Interesting People mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Re: air headaches

From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:44:08 -0400


Begin forwarded message:

From: Sid Karin <skarin () ucsd edu>
Date: September 2, 2007 5:35:00 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: [IP] Re:    air headaches

Dave,

James Jones is largely correct, but the issues,  both technical and
non technical are are quite complicated.   I've been studying the
system from one perspective or another since I became a pilot
in 1968, a flight instructor in 1970 or 71, an aircraft owner in
1981 or 82. I'm also a multi million mile frequent flyer (more than 3 million miles on American alone) as are most IPers, I'd bet. This morning I flew my C-210 
from San Diego to Santa Rosa, CA, about 500 miles, using my
(IFR approved, WAAS certified)  GPS for navigation.  The weather
was great and I made this trip under visual flight rules. I was able to do more direct routing than I might have been able to have approved if I had 
chosen to fly under instrument flight rules.

Why is this?  I believe that it is mostly an historical artifact that
the FAA is making some attempt to correct.  The artifact is that
when the system was computerized, about the same time that I
received my instrument rating, the ground was smart (IBM 360/65's)
and the airplanes were stupid (no computers).  The system was designed
and implemented and continues to be operated with that inherent assumption. 
Fortunately somewhere along the line the airplanes became pretty smart.
Even little airplanes like mine have color moving maps, terrain maps,
real time traffic information, composite digital weather radar broadcast
on about 6 minute updates via the XM satellites, etc. etc.   The ground
facilities have hardly kept up.  Indeed they have little more capability
than they had 35 years ago.

As an example of the crudity of the system as designed (and still in
operation!)  is the computerization of what are known as intersections.
An intersection is basically the intersection of two straight lines, each 
one drawn from a different VHF navigation radio station.  This defines
a point on the earth's surface.  (There are a few other ways to define
intersections, not important here.) Before computers, the intersections 
were named for a local geographic feature on the ground.  Near my home
was the Cardiff intersection over the town of Cardiff. Now it is called the 
Carif intersection because all intersection names were changed to be
five alpha characters to accommodate the computerization(!). I recognized 
this in the early seventies as a harbinger of things to come.
If the system were being implemented today I think it is likely that both routing 
and separation (mid air collision avoidance) would rest primarily in the
cockpit even in instrument conditions. The technology is not only available, as Jones points out much of it is ubiquitous. However, I have not yet seen even an existence proof that it is possible to get there from here. I am usually 
a critic of the FAA,  but I have to give them credit for what they are
calling "Free Flight". As I understand the concept it is a big step toward instrument flight plan aircraft making their own decisions about routing and 
eventually collision avoidance.   Unfortunately the existing system has
enormous inertia.
The ADS/B question vs. radar is a bit of a red herring. I'm a fan of moving to ADS/B, but the real issue is still whether or not the aircraft can act 
autonomously (in other than emergency situations), not which technology
should we use.  Choosing better technology will lead to substantial
improvements, but not to great innovation.
As someone pointed out in an earlier note, the problem is not a shortage of 
airspace, its a shortage of runways.  We are not only not building new
airports we are closing old ones.  I wouldn't count the Denver airport
as new because it merely replaced the earlier Denver airport which was
closed.  Granted, the new airport is more capable.
Why aren't we building new airports? First, we have lost our way in the U.S. wrt building any significant infrastructure. We look at each proposed project 
and check to see if there are any negative sides to proceeding.  If we
find any, we stop. Of course there are negative aspects to all projects, and so we have not only no new airports, but to a good first approximation 
we have no new power plants, no new refineries, no new freeways,  etc.
Second, airports are a part of a distributed national infrastructure, but decisions about building, rebuilding, or expanding airports are made locally by NIMBYs. In fact, for the most part the NIMBYs have been pretty successful at restricting existing facilities so they are less capable than they were 
originally.
I don't see how to get there from here either. Sy Ramo, in his book "The Business of Science", talking about other problems in another era, said that the American people were particularly good at dealing with adversity 
and getting together when necessary to solve large problems.  He said
that he was optimistic because it was a two step process and we were doing so well at step one. I hope that he was right, but I worry about how much worse things will become before we fix them. We are again doing very well 
at step one.

        Cheers,


                .........Sid

P.S.  As long as I am on this rant I'd like to add one more point.
Mid air collisions are so rare that they can be ignored.  Most accidents
take place while landing or taking off. The hub system not only causes congestion, it also roughly doubles the number of take offs and landings per trip. 





Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jones, James-P63667" <James.Jones2 () gdc4s com>
Date: August 31, 2007 11:59:52 AM EDT
To: "James J. O'Donnell" <jod () georgetown edu>
Cc: <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] air headaches

Jim,

Regarding satellite navigation and U.S. aircraft: While I don't have
numbers to back this statement up, I'll wager that most aircraft flying 
today in the U.S. use some sort of GPS navigation system. While I
haven't been a pilot very long, every airworthy aircraft I've even
looked inside -- including World War 2-era P-51 Mustangs -- have had at 
least one GPS unit, whether it be a simple portable aviation system or
something wired into the autopilot. They're just too useful for pilots
to have ignored.
Despite the near universal use of GPS in our aircraft, FAA Administrator 
Marion Blakey stated just a few months ago that "GPS is the law of the
land in virtually every other business and logistic situation that we
have. Even hikers on a mountain use GPS. We are not using it in the
aviation system. We've got to transition." The airlines are also
publicly promoting the 'adoption' of GPS. In in-flight magazines this
summer, the airlines printed editorials to show how with the next
generation aircraft tracking technology (ADS-B) pilots will 'finally' be 
able to use GPS to go straight from one airport to another without
following inefficient radio-navigation airways.

Comments like this make it sound like the U.S. air traffic control
system is fundamentally outdated. The reality is that I can file
so-called "direct" flight plans right now. Things are a little different 
for the airlines, but from what I've heard that's mostly due to human
resistance to change, not technological limitations.

GPS-based ADS-B is the future, and air traffic control must be
modernized away from 30-second refresh radars; however, that
modernization will do nothing to address the two main causes of airline delays: Weather and too many aircraft using too few runways. That's not 
air traffic control's fault, it's not that Learjet's owner's fault
(though his one plane may be contributing). It's the airlines' fault.

The hub-and-spoke system that the airlines created won't scale without
more runways, and the airlines can't force the airport owners to build
new ones fast enough.

--
James 'J.C.' Jones
Software Engineer, General Dynamics C4 Systems
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and 
may contain GDC4S confidential or privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.

-----Original Message-----
From: "James J. O'Donnell" <jod () georgetown edu>
Date: August 31, 2007 9:20:27 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: air headaches

Dave, a good article on the challenges of getting here to there:

http://www.businessweek.com//magazine/content/07_37/b4049001.htm

I was struck this time by the mention of using satellite-based
navigation.  Hit me that when I was just in Zambia flying with bush
pilots from dirt strip to dirt strip, that *they* have solved the
problem of navigation once and for all -- they let their GPS fly them.
  I sat next to a couple of the pilots and as soon as they took off,
they hit three buttons for a pre-programmed destination and we flew on a 
direct level flight to that location with no further thinking about
routing -- no more looking around for airstrips, and not even any more
flying by traditional radio beacon.  Similar pilots I had met in
Australia a couple of years ago had two GPS -- on in the plane and a
personally-owned one on their belt. If they go down someplace sketchy, they don't want to ask people to do zig-zag flying patterns looking for them, they want to call in their exact location and get the heck out of 
there in a couple of hours.

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     Sidney Karin, Ph.D., P.E.       858-534-5075 (voice)
                                        858-822-5443 (fax)
skarin () ucsd edu Professor, 
     Department of Computer Science and Engineering
     Director Emeritus
     San Diego Supercomputer Center
     University of California, San Diego
     9500 Gilman Drive
     La Jolla,  CA  92093-0505




-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: