If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
On Jun 14, 10:40*am, Bob Fry wrote:
"M" == Michael writes: * * M On Jun 13, 6:04*pm, Le Chaud Lapin * * M wrote: * * So basically what you're saying is that there are some people * * in FAA who want something like a PAV, but when it comes times * * for approval, "Ralph" in FSDO/MIDO puts up a brick wall for * * whatever reason. I've lost track of the original post, but the above summary of the OP, if correct, shows a basic lack of understanding of bureacracies. In fact innovating thinking happens at the lower leves, but the managers try squelch it. Not just managers. Peers too. Basically, anyone who views innovation as a threat will try to stop it, one way or another. That could be the guy in the next office, middle manager, even the CEO. A venture capitalist will even occasionally purposely sabotage a company that it has invested in, momentarily, to create an artificial dependency on the VC company, if doing so is in the long-term strategic interest of the VC company [Force hiring of superfluous staff to deplete cash-on- hand in preparation of new rounds of financing to dilute founders' equity, for example]. So yes, I do understand bureaucracy, but I can also read between the lines, and somewhere within the FAA is at least 1 individual who genuinely would like to see something like a PAV realized. There are also organizations like NASA, CAFE, and DARPA, who would like the same. And let's face it - if any of the LSA manufacturers could be the first to have claimed bona fide primacy in creating a useable PAV, the media would love it, and so would they. There are a lot of people who would admit, in private, that a real PAV, the kind outlined by CAFE [http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php], would revolutionize aviation, but until they actually see such a thing, they reject the idea. We have the same phenomenon in my field. The competition is extreme, but competitors remain cordial. Everyone likes the idea of Earth- trembling revolution, especially if they are the one who does it. If they are not the one to do it, then they begin to use words like, "collaboration", "evaluation", "waiting period", "risky", "shared development", "installed based", "cost of redoing extant infrastructure." This phenomenon is precisely why DARPA's ATP was created. DARPA's proposition in creating the ATP is this: "If you build it, we will come. Forget about politics, bureaurcracy, etc. We'll deall with that. Just show us the cookies, and we'll take care of the other stuff. And, by the way, we'll give you a few million dollars to make a prototype, if you can prove to us that what you have no is reasonably feasible and that you're not a kook or crook." That is an extremely fair proposition, IMO, but so far, no one has shown the cookies. * * M Imagine what it would have been like if the federal government * * M had decided to regulate driving on a national level just a * * M couple of decades after the first cars appeared on the US * * M roads. *Imagine if every design change needed federal approval. * * M There never would have been a Henry Ford. Imagine if the auto industry dragged its collective feet and resisted all attempts to improve safety by the Feds. *Hey, you don't have to imagine that. *Only because of Ralph Nader do we have the safety features of today (seat belts[!], air bags, and the like). *But most other post-industrial countries enjoy even better safety features because they don't let their corporations write regulations. Hmm...in my experience, it has been the opposite. The moment one leaves US soil, the fastidiousness towards safety drops dramatically, IMO. The most extreme example I can recall, aside from driving 170km/ h on the Autobahn and being passed by what looked like high-end BMW at 200km/h, was in France, at an old castle. I was touring with my best friend and his family, walking down a rocky slope on the side of a very old castle. I decided to "surf" the rocks...So I would run, stop, and slide down the slope. I kept doing this until I got about 25 meters from the edge, and my friend called out and said, "Hey, I wouldn't do that if I were you..." He took me up to the edge, slowly, crouching down to show me why: behold, a cliff, with slick rocks, no guard rail, nothing to grab onto whatsoever, with a 120 meter drop to more shiny rocks. It was a public park, with historical placards, guide arrows, even an occasional bench, but no warning about that cliff, just beautifull blue sky and a most goregeous view of the rolling countryside before sudden death. Those are the kind of things that remind you that you're not in the USA. * * M Regulating aviation made it safer - at first. *It's just that * * M the regulations stifled progress. At first? *Still is. *True it stifled progress, the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. But how much of that is due to liability fears, not the FAA. One thing is sure...PAV will happen sooner or later. My happen now, or 100 years from now, but it will happen eventually. When that time comes, whatever solution to these problems exist then, most likely, those solutions would be applicable today. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
On Jun 13, 1:20*pm, Michael wrote:
On Jun 13, 1:41*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Some key features of PAVs a 150-200 mph car that flies above gridlock without traffic delays Quiet, safe, comfortable and reliable Simplified operation akin to driving a car As affordable as travel by car or airliner Near all-weather, on-demand travel enabled by synthetic vision Highly fuel efficient and able to use alternative fuels Up to 800 mile range Short runway use--Walk to grandma's from small residential airfields What would you call this? A pipe dream. You cavalierly dismiss the argument that the FAA is what keeps new technology out of the skies and causes astronomical parts cost, and that dismissal is unwarranted. *Never confuse the public relations face of the FAA with the rank and file at the FSDO/MIDO. *Never forget that regardless of what tests your design passed, it must still be approved by an engineer who couldn't make it in industry and hasn't learned anything new (technically) in decades. *Nothing the top level people in the FAA do will change that. I was just thinking...it is said that the airplane was invented in the USA, but much of the terminlogy in aviation is French: * ailerons * empannage * fuselage * canard * Pitot * chandelle * M'aidez! I wonder, if a PAV were created, that satisified the criteria outlined by CAFE: http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php but done in another G8 country besides the USA, like, France. Would the USA just sit back and watch? I think all of the reasons presented so far why PAV attempts are destined to fail would somehow resolve themselves, within each respective country for which a reason is valid. That leads to an interesting question: Which is harder, technically, to design and build a PAV as outlined by CAFE, or put a person on the moon? -Le Chaud Lapin- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is Bowing Competent For NextGen ATC? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 13 | October 29th 07 09:33 PM |
NextGen anyone? | Angelo Campanella[_2_] | Piloting | 0 | October 24th 07 07:21 PM |
NextGen ATC Privatization Funding | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 6 | August 6th 07 01:46 AM |
FAA's next steps in building its NextGen implementation plan. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | July 7th 07 12:31 PM |
GAO REAFFIRMS CURRENT TAXES CAN FUND FAA'S NEXTGEN (response from Robert Poole) | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | June 19th 07 10:40 PM |