Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Trimble Navigation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (2084)	1/8/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: Yin Shih	Respond to of 3506

<<I remember hearing at a GPS conference a few years ago that when (if?) GPS becomes standard equipment on commercial airlines, planes can be spaced 100 nm apart rather than 300 nm.>> Yes, in principle closer spacing should generate good operational savings. Since most jetliners have similar fuel-efficient operating envelopes and face the same winds aloft on a route, popular routes can be crowded and some jetliners may be directed to operate above or below the desired fuel-efficient altitude. However, when I checked my flight manuals I couldn't find what the current lateral separation standards are for trans-oceanic jet routes. In a terminal area with radar coverage they are only 3 miles. Outside the terminal area, they are 5 miles. 300 miles would seem very large to me, albeit transoceanic would be non-radar, as that can be almost 3 hours of temporal separation with speed differentials up to 100 Kts. I'll have to look some more. Yin