Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS

Your conveyance of information through written text being somewhat
sub-optimal, I’m trying to work through what you are trying to say. If the
meaning of your contribution is that on-board radar systems would perform to
a higher standard, with regard to air traffic control concerns, than the
proposed NextGen/ADS-B, based on satellite localization, then I
wholeheartedly disagree.



In article ,
says...


I read and assimilated the part where VOR-DME used the classical fallacy of
appeal to authority:

"... if you believe someone with your limited understanding of the system
is going to dream up failure modes that the NextGen developers, in their
haste, have not worked out to the tenth decimal place..."

It is an assertion of competence on the part of the FAA that also happens
to be historically inaccurate.

The only legitimate goal that the FAA can reasonably seek by its rules,
separation of commercial aircraft from all other airborne objects
(including birds), could also be accomplished by requiring on-board radar
and alert systems for those aircraft. This is a technical alternative to
ADS-B that accomplishes that goal. It also manages to equitably match the
burden with the benefit. It also permits non-commercial GA the freedom to
choose their level of risk versus cost.
The ADS-B out mandate doesn't accomplish either of the above.

VOR-DME wrote:
Your conveyance of information through written text being somewhat
sub-optimal,

Feel free to give a me phone call, then.

I’m trying to work through what you are trying to say.

Among other things, I said the FAA isn't as competent as you seem to
think they are.

I was also going to add that from an engineering perspective ADS-B sucks
big time. It looks to me like it was designed by a committee that fell
victim to feature creep. But being the humble person I am, I wont say any
of that.

If
the meaning of your contribution is that on-board radar systems would
perform to a higher standard, with regard to air traffic control
concerns, than the proposed NextGen/ADS-B, based on satellite
localization, then I wholeheartedly disagree.

Consider an aicraft on collision course with a flock of birds or an
ultralight. Which do you believe would be more likely to aid in
preventing a collision: ADS-B "In" or some on-board active sensing system
like radar?

I am also at a loss to understand what collision avoidance, the purported
reason for mandating ADS-B Out, has to do with phasing out a navigation
system like VOR/DMEs. No doubt someone with your vast intellect and
communication skills could answer that in a manner even a sub-optimal
communicator like myself would understand.

In article ,
says...


I read and assimilated the part where VOR-DME used the classical
fallacy of appeal to authority:

"... if you believe someone with your limited understanding of the
system is going to dream up failure modes that the NextGen developers,
in their haste, have not worked out to the tenth decimal place..."

It is an assertion of competence on the part of the FAA that also
happens to be historically inaccurate.

The only legitimate goal that the FAA can reasonably seek by its
rules, separation of commercial aircraft from all other airborne
objects (including birds), could also be accomplished by requiring
on-board radar and alert systems for those aircraft. This is a
technical alternative to ADS-B that accomplishes that goal. It also
manages to equitably match the burden with the benefit. It also
permits non-commercial GA the freedom to choose their level of risk
versus cost. The ADS-B out mandate doesn't accomplish either of the
above.

In article ,
says...


Among other things, I said the FAA isn't as competent as you seem to
think they are.

I can accept your judgment, but to think they have not dealt with scenarios as
obvious as GPS blackouts in developing the new system, as MXIDIOT suggests, is
patently ridiculous.


I was also going to add that from an engineering perspective ADS-B sucks
big time. It looks to me like it was designed by a committee that fell
victim to feature creep. But being the humble person I am, I wont say any
of that.

Which engineering features? Are you an engineer? I am. Are you a pilot? I am.
Are you instrument/commercial rated? I am. Why is it that you say ADS-B "sucks"
when I don't see it that way? Tell us what is wrong with it.


Consider an aicraft on collision course with a flock of birds or an
ultralight. Which do you believe would be more likely to aid in
preventing a collision: ADS-B "In" or some on-board active sensing system
like radar?

As you know from your engineering and aviation background, obstacle avoidance
is not really a primary ATC function. I do not mean to discredit your argument,
but primary ATC functions are concerned with systemic risks (other aircraft)
while terrain and local hazards are relegated to more basic avoidance
procedures. ADS-B is an air traffic control protocol, not a terrain or obstacle
avoidance protocol.



I am also at a loss to understand what collision avoidance, the purported
reason for mandating ADS-B Out, has to do with phasing out a navigation
system like VOR/DMEs. No doubt someone with your vast intellect and
communication skills could answer that in a manner even a sub-optimal
communicator like myself would understand.

Well, if you start by telling me what collision avoidance is provided by
VOR/DME's then we're on course! VOR's enhance collision opportunities by
placing multiple aircraft in the same position. Avoiding same is progress.

VOR-DME writes:

I can accept your judgment, but to think they have not dealt with scenarios as
obvious as GPS blackouts in developing the new system, as MXIDIOT suggests, is
patently ridiculous.

I wish that were true. But people have a tendency to avoid dealing with things
they don't like or don't understand, and organizations run by people have
exactly the same problem.

On May 30, 2:41*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

But people have a tendency to avoid dealing with things
they don't like or don't understand,

Did you look in a mirror lately???? You are the leader of the pack.

Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes:

I can accept your judgment, but to think they have not dealt with scenarios as
obvious as GPS blackouts in developing the new system, as MXIDIOT suggests, is
patently ridiculous.

I wish that were true. But people have a tendency to avoid dealing with things
they don't like or don't understand, and organizations run by people have
exactly the same problem.

You mean like flight planning?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.