Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn airport. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn airport. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 4, 2013

Councils join push for airport

SUPPORT for a second airport at Badgerys Creek has received another significant boost, with a key group of councils backing calls for the first steps to be taken in its development.

The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), representing 10 local government areas and incorporating more than 1.5 million residents, yesterday threw its support behind calls by a coalition of unions and business groups for a new environmental impact statement to be prepared on the Badgerys Creek site.

"Attitudes in the region are changing from what they were almost two decades ago when the issue was last raised," WSROC president Tony Hadchiti said.

"It's time the government took these changes into account.

"The Greater Western Sydney Region is already home to 1.9 million people . . . these people are going to need jobs and access to transport."

Mr Hadchiti said support for Badgerys Creek as the location for a second airport was at a high.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday revealed about 60 NSW Labor-affiliated unions, representing 600,000 workers, had allied with business groups to back an airport at Badgerys Creek.


View the original article here

Councils join push for airport

SUPPORT for a second airport at Badgerys Creek has received another significant boost, with a key group of councils backing calls for the first steps to be taken in its development.

The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), representing 10 local government areas and incorporating more than 1.5 million residents, yesterday threw its support behind calls by a coalition of unions and business groups for a new environmental impact statement to be prepared on the Badgerys Creek site.

"Attitudes in the region are changing from what they were almost two decades ago when the issue was last raised," WSROC president Tony Hadchiti said.

"It's time the government took these changes into account.

"The Greater Western Sydney Region is already home to 1.9 million people . . . these people are going to need jobs and access to transport."

Mr Hadchiti said support for Badgerys Creek as the location for a second airport was at a high.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday revealed about 60 NSW Labor-affiliated unions, representing 600,000 workers, had allied with business groups to back an airport at Badgerys Creek.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 14 tháng 4, 2013

Councils join push for airport

SUPPORT for a second airport at Badgerys Creek has received another significant boost, with a key group of councils backing calls for the first steps to be taken in its development.

The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), representing 10 local government areas and incorporating more than 1.5 million residents, yesterday threw its support behind calls by a coalition of unions and business groups for a new environmental impact statement to be prepared on the Badgerys Creek site.

"Attitudes in the region are changing from what they were almost two decades ago when the issue was last raised," WSROC president Tony Hadchiti said.

"It's time the government took these changes into account.

"The Greater Western Sydney Region is already home to 1.9 million people . . . these people are going to need jobs and access to transport."

Mr Hadchiti said support for Badgerys Creek as the location for a second airport was at a high.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday revealed about 60 NSW Labor-affiliated unions, representing 600,000 workers, had allied with business groups to back an airport at Badgerys Creek.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 5 tháng 4, 2013

FAA delays closing of airport control towers

WASHINGTON (AP) — The closings of control towers at 149 small airports, due to begin this weekend because of government-wide spending cuts, are being delayed until mid-June, federal regulators announced Friday.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it needs more time to deal with legal challenges to the closures.

Also, about 50 airport authorities and other "stakeholders" have indicated they want to fund the operations of the towers themselves rather than see them shut down, and more time will be needed to work out those plans, the agency said in a statement.

The first 24 tower closures were scheduled to begin Sunday, with the rest coming over the next few weeks. Obama administration officials have said the closures are necessary to accomplish automatic spending cuts required by Congress.

Despite the delay, the FAA said it will stop funding all 149 of the airport towers, which are operated by private contractors, on June 15. Under the new schedule, the closures will be implemented at once, rather than a gradual phase-in as had been planned.

Airport operators in several states, including Florida, Illinois and Washington state, and the U.S. Contract Tower Association, which represents the companies that operate contract towers, have filed lawsuits with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington seeking to halt the closures.

The suits contend that the closures violated a federal law meant to ensure major changes at airports do not erode safety, and unfairly targeted the program for an outsized share of the more than $600 million the agency is required to trim from its budget by the end of September.

"The administration has decided to make tower closures the poster child of sequestration (automatic spending cuts)," said the group's director, J. Spencer Dickerson. "We believe there are other ways they could have skinned this cat."

Federal officials have insisted that the closures wouldn't affect safety. And there is evidence that with improving safety, some of the closures would make economic sense.

It turns out that the FAA has been using 30-year-old data on aircraft collisions to justify the cost of operating many of the control towers, even though accident rates have improved significantly over that time.

Had the FAA used more current data, it's probable that some low-traffic airport towers operated by private contractors would no longer have met the agency's criteria for funding, industry officials say. But the FAA has long been under pressure from members of Congress to open new towers at airports in their states, not to close them.

The FAA began paying contractors to staff and operate towers at a handful of small airports after President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Today, there are 251 towers operated by private contractors at airports across the country at an average annual cost of more than $500,000 each.

The closure plan is unrelated to the FAA's use of obsolete safety data to justify the contract tower program.

In 1990, the FAA developed a complicated cost-benefit methodology for the tower program that relies on accident data from 1983 to 1986 to determine how many accidents would be averted and lives saved if an airport had controllers working onsite. The safety data have never been updated, despite marked improvements in accident rates.

In 1983, there were 10.7 accidents for every 100,000 departures involving small planes, business jets and other non-airline flights in the U.S., according to the National Transportation Safety Board. By 2011, the latest year for which figures are available, that rate had dropped to 6.5 accidents per 100,000 departures. The commercial airline accident rate has also dropped, and fatalities have declined even more. There have been no passenger airline fatalities in the U.S. in more than four years, the longest period without fatalities since the dawn of the jet age half a century ago.

"None of the formulas have been updated since 1990, despite a very significant change in the aviation operating environment and the general aviation and commercial accident rates," the FAA said in a statement in response to questions from The Associated Press. "The FAA is in the process of updating this policy."

Agency officials offered no explanation for the oversight.

"The FAA methodology likely overestimates present-day collisions," the Congressional Research Service said in a recent report.

Initially the cost-benefit ratios were to be recalculated every two years, but that didn't happen, said David A. Byers, an aviation professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a consultant to the companies that operate the towers. If they were recalculated now, some airports would certainly fall below the FAA threshold for funding, he said.

Of the nation's 5,000 public airports, only about 10 percent have control towers. Those without towers generally have relatively few flights, and pilots coordinate takeoffs and landings among themselves.

Airport towers are prized by local communities as economic boosters, particularly in rural areas. Airlines are sometimes reluctant to schedule flights to airports where there are no on-site air traffic controllers.

Former Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., a critic of the contract tower program, said he refused to allow lawmakers to insert provisions into bills requiring the FAA to pay for new control towers at airports in their districts when he was chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"We couldn't always stop it in all instances in the appropriations process, particularly when a bill comes from the Senate and it has a designation of funding for a particular tower," Oberstar said.

___

Online:

FAA airport contract tower closure list: http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf

___

Follow Joan Lowy on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 2 tháng 4, 2013

Mimicry Games’ latest makes a humdrum airport a hard place to leave

By Rob Walker

What’s the most boring place in the world? Any given airport seems like a good guess. Maybe that makes an airport a good setting for playing smartphone or tablet games. It also makes an airport just about the most perverse setting imaginable for a game, one that is basically about…catching a flight.

Such a game exists: It’s called “Leaving,” and it is, to put it mildly, not a traditional game. I found it boring—fascinatingly boring.

Let me explain. In an interview recently with the Creator’s Project, “Leaving” creator Thomas J. Papa, lead developer of Mimicry Games, makes it pretty clear that his agenda is partly to challenge gaming conventions, which he argues tend to be repetitive and predictable (all that action and those motivating rewards—feh!). Indeed the official description doesn’t even call “Leaving” a game, but rather “a short-form interactive drama for the iPad.”

So, here’s what happens: You show up at an airport with four companions; figure out where your departure gate is; say goodbye; and head for your flight. The end.

This “won't be for everyone,” one reviewer, who practically apologizes for praising “Leaving,” warns (twice) in the course of a seven-paragraph write-up. And it’s certainly true that this will not be the next “Angry Birds.” Frankly I was initially irritated with “Leaving.” Plopped into an alienating setting with a group of undefined characters, I had no idea how to proceed. Finally, I just started poking the screen until I more or less figured it out. What choice did I have? And I was surprised to find that when I eventually reached the anti-climactic ending, I was compelled to play again, immediately.

Why? Partly because the distinct lack of action had made me, gradually, examine the uncanny world I found myself in. The graphic treatment is really engaging and the headphone-friendly sound design is superb. I wondered: Why is the airport so empty? Why do certain employees ignore me—and no one smiles? Why do my companions seem so serious, even when I hug them goodbye? What’s their relationship to each other, and to me? What’s the reason for my “leaving,” anyway?

If you think you might try “Leaving,” skip this paragraph, because here’s the closest thing I can offer to a spoiler alert: At exactly the moment that “Leaving” forces the player to use an annoying degree of precision to navigate a rope-line maze to the boarding gate, the game’s finale involves, of all things, the poetry of Antonio Machado, addressing the vagaries of life’s journeys (and, one might consider, the journeys most games send us on). It’s quite clever.

If in the end it doesn’t feel like you’ve played a game, that’s the point. “Leaving” is more like an evocative short story, or a kind of lyric essay on the idea of the traveler. Obviously other games have played with interactive narrative, and for that matter literary creators for years have experimented with all sorts of digital twists on storytelling strategies. I’m not sure “Leaving” fits either category. But it gave me the most interesting trip to the airport I can recall.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 29 tháng 3, 2013

Mimicry Games’ latest makes a humdrum airport a hard place to leave

By Rob Walker

What’s the most boring place in the world? Any given airport seems like a good guess. Maybe that makes an airport a good setting for playing smartphone or tablet games. It also makes an airport just about the most perverse setting imaginable for a game, one that is basically about…catching a flight.

Such a game exists: It’s called “Leaving,” and it is, to put it mildly, not a traditional game. I found it boring—fascinatingly boring.

Let me explain. In an interview recently with the Creator’s Project, “Leaving” creator Thomas J. Papa, lead developer of Mimicry Games, makes it pretty clear that his agenda is partly to challenge gaming conventions, which he argues tend to be repetitive and predictable (all that action and those motivating rewards—feh!). Indeed the official description doesn’t even call “Leaving” a game, but rather “a short-form interactive drama for the iPad.”

So, here’s what happens: You show up at an airport with four companions; figure out where your departure gate is; say goodbye; and head for your flight. The end.

This “won't be for everyone,” one reviewer, who practically apologizes for praising “Leaving,” warns (twice) in the course of a seven-paragraph write-up. And it’s certainly true that this will not be the next “Angry Birds.” Frankly I was initially irritated with “Leaving.” Plopped into an alienating setting with a group of undefined characters, I had no idea how to proceed. Finally, I just started poking the screen until I more or less figured it out. What choice did I have? And I was surprised to find that when I eventually reached the anti-climactic ending, I was compelled to play again, immediately.

Why? Partly because the distinct lack of action had made me, gradually, examine the uncanny world I found myself in. The graphic treatment is really engaging and the headphone-friendly sound design is superb. I wondered: Why is the airport so empty? Why do certain employees ignore me—and no one smiles? Why do my companions seem so serious, even when I hug them goodbye? What’s their relationship to each other, and to me? What’s the reason for my “leaving,” anyway?

If you think you might try “Leaving,” skip this paragraph, because here’s the closest thing I can offer to a spoiler alert: At exactly the moment that “Leaving” forces the player to use an annoying degree of precision to navigate a rope-line maze to the boarding gate, the game’s finale involves, of all things, the poetry of Antonio Machado, addressing the vagaries of life’s journeys (and, one might consider, the journeys most games send us on). It’s quite clever.

If in the end it doesn’t feel like you’ve played a game, that’s the point. “Leaving” is more like an evocative short story, or a kind of lyric essay on the idea of the traveler. Obviously other games have played with interactive narrative, and for that matter literary creators for years have experimented with all sorts of digital twists on storytelling strategies. I’m not sure “Leaving” fits either category. But it gave me the most interesting trip to the airport I can recall.


View the original article here