FAA Greenlights Satellite-Based Air Traffic Control System 138
coondoggie writes "As one of the massive flying seasons gets underway the government today took a step further in radically changing the way aircraft are tracked and moved around the country. Specifically the FAA gave the green light to deploy satellite tracking systems nationwide, replacing the current radar-based approach.
The new, sometimes controversial system would let air traffic controllers track aircraft using a satellite network using a system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), which is ten times more accurate than today's radar technology. ADS-B is part of the FAA's wide-reaching plan known as NextGen to revamp every component of the flight control system to meet future demands and avoid gridlock in the sky."
re: gridlock in the sky (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: gridlock in the sky (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: gridlock in the sky (Score:5, Informative)
Parick Smith, the salon.com airline captain columnist, has just written about it again.
Nice comment [salon.com]about the usefulness of opening military corridors for civil aviation around thanksgiving:
"It will have roughly the same effect as, say, organizing a group prayer or rubbing a plastic airplane for good luck."
Re: (Score:2)
Any excuse for us to put even more [universetoday.com] satellites in the sky... And since having new satellites in the sky costs next to nothing, why not? Right?
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
think about it this way. Ground based radar is limited by line of sight, and horizon issues. it is technically possible to fly below it.
With a space based solution you always fly below it.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read about how the ground based and satellite based radars work.
These are not active systems. They do not send out a powerful pulse and measure the reflection. These systems depend on a 'transponder'. The 'radar' (they need to stop calling it that) sends out a moderately powered interrogation signal. The airplane carries a transponder, that replies with a number.
When I fly VFR (visual flight rules), I set my transponder to respond with 1200. If my radio is broken, I set it to 7600. If I'm
Re: gridlock in the sky (Score:5, Informative)
while i agree that the post 9/11 airport security measures and completely pointless and make flying an absolute nightmare, that does not negate the benefits of this new system.
firstly, it's not the lack of "airspace" that this system is addressing. ADS-B provides more accurate/precise information to pilots in addition to having far more extensive coverage than radar. not only are they getting weather & air traffic information for improved situational awareness in the air, but this technology is also being used to help pilots navigate on the tarmac:
in fact the worst plane accident in history (excluding the 9-11 attacks, which were deliberate terrorist acts) was the Tenerife airport disaster [wikipedia.org] (1977) which involved the collision of two 747s on the runway. since pilots rely so heavily on air traffic controllers to help them navigate the runway, a simple miscommunication due to a language barrier between the pilot and the tower caused one of the 747s to be parked directly in the path of another 747 preparing for take-off. and because looking out the window was the only other way for pilots to see their surroundings (and avoid collisions), the heavy fog covering the airport that day obscured the two planes from each other until it was too late. this accident could easily have been prevented if ADS-B had been in place, since the pilots in both planes would have been able to clearly see their relative position to each other and to the layout of the runway system.
lastly, i want to point out the crash of Avianca Flight 52 [wikipedia.org] in 1990. this incident occurred during foggy conditions as well, but this time the root cause of the accident was due to the 707 being put in a holding pattern for over an hour until they literally ran out of fuel and crashed. the 707 was actually given priority landing right before they ran out of fuel, however due to bad wind shear info given by the flight controllers the plane dropped below the glideslope, resulting a missed approach. however, they didn't have enough fuel for a second approach. the engines flamed out; the plane lost power; and then it crashed.
accurate weather info, more tightly spaced landings, less time in holding patterns, and less fuel expended for landings would all improve the safety and efficacy of commercial air travel. perhaps if the planes on the ground that night had been able to taxi themselves using the ADS-B display, the decreased workload on the tower controllers would have allowed them to land more planes in a shorter amount of time--maybe ev
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet another thing to break when an unexpected solar flare or two shorts out some satellites at high altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
like they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. however, this system is here now. the technology has been tested for over several years and proven itself to be effective. and there are things that can be done about the cost. GPS was really expensive when it first came out as well, but now it's relatively cheap to get a GPS navigation system. by standardizing the design for the cockpit device, it can be produced more cheaply by many manufacturers. and if it's a standard feature on all planes, that wi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not all aircraft are in the "tower" airspace. "Center" radar updates are once in ~12 sec (tower/TRACON at about 5 sec). ADS-B updates once a sec (ok, two squitters per sec on 1090 MHz for you geeks, UAT is 1/sec).
The information is not just for ATC. It can be/is also received by other AIRCRAFT that are properly equipped.
And there is no ATC direct communication over the ocean (OK, you speak to an private company operator over HF, who relays it to the controller etc. -- I am ignoring a bit of non-mainstre
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
None of the benefits you mention really requires satellites as part of the system.
...they generally rely on the airplane transponders which report the GPS...
ur not doin it right
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there's a reason. Cost. That sounds prohibitively expensive. Instead of sending up a few multi-billion-dollar satellites, you want to set up thousands of relays - at least one, often more, per airport, to send the data back out. Am I saying each one will cost millions of dollars? No. Hundreds of thousands of dollars would be sufficient to overwhelm the cost of satellites: the satellites can be done without the CEO of each airport signing off. And will benefit smaller airports that couldn't other
Re: (Score:2)
yes, that was one of the causes, but generally these kinds of major disasters happen due to the confluence of multiple chance mishaps/mistakes. and i'm basing my information off of an episode of "Air Crash Investigation" that was aired on NatGeo, so take it for what you will. but to the best of my recollection, the NTSB investigation attributed the crash to these causes:
Re: gridlock in the sky (Score:5, Insightful)
There's more to the aviation world than large airliners. ADS-B is a positive step in a lot of other ways.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like private pilots having to spend great amounts of money to upgrade their aircraft?
I like the tech, but I just don't see the need or the extra safety it is supposed to provide us. Flying is expensive enough as it is.
Re: gridlock in the sky (Score:5, Informative)
The nature of ADS-B is such that there is the potential for ADS-B equipment to be considerably cheaper than traditional transponders. It remains to be seen whether this will be borne out, and I'm pessimistic about it, but the potential is there.
In any case, I never denied downsides, but there are upsides as well. As a glider pilot, I'm excited because ADS-B will probably be considerably more practical to install in an aircraft with a battery-driven electrical system.
Re: gridlock in the sky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a small chance, if you are willing to accept a reasonable aviation price instead of a price that any outside observer would think to be reasonable. MITRE has developed a reference design for an ADS-B unit which runs off a few AA batteries and could conceivably be produced for just a few hundred dollars if the FAA can be convinced to allow less rigorous certification standards for this sort of application. Whether they can be made to see the light remains to be seen, but it's at least possible even i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
FAA see the light?
They are as blind to common sense as their radar systems are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can only imagine you're being sarcastic, but I cannot conceive of why. Could you elaborate, please?
Completely unrelated (yeah, right), why is it that 90% of people on Slashdot act as thought their position was the obvious and right and every other position is complete crap, and therefore they have no need to put forth any effort or even sense when posting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right for paying for testing. As a glider pilot, the only reason I have a transponder is so that controllers can give other traffic advisories about me, and so that I ping airliners' TCAS units. Other than that I could take it to leave it, as I never fly into class A/B/C airspace. There has been talk of requiring them above 10,000ft in gliders just as is done in other aircraft, at which point the transponder would be very handy. But in all of these cases, if I'm flying VFR and not under positive ATC
Re: (Score:2)
Frederick sounds scary. I've talked to some of the guys who fly gliders there and some of their stories will turn your hair white! Corporate jets blasting through gaggles of gliders at 5,000ft....
If you should happen to find out anything about the MITRE unit before Slashdot closes comments on this story, I'd very much appreciate hearing what you were able to discover.
Re: (Score:2)
While in theory it could be cheaper, I see one practical problem - demand.
When this goes live there will probably be some mandate to install it by a certain date. That means thousands to millions of these things will be flying off the shelves. If the leading avionics manufacturers want to charge for 300% profits are you going to stop flying to avoid buying one?
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that it will start out like transponders are now, optional unless you're flying into class A/B/C airspace, in which case I'll simply wait until the initial surge goes down and buy at leisure, since I never fly in those areas. However you raise a good point and many or most pilots won't be able to follow that strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the same that happens when/if today's lower-tech transponders are spoofed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Assertion failed: sorry, your plane will now crash."
Yeah. Makes some sense...
Subsidize? Or make airports/major carries pay... (Score:2)
Perhaps a more fiscally responsible approach would be front the money for the avionics switch, but levy a tax (proportional only to the actual increased efficiency) on the airports/major-carriers/other-major-beneficiaries.
Not changing anything soon... (Score:5, Informative)
Because of the security risks involved with having each plane report their own position, rather than aircraft control finding all the positions for planes, I highly doubt that old fashioned radar is going anywhere soon.
Also, while this will be more accurate in areas where radar doesn't reach, I don't remember hearing about many planes crashing in midair too often....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just that, but wouldn't it make more sense to run both systems concurrently for added redundancy and such?
Re:Not changing anything soon... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is if we still keep the old system, which never had any problems, and have this new system over it, we're not really seeing any change it's just the same old thing.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the first concern goes, ADS-B isn't really that much of a departure from the current scheme of things. Currently air traffic controllers usually rely on each plane having a transponder that broadcasts its ID. This transmission is then picked up by the radar systems and the plane's altitude/position is then plotted on the ATC's scope. ADS-B, as I understand it, allows the plane to append its GPS position to its transponder broadcast, allowing the air traffic system to get a more accurate read on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. What's really needed is for the airports to regulate departure times between the various airlines. All the airlines want to schedule flights leaving at 8am and 6pm to service business travelers. All those flights need to arrive simultaneously at the hub airports and then leave again simultaneously.
The airports should auction off the departure window times to spread them out. The contention for resources would then be spread out. I can fly into KRDU at 10am, 3pm or midnight and often be the only pla
Re: (Score:2)
Well... this isn't just GPS. Proper data encryption will allow the planes to fly with the same level of security they had with Radar tech.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always found the military interesting. On the one hand they'll have the latest and greatest gear that can be found anywhere. On the other hand they'll land it using TACAN. :)
They have a lot of legacy hardware. I was surprised how little guided ordnance was dropped in the first gulf war. Then I was even more surprised to find out that most weapon systems are integrated with the launching platform - a missile that works on an F14 won't necessarily work on an F15 and vice-versa.
I suspect that half the
Re:Not changing anything soon... (Score:4, Informative)
The military is addressing that very issue. very slowly but they are. I do believe the missiles for the f-22 and the f-35 use the same interface. they are doing this from a logistics point, as each plane literally needs it own equipment for testing and in the field having to lug 12 different interfaces around has proven to be a pain.
Think of it less in terms of contracts and more like the auto industry. each brand of car(ford, gm, toyota, honda, etc) and each car in their respective lineups would use different engine codes in their computers, and in some cases different plug interfaces for the information.
to get a ford f-150 engine computer interface you had to spend several hundred if not thousands of dollars. and again for every different unit. Manufactories think such things needed to be kept secret. yet years of pressure has finally brought at least some standardization in that area allowing less expensive diagnostic units.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because of the security risks involved with having each plane report their own position, rather than aircraft control finding all the positions for planes, I highly doubt that old fashioned radar is going anywhere soon.
It's no more of a security risk than the current system which relies on each plane to report it's own position with a transponder.
Re: (Score:2)
The transponder doesn't report position (well, save for altitude), it merely replies to the radar's interrogation to return a code. Conveniently, it also makes radar more functional at longer distance, but range and bearing are still determined by timing and angle of the antenna, respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary advantage "secondary" RADAR gives is an active response which removes the need for the operator to have to pick out the skin paint response from the clutter and other crud on the raw display...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, this is already the status quo.
What is your threat model? Terrorists hijack 747 to crash it into a barn near Topeka?
A reasonable air defense network isn't going to try to have 100% coverage of the country.
This system is supposedly very accurate. That means that you could create a data feed from the FAA to NORAD with realtime positioning on all legitimate air traffic. Then NORAD could get a data-feed from military radar. Anything that isn't civilian gets investigated. Anythin
They have only been working on this for 30 years (Score:5, Interesting)
The FAA has been working on this for 30 years. I was involved in studying it back in the 1970's.
They have also been working on digital ground-air-ground communications since 1948 (I once had some reports on the subject that go back that far). AFAIK, they still don't have the digital ground-air-ground.
At one time the FAA radars were the last users of vacuum tubes, and the replacement parts were coming from factories that bought the original manufacturers equipment and were making it in who-knows-where. They didn't even replace the original manufacturer trademarks on the tubes. Quality control? Forget it.
Technology advances at the FAA very slooooowly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Technology advances at the FAA very slooooowly.
As they should be. Twitter breaks for 24 hours because of an update to their code, no big deal. Radar goes out for 15+ seconds? HUGE DEAL.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tubes & Guitar Amps (Score:2)
The guitar amp industry is still a consumer of signal-level tubes. It is impossible to make a solid-state guitar amp that sounds exactly as good as a tube-type amp, especially for the overdrive sounds. Engineers have been trying for nearly half a century to duplicate the sounds of a tube guitar amp in a solid-state amp, and while some have come close and made some pretty darned good ones, none have ever truly succeeded.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you mean by "tubes". For high power pulsed microwave systems (like radar) specialized vacuum tubes are often the most cost effective and most efficient source. At SLAC we use 250, 75 megawatt pulsed klystrons (tubes). There is no practical solid state replacement. Many TV stations use a type of radio-frequency called an IOTs. Microwave ovens use "tubes" (magetron). Low power / low noise is different: I don't know of modern applications for signal-level tubes, but there may still be some.
I was talking about the kinds of tubes that were used in radar receivers and related equipment. They may have been militarized versions, because the radars were originally World War II models converted for FAA use. They were the same kinds once used in radio receivers, TV sets, and other electronic equipment. They were replaced by discrete component transistorized circuits and later by integrated circuits. I would expect there to have been lots of 6SN7 dual triodes in ancillary equipment but not in the
what's tracking going to do? (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, it might decrease the already low probability of midair accidents, but the air traffic control system has bigger problems. Firstly, that they are understaffed and overworked. It's the highest stress job in the civilian sector last I looked and these people are pulling 10 and 12 hour shifts every week. They're tired, and they make mistakes. They're also an aging group -- the certification requirements are high, and very, very few people who are under the age of 30 work these jobs. Many of them are set to retire in just a few more years which will stress an already fragile system.
Second, nobody's been investing in airport infrastructure. The planes are getting bigger but the runways aren't and we're not adding new runways either. Part of it is politics but a lot of it is economic.
Third, communications -- they're still using one-way VHF. Two people talk and the signal heterodynes and nobody knows what was said. They need a better comm system.
Lastly, much of the processing infrastructure is running on 1960s tech -- old mainframes. They haven't upgraded in all this time because there's no other options. What good will satellites do if the ground control stations are still running vaccum tubes? We need to network the ground stations together and provide a better interface with the birds in the sky. One of these big iron setups went down in New York and it paralyzed most of the eastern seaboard. That lack of redundancy in such a safety-critical environment is simply unacceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That should be firstly. For all the administration's talk of opening up new airways, we do not have an air shortage. We have a concrete shortage. More routes for the enroute phase of flight just give you a shorter trip from one traffic jam to the next traffic jam, and it's going to stay that way until we get more runways open.
rj
Re:what's tracking going to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, nobody's been investing in airport infrastructure.
That should be firstly. For all the administration's talk of opening up new airways, we do not have an air shortage. We have a concrete shortage. More routes for the enroute phase of flight just give you a shorter trip from one traffic jam to the next traffic jam, and it's going to stay that way until we get more runways open.
rj
As I understand it the traffic problems in the USA are primarily on a few high traffic routes like New York to Washington. If they invested in high speed rail on those links the congestion problem in the air might not be such an issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it the traffic problems in the USA are primarily on a few high traffic routes like New York to Washington. If they invested in high speed rail on those links the congestion problem in the air might not be such an issue.
Er, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express [wikipedia.org] ?
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it the traffic problems in the USA are primarily on a few high traffic routes like New York to Washington. If they invested in high speed rail on those links the congestion problem in the air might not be such an issue.
Er, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express [wikipedia.org] ?
Its average speed (140 km/h) is too slow to compete with air travel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's much easier to get to the endpoints of the Acela, and so you save all the transit time to the airport, all the security delay, the waiting to board delay, and the sitting on the tarmac delay.
For the Washington to New York run, it's generally faster to take the train.
Of course, if you're dirt cheap and have the time, there are bus tickets for less than $40 round trip, and some specials were as low as $1 one-way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't surprise me if people just didnt know that the Acela Express was a viable alternative to air travel. Plus, even with all the savings in time (no need to go out to the airport, go through security etc) there may still be other reasons to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it the traffic problems in the USA are primarily on a few high traffic routes like New York to Washington. If they invested in high speed rail on those links the congestion problem in the air might not be such an issue.
Er, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express [wikipedia.org] ?
Its average speed (140 km/h) is too slow to compete with air travel.
I once flew from Tokyo -> LAX -> San Diego. At LAX I had to go through customs then back through security, check my bag again, and wait for my flight. We were delayed for over 45m and I'm willing to bet it was because the winds were out of limits. When I finally got to San Diego and picked up my bag it had been over 4 hours since I cleared customs at LAX. Please note that a normal speed train with frequent stops would have taken about 2 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Travelling for work takes two hours out of the day by air and four hours by train. An employer will always pay for a flight because the four hours you are certain to lose by taking the train is too much of the day. If the flight takes longer than expected then thats just bad luck. The company p
Re: (Score:2)
If that was their mindset they probably wouldn't need to visit either NY or DC.
The biggest problem with trains is train advocates. I personally think that the US could benefit substantially from investment in trains/etc.
Here is the problem. A $50B train system that might save $5T in other infrastructure and wasted time (numbers made up for illustrative purposes). Government types will say $50B is too much - let's do it for $5B. Train advocates will lobby on behalf of the proposal and the $5B will get sp
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WHAAAT?!? This is America, you damn pinko commie! We don't do that shit here.
Re:what's tracking going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
You understand wrong.
The problem of air traffic in the United States is a combination of a number of things: insufficient airport runway capacity, overused "super hubs", predictive overselling of tickets, and antiquated air traffic control systems. All these factors contribute, some (much) more than others.
I'm a private pilot, so let's be honest - there's plenty of room the air. I fly through very busy (Sacramento and San Fransisco, CA) airspace frequently, I've never had a "near miss". Nag about 40-year-old technology all you want; it works rather well. And in the small-ish airplanes I fly, there are lots of small airports for me to fly to where there is no congestion, no hope of congestion, and rarely any other aircraft "in the pattern". (Airports have an expected approach and landing sequence, usually based around an imaginary box shape around the runways, this is called 'the pattern' by pilots)
But when you are talking about congestion, you are really talking about runway capacity, because although there's plenty of room in the sky, there are a relatively small number of airports. Combine that with the tendency of airlines to create "mega hub" airports for connecting flights (EG: Atlanta, GA) and the problem of runway shortages become paramount.
A decent runway is about 1 or 2 miles long. It's basically a 2-4 lane freeway for just a mile or so. Adding more runways dramatically increases air capacity. A 1.5 mile runway is vastly cheaper than 100 miles of railroad, but services a similar amount of traffic over the same distance. Aviation infrastructure is ridiculously cheap compared to highways, trains, and other forms of travel. (except maybe by boat, which is cheaper still but much slower)
Why is this hard to understand?
Many large, busy airports have 2 or more runways, and often they split traffic based on type. My small, single-engine 4-seat Cessna 172 with its landing speed of about 60 Knots gets the short runway, while SouthWest airlines flight NNN with its landing speed of 125 Knots gets the big one.
Notice that my small plane takes 2x as long to approach the runway as the big jet? Adding a small, short, "General Aviation" runway to this large, busy airport adds as much as 3x the capacity anytime a small plane (like mine) lands there. (my plane, plus the two commercial planes that would have landed there, anyway)
Technology advances in combination with commercial flight restrictions (show me your SHOES!) mean that there are more small-medium sized planes in the sky, flying shorter trips, and generating more traffic where it counts - at the runways.
Add runways. They are cheap, especially when compared to the cost of other forms of infrastructure....
Re: (Score:2)
I am surprised that you would consider landing a 172 at an airport used by heavy jets at all. Small airports are much more convenient, and the landing charges are lower. I doubt the hassle of dealing with air side
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the poster you are responding to but I apparently live in his neighborhood. You are right, the small airports are the best because we aren't competing w/the big jets for sequencing and the fuel is cheaper, etc. I certainly prefer to go to the smaller airports.
In the bay area, we have San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose airports and several smaller ones such as Concord, Livermore, Hayward, RHV, PAO, etc.
SFO charges landing fees. Don't go there.
OAK has a general aviation runway in addition to long
Re: (Score:2)
I am surprised that you would consider landing a 172 at an airport used by heavy jets at all. Small airports are much more convenient, and the landing charges are lower.
There are no landing fees at any airport I've flown to. Ever. Landing fees apply to larger planes almost exclusively (over 12,500 lbs gross weight) The only one I know of with a landing fee for my itty bitty is SFO, and I just don't go there. For every SUPER MAJOR OMG airport (EG: SFO, LAX) there are many, many "largish" airports (EG: Sacra
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a NorCal/Oakland commuter as well. It takes a big pot of client money for me to fly commercial.
Starting from my driveway, I can be in Seattle, San Diego, Salt Lake City faster than commercial (counting the parking dance at SMF and hour long security theater).
I fly nearly every week and I cannot remember a "near miss" either. I don't usually fly on weekends, though.
The problem is that many people believe they grok aviation, but really don't. This is especially true of people who have had some PP train
Lack of runways (Score:2)
There's an easier way to solve the problem of lack of runways that nobody seems to want to discuss: raise the cost of flying. Pile on airport fees and jet fuel taxes. It's simple economics: if you raise the price, demand will drop. The runways will clear themselves.
There's a lot of reasons for society to not encourage flying: the pollution it causes (delivering particulates directly into the upper atmosphere may be a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect,) the increased ability of diseas
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of the Duke of Wellington's opposition to the construction of railroads..."It would only encourage the lower classes to move about unnecessarily."
rj
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say we couldn't fly, I just said society has a lot of reasons to discourage it.
For example: I'm flying to Florida this weekend just because I want to go see palm trees and lie on a beach, and because I have frequent flyer miles coming out of my ears. If this flight were to cost me $1,000 out of pocket I wouldn't consider it. So I'm going out there to help plug up the airports during the busiest travel weekend of the year, just because Minnesota is cold and boring. Does society need me to fly
Re: (Score:2)
Buddy, if *you* don't want to fly just *pretend* the trip costs $1000 out-of-pocket. But the rest of us might want to fly, and probably would not appreciate giving extra money to the government just because you think some of the reasons we choose to fly aren't societally valuable.
What you're suggesting is akin to taxing food to discourage obesity -- sure, you'd make overeating more expensive, which is good for society. But you'd also make sustenance-level consumption more expensive, which is quite likely to
Re: (Score:2)
Right. They didn't just build a new airport at Denver. Sea-Tac didn't just add a third runway. There isn't a steady history of building new airports and runways in the US over the last thirty years...
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Would this track planes over the United States only, or would it have the capability to track them all over the world (like GPS does)? This would sure be useful when a plane goes down off of its course and outside radar range. Searching would be much, much easier.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is investing in airport infrastructure. Replacing ILS with LAAS might not be sexy - but it will increase capacity and reduce accidents.
Most of the airports which need more runways do not have the room to add more runways. How many major airports east of the Mississippi are not landlocked?
The compl
This will not... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this will make ATC's job a whole lot easier (both TRACON and ground traffic). Knowing where everyone is very precisely means you can automate a lot of common tasks. If I can file an IFR flight plan, and NextGen/ADS-B has it on file, unless there's some sort of conflict in the air, I should be able to get from airport to airport with very little controller interaction. The controller should be there to watch over NextGen and handle conflicts. Hell, collision avoidance between aircraft is automated
Capstone Project (Score:2)
Speaking as a pilot. . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
This is mixed news for me.
Currently, a big plane will show up on radar as a blip. The pilot will call control, and state his/her identity and position. Controller will then make an educated guess as to which plane is which dot on the radar scope, and assign you a 4-digit "Squawk" code (Say, 1234). Pilot enters the squawk code in to his instruments, and the instruments then start broadcasting "Aircraft 1234 is at 32,000ft" on the radio. This then lets the radar display aircraft identification and altitude beside each blip. Simple, yes? Prone to human error?
So obviously, we need something less vulnerable to human error, and more vulnerable to programmer error. That's how the world works.
With ADS-B, the aircraft pulls down GPS coordinates and altitude, and then broadcasts them in cleartext on open frequencies to everyone. "Aircraft C-FBQN is at 10,000ft at N45.4870947 & W75.0967026 travelling at 121kts heading 180 True."
So, targeting your ground-to-air missiles just got a whole bunch easier.
The advantage, though, is that you can become much safer in the areas where there's no radar coverage. Hudson's Bay, North Atlantic, etc. Those are busy places with lots of planes and sleepy pilots.
Also, the aircraft I mentionned earlier in my example is C-FBQN. I love that baby, but she doesn't show up on radar. With ADS-B, my flying can get much safer.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html [zawodny.com]
And I don't have to even worry about the missiles, as I have no heat signature and don't show up on radar, so they'll be able to get really close, and never actually hit me.
Re: (Score:2)
assign you a 4-digit "Squawk" code (Say, 1234)
Note thats a four digit octal code, twelve bits.
Also ADSB uses a mode S 24 bit code so it doesn't have to be allocated on the fly like 12 bit codes for mode A.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the most worrying air safety problem in the western world today is how surface to air missiles are targeted at commercial airliners on approach to LAX or JFK.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think this statement is quite silly.
1) Coordinates do not help you if you have a shoulder-launched SAM. You track the target visually, during approach or takeoff.
2) If you want to down a plane that is beyond visual range, you don't need coordinates: your SAM is radar guided, and you work for some country's armed forces. That plane is going down whether it transmits coordinates or not.
End of story.
d.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern infrared spectrum missiles of the last twenty years or so are not attracted to heat signatures, Hollywood notwithstanding. They lock onto specific aircraft based on an image profile. In essence, the missiles have sufficient discrimination to chase a specific aircraft from all aspects after such aircraft have been designated as
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't have to even worry about the missiles, as I have no heat signature and don't show up on radar, so they'll be able to get really close, and never actually hit me.
Depending on the warhead size, "really close" is usually close enough. =)
Anyways, I think ADS-B is a huge win for air transport. It makes things much safer for everyone, and I say this as a private pilot, a skydiver, as well as an experimental aircraft builder. If everyone walks away alive, everything worked as it should.
Re: (Score:2)
C-FBQN is so stealthy, it isn't even registered. Put another way, it doesn't show up on landings.com
Did you already get shot down?
Re:Speaking as a commercially rated pilot (Score:2)
Spot on. Mods, give the controller a lift.
I am interested in ADS-B, but I don't mind managing the transponder either. Given all the things I have to do over the course of a flight, the transponder is typically a set once and forget operation (especially when IFR).
I think the best feature of ADS-B will be that marginal english speakers will talk less. If you haven't heard a Chinese or Japanese student stumble over a IFR vector/handoff... well... it is no treat. Especially when other aircraft need somethi
Futurama. (Score:4, Funny)
"ADS-B is part of the FAA's wide-reaching plan known as NextGen to revamp every component of the flight control system to meet future demands and avoid gridlock in the sky.""
Space invaders showed us how to avoid gridlock.
Without having RTFA (who does these days..)... (Score:2, Insightful)
What are the opinions of Slashdotters who experience both types of failures in their respective corporate worlds?
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, what's the leading opinion from the network guys/gals? If I program a bulletproof solution, it doesn't mean a thing if the heavy metal goes down hard and isn't
And the most important feature! (Score:2)
ADS-B issues every aircraft a unique, trackable ID number that can be used to issue bills to every aircraft that passes through an area. This means the sky will now become a big toll road.
satellites are not "tracking" the planes (Score:4, Informative)
What this is really about is that the airplane's transponder (simply a radio that transmits about 200 miles around) will broadcast not only the plane's ID tag, but also it's GPS position. Satellites only come into this system in the sense that the airplane has a GPS receiver on board, and GPS is of course satellites. So each airplane broadcasts not only who it is, but where it is. The other new part is that all the airplanes will recieve and process that information to give the pilots a picture of who else is flying around near them. Furthermore, ground radar stations will broadcast on the transponder channel as a proxy for those aircraft that are not equipped to transmit their GPS.
Historically, planes have always transmitted an ID code (mainly, a manually assigned code from the air traffic center who is most recently responsible for them). The next big thing was for the transponder to also include the aircraft's altitude. Now, these are called "transponders" because they only transmit when polled by a ground station's radar sweep. And until recently, only the ground controllers received the transponder hits from the aircraft. About 10 years ago, planes (expensive airliners, mainly) started receiving and processing the nearby transponder responses as well, so that they could see what other planes were at their altitude. This is a collision-avoidance system. So now that planes are equipped with GPS comes the revolution: they can transmit their precise location to each other, and also to the controllers, and everyone can see a complete picture of where all the nearby planes are. This will ultimately enable pilots to fly more efficient routes, allowing more freedom for the controllers and pilots to work things out dynamically.
The system goes on-line August 4th, 2009. (Score:2)
Skynet fights back.
"Greenlights" isn't a word. (Score:2)
It's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Did this come from NASA SATS Program? (Score:2)
Did this originate from the NASA SATS Program?
http://sats.erau.edu/nationalsats/ [erau.edu]
clippy as the autopilot (Score:4, Funny)
It look's like you are trying to land do you want help?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)