely risky (politically) to shut down such a large company based on accusations alone--even if those accusations come from an FAA inspector. I suspect this is why the DOT is getting involved (normally they don't). Normally, if a discrepancy is found, the FAA demands an immediate fix and imposes a fine against the carrier.


first of all, the FAA is part of the DOT, so of course they are involved, and always are. its the NTSB that is not normally involved, and if this turns out to actually be a problem, they will be.




I offer Alaska Airlines as an example: Despite a fatal accident, the airline was not shut down to correct the serious flaws that led to that accident.


and i offer valuejet as an example. the FAA shut it down after the everglades accident.

in reference to the alaska airlines accident, the carrier was not shut down because the problem identified was very specific (insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew), and easily cured. they did take every MD80 of the line until they were properly inspected.



That's correct; and neither I nor the article suggest that they are anything more. However, given the current environment at NWA (paycuts/employee morale, bankruptcy, etc) along side these accusations; well, let's just say I believe from a risk management point of view that travel via other means/mode/company would be in order.


and that is your right. i for one, however, will be flying NWA next month, and wont sweat so much as one drop. US Air has been operating in bankruptcy for 3 years now with no incidents. are you going to avoid them as well? how about delta, who's also in bankruptcy?

on second thought, maybe you should just drive.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
well im inclined to agree, this may have been blown out of proportion.

my dad's been flying northwest on every flight (thats 1 every month) for the past 2 and a half years to london and Nigeria, no problems thus far. You'd think if there was any serious safety problems, something would have happened by now.

[edit] to add, my last 2 flights were northwest, and it seemed to me they were taking every precaution necessary. not that i was looking


[edit on 7/11/2005 by Kitsunegari]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Having worked for Eastern, Delta and Cape Cod Air, the inside scoop has always been Northwest the lowest on the totem pole.




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
first of all, the FAA is part of the DOT, so of course they are involved, and always are. its the NTSB that is not normally involved, and if this turns out to actually be a problem, they will be.


Just because the FAA falls under the DOT doesn't mean the DOT is involved in the day-to-day decision making. The DOT is the muscle that gives the arm of the FAA its powers and the FAA is fully empowered and commissioned to regulate and investigate air commerce as a stand alone entity. I believe the DOT launching their own investigation into this matter to be very alarming.


Originally posted by snafu7700
and i offer valuejet as an example. the FAA shut it down after the everglades accident.


Your statement is disengenuous as it is only a half-truth. There were also a series of accidents/incidents at the rate of 10 times other airlines that contributed to its shutdown--approximately 1 month AFTER the Everglades crash.


Originally posted by snafu7700
in reference to the alaska airlines accident, the carrier was not shut down because the problem identified was very specific (insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew), and easily cured. they did take every MD80 of the line until they were properly inspected.


Again; you're stating a half-truth since, as you know being with the FAA and all, there were other contributing factors such as:

Pg 192/#24: Alaska Airlines decision to, and the FAA's approval of, increase the jackscrew lubrication interval without sufficient technical studies to determine the efficacy of this change.

Pg192/#28: Alaska Airline's extension of the end play check interval and the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of that extension allowed the accident acme nut threads to wear to failure without the opportunity for detection"

Pg194/#41: A design flaw in a system whereby a single failure of a component could cause a catastophic event. It should be noted that that design flaw STILL EXISTS and that heavy reliance on increased intervals of inspections is used as a preventative measure against recurrence--a measure design prinicples and the NTSB acknowledge is non-standard.

Pg194/#45: At the time of the flight 261 accident, Alaska Airline's maintenance program had widespread systemic deficiencies. (I remember a whistle-blower was fired BEFORE this accident because he had issue that related to this specific problem (including the jackscrew)

Pg194/#46: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not fulfill its responsibility to properly oversee the maintenance operations at Alaska Airlines, and at the time of the Alaska Airlines flight 261 accident, FAA surveillance of Alaska Airlines had been deficient for at least several year


Originally posted by snafu7700
US Air has been operating in bankruptcy for 3 years now with no incidents. are you going to avoid them as well? how about delta, who's also in bankruptcy?


They haven't been engaged in systematic union-busting practices whereby experienced personnel have been replaced with relatively inexperienced mechanics. Go look at Northwest's on-time performance since employing the replacements (scabs). It's dismal!


Originally posted by snafu7700
on second thought, maybe you should just drive.



If Northwest was my only choice, that's precisely what I would do!!. Your risk management analysis may be very different from mine and it's certainly your right to fly them if that's what you want. I would be interested to hear about your experience afterwards.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Just because the FAA falls under the DOT doesn't mean the DOT is involved in the day-to-day decision making. The DOT is the muscle that gives the arm of the FAA its powers and the FAA is fully empowered and commissioned to regulate and investigate air commerce as a stand alone entity. I believe the DOT launching their own investigation into this matter to be very alarming.


well of course the DOT is not involved with the day to day operations of the FAA. what did you think, Mineta stands over my shoulder while i control air traffic?

there is a huge difference between running the show and being intricately involved in how the show works. when the DOT says that they are starting their own investigation, it usually means that it is bringing in more FAA investigators to enhance an investigation, and its usually only to ease the mind of the flying public.



Your statement is disengenuous as it is only a half-truth. There were also a series of accidents/incidents at the rate of 10 times other airlines that contributed to its shutdown--approximately 1 month AFTER the Everglades crash.


and your statement is misinformed. what do you think, you can run to wikipedia and automatically find everything there is to know?

valujet was an experiment gone very bad. the FAA did not want to shut it down, because low cost carriers represented the wave of the future. but when it became abundently clear that shutting it down was the only safe option, that is what was done.

incidentally, you do realize that as a frequent flyer, that you have probably flown valujet several times over the last few years, right? they are now called airtran.






Again; you're stating a half-truth since, as you know being with the FAA and all, there were other contributing factors


while the info you've posted from the accident report is all correct, what exactly were you refuting? here is my statement again:

" in reference to the alaska airlines accident, the carrier was not shut down because the problem identified was very specific (insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew), and easily cured. they did take every MD80 off the line until they were properly inspected. "

was this statement incorrect? did any of the pages you referenced from the accident report refute this statement?

you have shown an outstanding ability to google search and then post the first thing the search comes up with, but you havent refuted anything i've said....which begs the question, why did you bother posting the report to begin with?



If Northwest was my only choice, that's precisely what I would do!!. Your risk management analysis may be very different from mine and it's certainly your right to fly them if that's what you want. I would be interested to hear about your experience afterwards.



whatever. if you want to be paranoid, go for it...i'm going to continue living in the real world.

this article, and the investigation stemming from it, are based solely upon the claims of two union members....supposedly that is, because it is the union president who is saying that the members "told" him of this problem.

lets see, a union who's entire membership at NWA lost their jobs because they chose to strike, suddenly come up with allegations of safety issues and take them to the FAA, who by law has to investigate.

then the union insures that the public is made aware of the situation by immediately issuing a press release.

nope, that doesnt sound funny at all.

let me guess, the best solution for this issue is for NWA to rehire all the mechanics to fix the problems at twice the pay they had before the strike, right?

i just hope that this union scare tactic doesnt put NWA completely out of business before my trip next month.

oh, and as a side note, you are showing your bias to the union in question by the use of the word "scab" to describe the replacement mechanics. leads one to believe that you are either involved in the situation, or have friends or relatives who are.


[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
when the DOT says that they are starting their own investigation, it usually means that it is bringing in more FAA investigators to enhance an investigation, and its usually only to ease the mind of the flying public.


Really? Funny--I'm not being put to ease.


Originally posted by snafu7700
and your statement is misinformed. what do you think, you can run to wikipedia and automatically find everything there is to know?


Did you read the link? I found it to be informative. You say I'm misinformed; yet, you offer nothing counter-point--except to proclaim that I'm misinformed.



Originally posted by snafu7700
valujet was an experiment gone very bad. the FAA did not want to shut it down, because low cost carriers represented the wave of the future. but when it became abundently clear that shutting it down was the only safe option, that is what was done.


The FAA doesn't give a rat's-ass about "the wave of the future". As a controller, you should know that
It was deffinitely the safe option given the multiple accidents&incidents leading up to the final nail. I don't believe the FAA would have shut down the company if the Everglades crash was their only accident. BTW: How was it an "experiment"? It was a bunch of investors/managers getting together to buy airplanes and sell tickets at a discount. And, as you pointed out in your next quote, it's still operating--just under a different name.


Originally posted by snafu7700
incidentally, you do realize that as a frequent flyer, that you have probably flown valujet several times over the last few years, right? they are now called airtran.


I never claimed to be a "frequent flyer" implying that I am a passenger who collects/redeems miles. And I can tell you that I've never flown on Airtran. I said I am a frequent traveler who is intimately familiar with the industry. What I mean by this is (and I expect to get some grief from you over this) that I'm a pilot for a major air carrier.

My motivation for posting this info is that I see an otherwise great carrier going down the tubes because of flawed decisions made by management. Maintenance cuts are rarely ever the answer to solving a company's balance sheet problems. Incidentally, I also won't fly on most regional carriers; NEVER on an African carrier; and avoid, to the max extent possible, flying on Airbuses.


Originally posted by snafu7700
while the info you've posted from the accident report is all correct, what exactly were you refuting? here is my statement again:

" in reference to the alaska airlines accident, the carrier was not shut down because the problem identified was very specific (insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew), and easily cured. they did take every MD80 off the line until they were properly inspected. "


You were implying that there was only one ("the problem") specific issue (the jackscrew) that was easily remedied when there were other contributing factors as well. All these factors were serious enough to lead up to a tragic, preventable accident. Yet, the FAA didn't shut them down while they worked to fix their problems, including their "systemic maintenance" problems. I suspect that the size of the carrier has a lot to do with the decision to shut them down. The FAA would have to have compelling reasons to shut down a carrier the size of Northwest and risk the political fallout. What I'm saying here is that the magnitude of problems that a carrier experiences is likely not the sole determinant in its shutdown. To put it another way: The FAA would be more likely shutdown a smaller carrier; say; Miami Air, than it would a company the size of Northwest given the same exact set of problems.


Originally posted by snafu7700
this article, and the investigation stemming from it, are based solely upon the claims of two union members....supposedly that is, because it is the union president who is saying that the members "told" him of this problem.


Negative. Here's the relevent part:

"The U.S. Department of Transportation is conducting an investigation into maintenance safety at Northwest Airlines, based on serious allegations reported by one of the FAA's most experienced inspectors. The FAA itself is conducting a separate investigation based on the same allegations."

Allegations reported by an inspector. That means he observed infractions himself. These are his allegations. Not the union's.


Originally posted by snafu7700
lets see, a union who's entire membership at NWA lost their jobs because they chose to strike, suddenly come up with allegations of safety issues and take them to the FAA, who by law has to investigate.


They haven't "lost their jobs" as they are still striking employees (Northwest wouldn't have continued making offers if they were not employees). And since they are still "employees" they are also required by law to report serious flaws to the FAA (I'm thinking back to that whistle-blower mechanic at Alaska who lost his job over reports to the FAA of flaws in their maintenance department that directly impacted that ill-fated flight.


Originally posted by snafu7700
let me guess, the best solution for this issue is for NWA to rehire all the mechanics to fix the problems at twice the pay they had before the strike, right?


NWA never bargained with AMFA in good faith. They had the "replacements" lined up several months before the strike. The "offers" the company made were unreasonable by any standard.


Originally posted by snafu7700
oh, and as a side note, you are showing your bias to the union in question by the use of the word "scab" to describe the replacement mechanics. leads one to believe that you are either involved in the situation, or have friends or relatives who are.


I have a couple friends who fly at Northwest and they say that they are refusing more aircraft and experienceing more maintenance related delays since the "replacements" have come on the property. When your flight next month is delayed or cancelled, you should be sure to credit the pilots for making that tough decision in the interest of safety.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
ok, i have to apologize because i came into this debate assuming you were just another quack off the street who's only info came from a quick google search. and, of course, we know what assume does to you and me.....so lets start over shall we?

i still think that this is a union scare tactic designed to worry the flying public (and even pilots...especially the pilots flying the equipment) into not flying NWA, and therefore causing the company to rethink its policy, and come back to the bargaining table. ALPA or NATCA would have done the same thing, if it were necessary for its members.

incidentally, do you fly the east coast? if you do i've got some questions for you reference FAA's east coast redesign program.




[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
ok, i have to apologize because i came into this debate assuming you were just another quack off the street who's only info came from a quick google search. and, of course, we know what assume does to you and me.....so lets start over shall we?


No worries.


Originally posted by snafu7700
i still think that this is a union scare tactic designed to worry the flying public


The fact that AMFA is using this to their advantage (what union wouldn't) doesn't mitigate the fact that the FAA and the DOT are both investigating allegations born from FAA inspectors--not from the union. At this point, we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of those investigations are. In the meantime, I feel compelled to warn loved-ones and family members, and friends who solicit my opinion, to avoid booking on Northwest. I will attempt to find more info from reputable sources to back my concern.


Originally posted by snafu7700
(and even pilots...especially the pilots flying the equipment)


Pilots have a very specific set of procedures and requirements that outline/list what discrepancies they can fly with and those they can't. These are called MEL's (Minimum Equipment Lists). These are designed to be used at the gate prior to departure. Many items are cut and dried as they require repair prior to flight. Other items are not that big a deal. It makes me wonder, given what I've been told, what is it that's causing these delays/cancellations. While authorized to do so, the pilot cannot arbitrarily cancel a flight if the MEL says he can fly. He would be sitting in front of the chief pilot explaining his actions.


Originally posted by snafu7700
incidentally, do you fly the east coast? if you do i've got some questions for you reference FAA's east coast redesign program.


I know very little about what the FAA is doing with their "redesign program" other than what they've done already to increase capacity (ie: RVSM/RNP) I suspect that the majority of the technology is mostly on the ground, in the form of information for ATC, and is largely transparent to pilots.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I've extrapolated some performance numbers from the FAA to compare Northwest against like (legacy) carriers.

% on time arrivals/Cencellations

NWA:
7/05: 69.9/2.37
8/05: 67.0/2.9
9/05: 74.8/1.3

Delta:
7/05: 65.4/3.6
8/05: 70.0/3.15
9/05: 82.7/3.88

UAL:
7/05: 72.8/1.47
8/05: 80.0/1.16
9/05: 81.7/1/51

AA:
7/05: 69.9/1.37
8/05: 73.1/1.94
9/05: 81.7/1.51

I think it's important to note that as all carriers came out of the summer months, their on time performance improved; however, Northwest remained the worst performer in this category.

With the exception of Delta, Northwest trailed the other carriers in terms of cancellations as well. The problem with these numbers is that there is no tracking of maintenance related delays/cancellations.

Delta has the highest (by a large margin) of cancellations. I believe this is due to crew shortages (pilots) as a result of a large number of retirements in recent months as the carrier approached bankruptcy. They even had to rehire some of those retired pilots under contract in order to keep their schedule intact. Admittedly, one can only speculate what percentage of these arrival/cancellations are due to maintenance reasons. But their clearly seems to be a problem at NWA.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
check out this article from the minnisota public radio, filed on sep. 8th, 2005.

reference the FAA inspector in question:

"We had received complaints that the inspector was intimidating Northwest replacement workers, was unprofessional in his conduct and exceeded his authority," says Martin, "so we are also investigating those charges."

now i understand the scope of the DOT involvement. its the inspector general's office conducting an investigation because of the accusations of misconduct by an FAA inspector. makes much more sense now.

"FAA spokesman Greg Martin says the document triggered what he's calling two extensive investigations by both the FAA and the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General."

as you said, we will have to wait for the results of the investigation, but as far as i'm concerned, it's starting to look more and more like union scare tactics.

as you know, everyone's on time numbers are low during the summer due to convective activity. but have you taken into account the abnormally warm fall months, and the continued convective activity in the midwest? much more so than in the eastern part of the country. could this possibly have something to do with a midwestern based carrier's numbers remaining low that late into the year? that's a serious question by the way, i'm not trying to be smart.

in reference to my previous question on the airspace redesign....i asked if you flew the east coast, because it would directly affect you. i'm talking about all the route changes into the florida airports from the white/wavey areas through sby/swl. we were given very little training on the changes. management's overall statement was "its very little impact." i was wondering what kind of training you guys got, if any, because most pilots i talked to before the change took place had no idea what we were talking about. then on the day of the change, most pilots didnt know about the new routes, and several didnt even have the new fixes in the the nav computers because they hadnt been depicted on the jeppsens yet.

anyway, that why i was asking.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
i'm going to assume that since you've posted twice to another thread since i posted my last reply here, that you agree with my conclusions here, and have nothing more to add. furthermore, you have no answer for my addtional questions because you dont have any idea what i'm talking about.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Good find on the article snafu! I too am eagerly awaiting the outcome of the investigation as there were certainly alot of specific problems addresses by this inspector. And BTW:


Originally posted by snafu7700
"We had received complaints that the inspector was intimidating Northwest replacement workers, was unprofessional in his conduct and exceeded his authority," says Martin, "so we are also investigating those charges."


I think most people being investigated/srutinized by the Foxtrot-Alpha-Alpha would feel this way--with ANY inspector. I happen to know from first hand experience some inspectors seems to have Napolean's complex and like to throw their FAA-empowered weight around.


Originally posted by snafu7700
as you know, everyone's on time numbers are low during the summer due to convective activity. but have you taken into account the abnormally warm fall months, and the continued convective activity in the midwest? much more so than in the eastern part of the country.


But NWA's numbers didn't improve as well as the others coming out of the summer months. Florida has a lot of summer t-storms; not to mention the hurricanes. Yet AA's numbers seemed to improve during this time.


Originally posted by snafu7700
in reference to my previous question on the airspace redesign....i asked if you flew the east coast, because it would directly affect you. i'm talking about all the route changes into the florida airports from the white/wavey areas through sby/swl. we were given very little training on the changes. management's overall statement was "its very little impact." i was wondering what kind of training you guys got, if any, because most pilots i talked to before the change took place had no idea what we were talking about. then on the day of the change, most pilots didnt know about the new routes, and several didnt even have the new fixes in the the nav computers because they hadnt been depicted on the jeppsens yet.

anyway, that why i was asking.


I occasionally fly the east coast and have no specific training on this subject and can honestly tell you I'm not sure I understand your reference on the "white/wavey" areas you're talking about. Is sby/swl ARTCC's? Basically, we recieve our flight plans through a company communications system called ACARS that automatically loads into the FMS. Sometimes, the information loaded into the FMS is more current than what's depicted on Jep or government charts. In fact, though it may not be the best practice, many guys fly only in reference to the FMS--without charts. As I said, any changes like this are usually transparent.

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify "white/wavey" and "sby/swl"



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

I think most people being investigated/srutinized by the Foxtrot-Alpha-Alpha would feel this way--with ANY inspector. I happen to know from first hand experience some inspectors seems to have Napolean's complex and like to throw their FAA-empowered weight around.


ok, but you're most vehement argument for a problem with NWA's maintenance from the beginning of our discussion has been that the DOT investigation was prompted by the report of an inspector, when in fact the DOT investigation is of the inspector.



I occasionally fly the east coast and have no specific training on this subject and can honestly tell you I'm not sure I understand your reference on the "white/wavey" areas you're talking about. Is sby/swl ARTCC's? Basically, we recieve our flight plans through a company communications system called ACARS that automatically loads into the FMS. Sometimes, the information loaded into the FMS is more current than what's depicted on Jep or government charts. In fact, though it may not be the best practice, many guys fly only in reference to the FMS--without charts. As I said, any changes like this are usually transparent.

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify "white/wavey" and "sby/swl"


well, your response shows me that you dont fly the east coast very often, or you would have immediately known about the route changes.

to answer your question, white and wavey are the fixes that the southbound new york departures are marshalled to. the western airports go to white, and the eastern airports go to wavey. they then need to be crossed over each other in order to get them on the correct routes around the sby (salibury) and swl (snow hill) vortacs. sby for the inland guys and the ilm (wilmington) ar (atlantic route) guys, and swl for the diw (dixon) ar guys. the problem is that originally, new york was going to get it sorted out up there at white and wavey, but backed out at the last minute (as we knew they would...if you know anything about the airspace at all, you will realize that the only way to practically do this is to have them fly below ten thousand for and ungodly amount of time), causing washington center to end up with all the work of crossing everyone over, which doesnt seem like that big of a deal, until you take into account the fact that in the sby/swl area, there is approximately a 20 mile wide area between restricted and warning areas to get everyone on the east coast changed over to the correct route.

furthermore, they have taken what were basically three routes down the east coast with around 10 miles between them and turned them into 4 lanes approximately 7 miles apart. and they said this would have "little impact" on controllers.

on the day that this procedure went into effect, half of the pilots didnt have any idea the route changes were happening, and the other half didnt have the new fixes in their data bases, because of the jeppsens not being up to date.

anyway, if you dont fly the east coast often, it doesnt affect you, i just thought you might have had some insight on it.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i'm going to assume that since you've posted twice to another thread since i posted my last reply here, that you agree with my conclusions here, and have nothing more to add. furthermore, you have no answer for my addtional questions because you dont have any idea what i'm talking about.


Geez Snafu--"Lighten up Francis"

I was on a trip and was having inernet connectivity problems with my computer. While my "last active" may have shown the 11th (the date you made the above post) I was unable to reply due to these problems. "Last active" does not mean "last time posted in a forum". It simply means the last time logged into ATS.

As far a white/wavey etc; I haven't flown NY or the eastern seaboard for a few years. I fly primarily South/Central America. It sounds to me like you guys are dealing with a hairball of a problem and as I said--it's likely transparent to us. I haven't heard anyone mention anythng who does fly there. I'll ask around though.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
sorry if you were offended...it wasnt meant in that way...just trying to assertain whether or not you were through with the thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join