Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!bang.UUCP!root
From: root@BANG.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Airport fog.
Message-ID: <8603141918.AA18072@cod.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 14:18:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cod.8603141918.AA18072
Posted: Fri Mar 14 14:18:32 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 21:26:02 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24



Its lunacy to consider that owners/operators of Jets are going to agree
that they should crew an aircraft and run it for long periods of time
on the ground. Besides the salaries involved, the expenses are enormous
just in operating costs, let alone the loss in operating revenue from
having the aircraft just sitting on the ground.  You are talking about
multi-million dollar space heaters with operating costs in the thousands
for the large ones and 400-800 an hour for the smallest (Lears and Citations).

In any event the results would be marginal at best.

A better choice might be by using technology to circumvent the problems
associated with the fog. Currently a CAT-III approach allows a landing
in practically 0/0 weather.  Merely sophisticated avionics, appropriate
crew training and reasonable geography are required.  The system is in
use now. Certainly a more reasonable choice than the altruistic and
feeble attempts to clear the skys..



Bret Marquis
bang!bam@NOSC.ARPA
(sdcsvax, ihnp4) bang!bam