FAA efficiency

Don Tuite writes:

But this way, we don't have bureaucrats stifling innovation.

No, we have lawyers doing it that instead, and they're a lot worse than the
bureaucrats ever were.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article 20070211080342.07e482aa.usenetmail@securitybullet ins.com,
Doug Spencer wrote:

First they need to fix ADS-B to prevent spoofing.

Why is fixing ADS-B to prevent spoofing a requirement?

Because spoofing ADS-B has greater potential for more serious hazards
than present day voice.

Because I consider it bad form to expend funds and NOT fix obvious
flaws simply because present day voice has a similar problem (albeit to
a lesser degree).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:45:48 -0500
Bob Noel wrote:

Because spoofing ADS-B has greater potential for more serious hazards
than present day voice.

Because I consider it bad form to expend funds and NOT fix obvious
flaws simply because present day voice has a similar problem (albeit to
a lesser degree).

I agree, which is why I said "similar to ADS-B" rather than ADS-B itself
in the original message. http://www.airsport-corp.com/adsb2.htm has
many issues presented with regard to ADS-B. The technology we actually
use should address the issues presented in that document.

Even something like tracking a specific aircraft's movements should be
addressed. We are already seeing places using services like Flightaware
to track their competition's movements on IFR flights, utilizing it as
a type of corporate espionage. I see no reason a transponder or ADS-B
needs to identify a specific plane, just that there is a plane in a
particular part of the airspace so other aircraft avoid that spot. If a
particular plane needs to be intercepted for a legal purpose, that can
already be done.

Doug