reply to post by luxordelphi
I found a bit of interesting statistics that reported on the over-all trending of air traffic to increase, on an averaged basis. It took some
searching, but I wasn't going to waste many hours of my effort to prove what I know already.
Instead, I'd encourage those who truly wish to delve into it to comprehend the realities of the airline industry in general (realizing it is
difficult if one has no experience other than as an occasional passenger) and in the methods of documenting statistics within the industry (they come
in many forms of data compilations....) in order to get a better picture.
This is really about an attempt (apparently) to discredit any claims made by knowledgeable ATS members who have worked in the airline industry
regarding the ever-increasing trend for observed contrails. However, when accurate, but misleading statistics are used to support an assertion or
claim, it is important to present and challenge, for a clearer idea of reality, and the complexities, of the industry.
Problem for me is....as a mere pilot, I was just one cog in that complex machinery. I don't have the "Airline Management" Bachelors of Science
degree, because that is not my area of expertise, nor did I want to be a "manager" in a corporation, in that sense. I can manage an airplane quite
.....but I never wished to be a part of the corporate grind. I enjoyed high pay for rather very little work, and that
suited me just fine.
But, I'm no dummy, and can read a profit/loss statement or Annual Report (as an employee and Union member, those were important considerations when
approaching each contract negotiation cycle).
Point is, we knew and continue to know how the industry grew, even if we weren't sitting at headquarters in a corner office on the 30th floor. It
was apparent as it became more busy, airspace was more crowded, delays increased....to the point that technology had to be developed to reduce the
vertical separation minimums for flights above 29,000 feet (FL290), applying the usual 1,000 feet in lieu of the previous 2,000 feet that had been in
place for decades.
(It is technical, but the extra *buffer* above FL290 was due to possible inherent inaccuracies at those altitudes, because of the lesser pressures.
The advancement in computers, and better tolerances in the instrumentation eventually convinced aviation governing bodies that the safety margin was
sufficient...yet, we all still had to undergo special certification training, in order to operate in
conditions. Even today:
RVSM Training Online
I bring up RVSM because this has been implemented nearly everywhere world-wide, in just the last ten years. It amounts to the ability to accommodate
about double the air traffic in any particular parcel (sector is the term used) of airspace.
There is another aspect of air traffic management (as it's started to be called) in the USA...."free flight" is one term, and easy to
remember....and is acronym-free!
Aviation is over-loaded with acronyms. It is in early stages of implementation, but one of the initial steps
has been to offer an alternative to the traditional Jet Airway route structure currently in place. AFAIK so far, Southwest Airlines and American
Airlines use it sometimes (maybe more are by now).
What has been developed is a "grid" based on Latitude/Longitude coordinates called the 'NRS' (heh-heh, acronyms, remember? The "Navigation
Reference System"), part of the the 'HAR' (
"High Altitude Redesign") which can be easily input into the on-board Flight Management
computers, which interface with the autopilots, and display on the video screes all sorts of information, like course, waypoints, other navigational
fixes, etc, etc. In fact, the private sector uses such technology long before it is trickled down by FAA approval to the airlines.
Here, for the non-airline sector of corporate aviation, an explanatory cirular:
High Altitude Redesign
(Look at the chart showing the contiguous USA, it's near the bottom of that PDF).
I could go on, there is so much to explain.
On the other hand, perhaps some of the "chem"trail doubters....believers, whatever....would make the effort to go out and learn to fly...or at least
(because I know it's expensive) take a few lessons, and talk to real pilots face-to-face. I mean, that way what I write isn't just coming from some
anonymous "keyboard warrior".
You need some veracity. Feel free to do some fact-checking.
It's up to you.