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-

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-