Airlines Blame GA for Holiday Flight Delays

iamtheari

Administrator
Management Council Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
4,503
Display Name

Display name:
Ari

I would say that I travel more by GA than airline specifically because the airlines have treated me poorly. Not that they owe me anything but, if you treat paying customers like inedible cattle, you should not be surprised when those who can afford alternatives choose them.
 
Someone is in an airline R&D labcoat right now trying to pierce that "inedible" claim of yours. :D

I assume the actual root cause here is ATC staffing problems, and the airlines are just punching down? Tacky, but.. :dunno:

We're not gonna fare well if airspace/ATC resources start to get rationed.
 
Because things went smoothly for the airline business this holiday season, use the quiet opportunity (lack of spotlight) to lobby for something you’ve always wanted - control of the NAS. Throw a little public support at it by calling it for the good of the traveling public. Those rich GA bastages.
 
After they finish killing off GA, they will eventually be able to complain about not being able to find experienced pilots to hire.
Soon they won't need pilots at least not the human kind.
 
“… some flights are changing destinations enroute…”
The bizjet crowd is the bad guy here. Filing to an airport you have no intent to go to because it doesn’t have EDCT’s because their intended destination does and then once in the air changing destination.
 
I once commented, a few years ago, that there was a concerted effort being made by the government in this country to do away with GA. I think I was laughed at, at that time.
Then they started going after MODEL airplanes.
"It's OK, it's just to make things safer for everyone."
Model airplane clubs all over America are being shut down because the government won't approve use of existing model flying fields. If you don't have an approved field your model plane has to have ADS-B out installed. Search on "Tracking model planes in flight" and see how much equipment is available for that legal requirement.
Oh, and the government is planning on asking people to report on anyone they see flying model planes.
How many of you went from model planes to real planes? I know I did.

Then there was a renewed attack on 100LL fuel. It didn't matter that every study done in the last 50 years showed that there was almost zero environmental impact with the use of 100LL. The government declared it had to be replaced. Of course the replacement will be much more expensive, but GA pilots are rich enough to absorb the cost.
I ran right out to get some.........

Now GA pilots are suddenly responsible for flight delays everywhere in the US, maybe the world.
We already have places where you have to be pre-approved by the government to be allowed to fly through.
"Again, it's for your protection."

A sudden increase in insurance cancellations for GA pilots and planes.............
Don't mind me. Just my paranoia kicking in.
 
"we"? You guys think they're legitimately being inclusive of piston small-fry in this kerfuffle?

"GA" is and has always been speciously appropriated here, just like the uppers perennially appropriate 'middle class'. The fact remains the NBAA cohort does not speak for me nor the slice of aviation I struggle to keep a foothold in. We may have some overlapping airspace fights against 121, but we're not political allies.

What we are [non-revenue piston], is merely surrogates (coat-tail riders could be a more accurate, though less charitable, moniker of the dynamic) of revenue piston flight training space: A rickety and currently palliative-supported boutique carve-out allowed to nibble at the edges in order to provide the airlines cheap ATP feed. That's it.

Thankfully some folks have raised the same point in the comment section of that article as I make on here, so at least there's some solace not everybody got the wool pulled over their eyes. Lastly, do not mistake this quip for a tacit defense of the airlines btw, I got no love lost for their class-Bravo settler-colonial antics.
 
I once commented, a few years ago, that there was a concerted effort being made by the government in this country to do away with GA. I think I was laughed at, at that time.
Then they started going after MODEL airplanes.
"It's OK, it's just to make things safer for everyone."
Model airplane clubs all over America are being shut down because the government won't approve use of existing model flying fields. If you don't have an approved field your model plane has to have ADS-B out installed. Search on "Tracking model planes in flight" and see how much equipment is available for that legal requirement.
Oh, and the government is planning on asking people to report on anyone they see flying model planes.
How many of you went from model planes to real planes? I know I did.

Then there was a renewed attack on 100LL fuel. It didn't matter that every study done in the last 50 years showed that there was almost zero environmental impact with the use of 100LL. The government declared it had to be replaced. Of course the replacement will be much more expensive, but GA pilots are rich enough to absorb the cost.
I ran right out to get some.........

Now GA pilots are suddenly responsible for flight delays everywhere in the US, maybe the world.
We already have places where you have to be pre-approved by the government to be allowed to fly through.
"Again, it's for your protection."

A sudden increase in insurance cancellations for GA pilots and planes.............
Don't mind me. Just my paranoia kicking in.
{Minor corrections:
The 'FRIA' (FAA-Recognized Identification Area) process is in-work for many, probably most, 'organized club' flying fields, including completed registrations for the ones I fly at.

Model planes (recreational / hobby ones, that is) are NOT supposed to have ADS-B out - somebody (the FAA?) imagined that'd be too many signals and overload the ADS-B system. Instead, the new 'Remote ID' module we have to add are - get ready - on 2.4 GHz, Bluetooth. I've got (2) of 'em on backorder, waiting for Futaba to finish their design and ship. Will the new modules interfere with the model control signals on 2.4 GHz? Who knows? So, if you wanted to get model airplane notification in the cockpit, you'd need to load some sort of app on your phone, and be looking at that - whilst at crop-duster altitude!

The real object of 'Remote ID' is to let law enforcement track down clueless quad-copter pilots flying where they're not supposed to - not to provide added safety for aircraft.}
- No thread drift intended -
 
Yup. It's one of the suggested items on the list for controlling unauthorized model aircraft.

So far more FRIA's have been denied than have been approved.
I apologize for using the term "ADS-B out" instead of "Remote ID". Everyone here knows the former, very few would recognize the later, but they do the same thing. The point is that every model plane is now labeled as a "drone", and if it weighs more than 250 grams or 8.8 ounces it requires a remote id if you fly it anywhere except an approved field.
That means I can't fly my model planes in my back yard anymore. I've been flying in my yard for nearly 40 years without a terrorist incident. Now I am the terrorist.
I have rubber band powered planes that weigh more than 8.8 ounces.
Your tax dollars at work.

Do you have your papers?
 
Soon they won't need pilots at least not the human kind.
I'll believe that when I see it. Giving AI the ability to deal with unexpected hazards is a non-trivial task, and so is collecting enough data to prove an equal or better level of safety.
 
...What we are [non-revenue piston], is merely surrogates (coat-tail riders could be a more accurate, though less charitable, moniker of the dynamic) of revenue piston flight training space: A rickety and currently palliative-supported boutique carve-out allowed to nibble at the edges in order to provide the airlines cheap ATP feed. That's it....
I would argue that we non-revenue piston folks are enablers of ATP training as much as coat-tail riders. Without us, economies of scale would be lost to a considerable degree, and non-airline airports suitable for training would be fewer and farther between. I think that's why there are countries that send professional-pilots-to-be to the U.S. to be trained.
 
I once commented, a few years ago, that there was a concerted effort being made by the government in this country to do away with GA. I think I was laughed at, at that time.
Then they started going after MODEL airplanes.
"It's OK, it's just to make things safer for everyone."
Model airplane clubs all over America are being shut down because the government won't approve use of existing model flying fields. If you don't have an approved field your model plane has to have ADS-B out installed. Search on "Tracking model planes in flight" and see how much equipment is available for that legal requirement.
Oh, and the government is planning on asking people to report on anyone they see flying model planes.
How many of you went from model planes to real planes? I know I did.

Then there was a renewed attack on 100LL fuel. It didn't matter that every study done in the last 50 years showed that there was almost zero environmental impact with the use of 100LL. The government declared it had to be replaced. Of course the replacement will be much more expensive, but GA pilots are rich enough to absorb the cost.
I ran right out to get some.........

Now GA pilots are suddenly responsible for flight delays everywhere in the US, maybe the world.
We already have places where you have to be pre-approved by the government to be allowed to fly through.
"Again, it's for your protection."

A sudden increase in insurance cancellations for GA pilots and planes.............
Don't mind me. Just my paranoia kicking in.
You give government too much credit.

I tend to think they are more the doesn’t know their heads up their own butt type.

Special interest, that I can understand but a bunch of career bureaucrats and their ever changing political masters being coherent enough for a long term plan seems bit far fetched?
 
Yup. It's one of the suggested items on the list for controlling unauthorized model aircraft.

So far more FRIA's have been denied than have been approved.
I apologize for using the term "ADS-B out" instead of "Remote ID". Everyone here knows the former, very few would recognize the later, but they do the same thing. The point is that every model plane is now labeled as a "drone", and if it weighs more than 250 grams or 8.8 ounces it requires a remote id if you fly it anywhere except an approved field.
That means I can't fly my model planes in my back yard anymore. I've been flying in my yard for nearly 40 years without a terrorist incident. Now I am the terrorist.
I have rubber band powered planes that weigh more than 8.8 ounces.
Your tax dollars at work.

Do you have your papers?
I think you can thank the commercialization of hobby drones. I was amazed at the number of them way up there during the local fireworks display last July 4. Rc planes got lumped with the idiot hobbyist that doesnt know what they don't know, but posts their content on YouTube for all to see.
 
Just another trade group just trying to prove their existence with a hollow sound bite. Sadly, if folks don’t respond, those made up details become “fact”
 
Do you have your papers?
Okay, it got a bit harder to fly RC drones. Let's not go all 'Captain' on this one.

I think the root of your issue is that the government is doing/has done a poor job of adjusting to the prevalence of easy to fly, cheap drones and that has had backlash on the RC community. Not that it's a concerted effort to shut down 'your' hobbies. Also the airlines punching down at GA is not new, and also is not the government. Maybe pull the tinfoil hat off for just a minute.
 
Airlines NOT the government? dickson was the administrator. Didn’t last long… but not sure how it could be made more obvious.
 
So you can't fly a RC model airplane out of a approved site without some sort of ADS-B or remote ID tracking device but you can fly a full size GA aircraft without any tracking device in the same area in uncontrolled airspace?
 
So you can't fly a RC model airplane out of a approved site without some sort of ADS-B or remote ID tracking device but you can fly a full size GA aircraft without any tracking device in the same area in uncontrolled airspace?
They're government regulations, friend. They don't have to make any sense.
 

I would say that I travel more by GA than airline specifically because the airlines have treated me poorly. Not that they owe me anything but, if you treat paying customers like inedible cattle, you should not be surprised when those who can afford alternatives choose them.
I mean spot on!

Why is it anytime you go to places with a lot of people that the staff are rude and shouting. Surely we have someone on here who runs an airport and can consider picking up some basic customer service skills, starting with the stop shouting and use a sign.

When coming back this time just told immigration we misplaced our travel docs, went to the second room they didn’t check anything just showed a photo copy of the docs and no further questions. Actually was more peaceful than the interrogation tactics normally applied.
 
{Minor corrections:
The 'FRIA' (FAA-Recognized Identification Area) process is in-work for many, probably most, 'organized club' flying fields, including completed registrations for the ones I fly at.

Model planes (recreational / hobby ones, that is) are NOT supposed to have ADS-B out - somebody (the FAA?) imagined that'd be too many signals and overload the ADS-B system. Instead, the new 'Remote ID' module we have to add are - get ready - on 2.4 GHz, Bluetooth. I've got (2) of 'em on backorder, waiting for Futaba to finish their design and ship. Will the new modules interfere with the model control signals on 2.4 GHz? Who knows? So, if you wanted to get model airplane notification in the cockpit, you'd need to load some sort of app on your phone, and be looking at that - whilst at crop-duster altitude!

The real object of 'Remote ID' is to let law enforcement track down clueless quad-copter pilots flying where they're not supposed to - not to provide added safety for aircraft.}
- No thread drift intended -

Also no thread drift intended but I like your profile picture.

I find the "general aviation" thing funny because isn't corporate aviation considered "general aviation," in many cases because they are operating Part 91?

As far as autonomous airplanes, I think that Lockheed flew an L-1011 back in the 80's or 90's under autonomous control after the pilots taxi'd the airplane to the runway. There's the issue of "will people fly on them?" Studies in Europe of whether people would use autonomous buses or ambulances indicated a rather strong preference for human-operated transit systems, even after they were told that the autonomous bus / ambulance was safer. I think that automation may get into the cargo space, but there are still market considerations with regards to not having a pilot onboard an aircraft carrying people. Even with cargo ops, I think it would be more likely for it to go to the point of single pilot operation, since there is a certain amount of legal and insurance hairiness to who is responsible for safe operation of a vehicle if there is no human operator on board.
 
The AOPA’s argument for years was Part 91 is utilizing ATC surplus capacity and the commercial operators need to pay the lion’s share of the fees. The airlines are properly documenting instances where significant volume of Part 91 business jets are now interfering with Part 121 operations.

Once you hire a commercial pilot you cease to be GA in my view even if you operate 91.
 
Soon they won't need pilots at least not the human kind.

When we reach that point, they will have fewer passengers. If nothing else, at least by 1 because I won't fly in a fully automated aircraft unless it's going to space.
 
The AOPA’s argument for years was Part 91 is utilizing ATC surplus capacity and the commercial operators need to pay the lion’s share of the fees. The airlines are properly documenting instances where significant volume of Part 91 business jets are now interfering with Part 121 operations.

Once you hire a commercial pilot you cease to be GA in my view even if you operate 91.

Where do you draw the line, though? Let's say that you are an older person who owns something like a 182 that you used for personal transportation, but you either lost your medical or don't feel like you can safely fly it solo anymore. So, you hire a commercial pilot that you know to fly the airplane either with you as a copilot to do things like operate the radios and help with navigation or just with you as a passenger so that you can continue to travel in your own airplane. That's really not appreciably different from a Part 91 corporate operation where they own something like a Citation or a Gulfstream and hire a type rated pilot to fly it.

When we reach that point, they will have fewer passengers. If nothing else, at least by 1 because I won't fly in a fully automated aircraft unless it's going to space.

I mean look at rail. Railroads, especially light rail like subway systems could be automated, and that technology has existed for years. Yet we will have subway operators and trains still have a conductor and an engineer in the cabs of locomotives. Some of that is due to union agreements from my understanding, but I can't believe that part of that is not also due to the fact that you are hardly alone in your assessment that you would not want to ride in something that wasn't operated by a person who had family / a pet / hobbies / a favorite TV show / some other reason to entice them to want to go home from work safely.
 
I'll believe that when I see it. Giving AI the ability to deal with unexpected hazards is a non-trivial task, and so is collecting enough data to prove an equal or better level of safety.

A little thread drift...but the Safe Return Emergency Autoland system seems to work so far.


I wish to buy a Cirrus Vision Jet but I am $2,999,999.99 short...
 
Last edited:
The real object of 'Remote ID' is to let law enforcement track down clueless quad-copter pilots flying where they're not supposed to - not to provide added safety for aircraft.}

The two are not 100% unrelated. When I am flying, I would prefer not to have to dodge quad copters in the pattern. When my family is flying commercial, I would prefer their airline pilot not have to worry about drones on approach.

20 years ago, RC aircraft were not a threat to aircraft, because altitude and range were limited by the requirement for the operator to visually control aircraft attitude from the ground. If you wanted to fly an RC airplane or helo into the path of an airliner, you would have to stand in front of the runway lights on approach. Technology has now progressed far beyond that limitation. Stabilized autopilots, GPS waypoint navigation, and FPV video allow drones to fly higher and farther away from their ground operators.

Broadly speaking, there are only three solutions: 1) limit the acquisition of capable systems by clueless operators through some kind of licensing regime; 2) create a means to identify and punish clueless operators; or 3) rely on big sky, little airplane.

#3 is essentially playing the odds and hoping nothing bad happens. But the odds get worse as the number and capability of drones grows exponentially.
 
...As far as autonomous airplanes, I think that Lockheed flew an L-1011 back in the 80's or 90's under autonomous control after the pilots taxi'd the airplane to the runway. There's the issue of "will people fly on them?" Studies in Europe of whether people would use autonomous buses or ambulances indicated a rather strong preference for human-operated transit systems, even after they were told that the autonomous bus / ambulance was safer. I think that automation may get into the cargo space, but there are still market considerations with regards to not having a pilot onboard an aircraft carrying people. Even with cargo ops, I think it would be more likely for it to go to the point of single pilot operation, since there is a certain amount of legal and insurance hairiness to who is responsible for safe operation of a vehicle if there is no human operator on board.

The International Air Transport Association reported 39 accidents during 32 million flights in 2022, of which 5 included fatalities. How many cargo flights would have to be made by artificial intelligence to prove an equivalent level of safety? I'm no statistics experts, but I'm guessing it would be in the millions.

 
The International Air Transport Association reported 39 accidents during 32 million flights in 2022, of which 5 included fatalities. How many cargo flights would have to be made by artificial intelligence to prove an equivalent level of safety? I'm no statistics experts, but I'm guessing it would be in the millions.


I'm not advocating single pilot ops or replacing cargo pilots. Far from it. What I'm saying is that when you look at transportation mishaps, the majority of them are down to human error. When you look at road vehicles, the current crop of autonomous road vehicles are safer than human drivers, even accounting for the accidents that have been attributable to the autonomous cars.

Same thing with aviation. There is a reason that airlines would prefer that pilots fly their jets using the autopilot. You're correct that from a robust statistical standpoint, mishaps involving things like cargo planes are unusual enough that it would take years and years of testing to have a robust statistical test say that yes, the computer flown plane is safer than the human pilot. However we can compare rates of computer failure like the MCAS incidents to human errors dealing with problems in judgment, fatigue, drug use, improper training, etc you'll almost certainly find that the computer brain is more reliable.

THAT BEING SAID...

As I said above, I wouldn't want to ride in a jet that didn't have a human pilot (or two) up front. Studies of consumer preference found that most people wanted a person driving the bus, operating the subway, etc. I have a feeling that most people feel better knowing that in the front of every train there is a conductor and an engineer who have people or things that they want to go home to.

And then there's the more philosophical issue of what is our existence here about? Is it just to exist, and be safe in a pod? If so, why travel? We can look at videos and pictures of all the places we would want to go? Why go for a hike when we could walk on a treadmill? Going for a real hike is more dangerous. Why send people to space when we could send a probe? And yet we travel. We hike. We send people to space. I'm glad that we do all of these things because these things are part of the human experience. I've done research in traffic safety, some of which involved autonomous vehicles. My friends have told me so you must be all about a self driving car. I'm like no; you'll pry my steering wheel from my cold hands. I like driving cars with three pedals that turn dino juice into noise and motion. I ride motorcycles. When we start talking about making things automatic because of some increase in efficiency or safety, we need to weigh that against what we are losing in terms of our existence. Going back to the airplane example, think of the first time you flew as a kid. How many airline commercials have shown the interaction between a child flying and the crew? I remember when I first flew as a kid I was terrified of it but I saw the pilots as something almost superhuman because they directed this machine at incredible speeds at thousands of feet in the air between two points hundreds of miles apart. That little kid looking at the pilots disembarking is worth something, even if that something is not quantifiable.

Anyway... yeah GA is not responsible for airline delays. Even if I have taken a 172 into a Class B airport on a couple of occasions just to get those three letters in my logbook :biggrin:
 
If Boeing and Airbus are working on fully automated aircraft, it's not if but when it's going to happen. Now will the people fly on them or not, given the price of a ticket if the price is a lot cheaper people will chose the cheaper flight. If you are one that won't fly on one plan on the bus or train that is unless they also are fully automated.
 
If Boeing and Airbus are working on fully automated aircraft, it's not if but when it's going to happen. Now will the people fly on them or not, given the price of a ticket if the price is a lot cheaper people will chose the cheaper flight. If you are one that won't fly on one plan on the bus or train that is unless they also are fully automated.

We have had automated trains for several years. If anything, they are the easiest vehicle to automate, and yet even freight rail maintains two crewmembers in the cab.
 
Soon they won't need pilots at least not the human kind.
Tesla has already perfected the technology to have driverless cars crash into airplanes. I imagine they can tweak it to allow pilotless airplanes to crash into other airplanes... the sides of mountains... etcetera.
 
I wonder how it’d go over if the trucking companies declared that the freeways were there for them, and wanted private cars kept off the highways and major streets.

Not like that has never been discussed, and is a very appropriate analogy. The unfortunate part is the average voter can relate to driving on a highway, but not to flying in a private airplane. The airline industry has major political influence.
 
Last edited:
We have had automated trains for several years. If anything, they are the easiest vehicle to automate, and yet even freight rail maintains two crewmembers in the cab.
Right now, union contracts, and not any kind of federal regulation, require two-person crews. The two unions representing those crew members have so far refused to agree to the change, at least on the major long-distance railroads, citing safety grounds.
 
Right now, union contracts, and not any kind of federal regulation, require two-person crews. The two unions representing those crew members have so far refused to agree to the change, at least on the major long-distance railroads, citing safety grounds.

Right. And I don’t see pilots’ unions agreeing to single pilot operations any time soon either.
 
Back
Top