CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

writes:

That's like saying a Ford F-150 pickup truck can't be used as a ski
boat because Ford deliberately designed it that way.

Not quite. The GPS is a receive-only system. It allows users to determine
their positions without transmitting anything to anyone, which provides
stealth and also gives the system unlimited user capacity. There isn't any
way to get a transmission function out of GPS. All tracking systems are more
complex systems in which GPS merely plays one part.

This was all by design. The DoD wanted the capacity and didn't want their
troups to give themselves away every time they checked their positions.

John Kulp writes:

That stupid. The whole system being built is a GPS tracking system to
space and direct flight paths.

As I've already explained, GPS does not provide tracking. What is being built
is a system that uses GPS to determine position, but that is all. The rest is
independent of GPS.

Martin writes:

Why don't you read what he wrote? "A GPS tracking unit is a device that uses
the Global Positioning System ..."

I did, but he apparently did not, since he seems to think that the GPS itself
provides a tracking function, which is a common and rather serious
misconception. Nothing in GPS allows a user to be tracked.

John Kulp writes:

You're completely dense. You change the flight paths. They're in the
AIR not on the GROUND like the runways. Got that?

During take-off and especially approach, the flight paths are necessarily
aligned with the runways, since aircraft cannot instantly turn after leaving
the runway or instantly turn just before touching down. Thus, there are
flight paths that are inextricably linked to runway positions. The only way
to change them is to reposition the runways.

The pilots don't know how the planes work.

Apart from the most general principles, yes.

They just sit there like robots staring out the window while
some ghost flies them.

No, but during automated phases of a flight (which means most phases, today),
they don't have a lot to do. Still, that's better than requiring them to keep
their hands on the controls for eight hours at a stretch, in a number of ways.

They use GPS overseas all the time but they don't know how to use them.

They use GPS everywhere, but they don't have to know how it works to use it.

writes:

Such as?

Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
fully replaced.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Such as?

Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
fully replaced.
Perhaps you should use some of your vaunted research skills to see what
the accuracy of WAAS is. It's better then a ILS and the WAaS approachs
have the same minimums as the ILS approachs.

john writes:

Perhaps you should use some of your vaunted research skills to see what
the accuracy of WAAS is. It's better then a ILS and the WAaS approachs
have the same minimums as the ILS approachs.

I have indeed done the research. The whole reason for LAAS is that WAAS isn't
good enough to replace ILS entirely. WAAS can match some Category I
performance. LAAS will be needed to get to Category III, and since you need
Cat IIIc to replace ILS, WAAS certainly isn't going to do it, and LAAS
probably won't do it for a while yet.

If you think that WAAS is better than ILS, you need to tell the government
about it right away, so they can save billions of dollars of development costs
on LAAS.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes:

As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

It depends on how much of the congestion is en-route, and how much is in
approach and departure. Free flight would help in the former case, but it
wouldn't make much different in the latter case.

Additionally, although truly random free flight would eliminate en-route
congestion, it would also raise costs, since most random, free-flight routes
are going to be longer than the optimal route. There would be a tendency for
everyone to try to fly the shortest route, and then the congestion would
return.

Babbling nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

That's like saying a Ford F-150 pickup truck can't be used as a ski
boat because Ford deliberately designed it that way.

Not quite. The GPS is a receive-only system. It allows users to determine
their positions without transmitting anything to anyone, which provides
stealth and also gives the system unlimited user capacity. There isn't any
way to get a transmission function out of GPS. All tracking systems are more
complex systems in which GPS merely plays one part.

This was all by design. The DoD wanted the capacity and didn't want their
troups to give themselves away every time they checked their positions.

Point totally missed.

GPS was designed to be a locating system, period.

The fact that a locating system doesn't provide user tracking or
warm up muffins is irrelevant.

The US military (and probably all the other major militaries) have
troop tracking systems.

And guess what, the tracking systems don't provide location data or
warm muffins either. GPS provides the location data.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Such as?

Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
fully replaced.

What about multipath?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.