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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes: Heady stuff! Looks like the FAA and the NextGen developers better start spending more time with USA Today, so they can be up to speed on all this stuff they never even tought of! USA Today is not the source of this information. And the FAA (or at least the NextGen groupies at the FAA) won't care until someone dies. After all, they look the other way when airlines violate regulations. Babbling, delusional nonsense. Airlines are fined for violating requlations quite often and there were several occurances this month alone. Of course, what do you expect from a person who gets aviation news from USA Today and aviation experience from MSFS? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: You have no clue what the jamming susceptibility of modern GPS is or what features exist (current and planned) to thwart it. Actually I do, as I've been following GPS since long before the average person became aware of its existence. I'm afraid jamming is a serious potential problem, for a number of reasons related directly to the technology of GPS and to satellite communications in general. Spoofing is a serious issue, too, which is why the DoD started encrypting its P code years ago. Unfortunately, encryption is not a realistic option for civil aviation users, because of the logistics of key distribution, and because it would make the signal unusable to other user communities. Actually, you show you are clueless. Minimizing the effects of jamming for anything other than a military grade, high power jammer is a fairly trivial problem but civilians have no interest as it is in the real civilian world a non problem not worth spending a single dime. In reality, jamming effects a small area and is a real concern only to the military which would expect jamming in the area of enemy targets. Anyone can jam a GPS signal, and a small area is more than sufficient--if it happens to be centered on New York City, for example. Spoofing requires more sophistication, but hardly anything unattainable for bad guys. Yeah, and anyone can make a big bomb and blow up a building. The response to both would be the same. Which is but one reason civilian jamming is a non problem. A solar flare large enough to "knock them all out at once" would also take out a lot of other stuff making the lack of GPS a minor issue. If GPS is the only navigation option, it's a major issue even if other systems are affected as well. VORs, at least, would still be available. What makes you think that? What makes you think that if there were a solar flare large enough to "knock them all out at once" there would even be a functioning power grid? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
wrote:
Minimizing the effects of jamming for anything other than a military grade, high power jammer is a fairly trivial problem but civilians have no interest as it is in the real civilian world a non problem not worth spending a single dime. .... What makes you think that if there were a solar flare large enough to "knock them all out at once" there would even be a functioning power grid? This appears to be a case of someone who is disliked saying that 1.1 + 1 ~= 2 and someone who should know better dragging what would be a perfectly reasonable assertion through the mud. For the record, solar flares can interfere with GPS signals, probably seriously: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...es.gps.TO.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s-in-2011.html |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
On May 29, 5:30*pm, " wrote:
On May 29, 3:06*pm, VOR-DME wrote: I just told you, and you didn't get it. We are at MXMAX now - that's the threshold where MX cannot assimilate any more information Well VOR DME, you a better man then me going as far as you did. He has no clue what the real world is out here. *As I stated in my first reply to him, why should he be concerned as he is not a user of the system for navigation. His reading comprehension seems be less then a 6 year old as I am not familiar with the next generation stuff but you did an outstanding job explaining it in user friendly terms for this pilot. To bring a few facts to bear, if one does a little looking what is pasted here was found on an FAA website. The executive summary in short is those of us in the en route system, especially if IFR, are pretty well protected from mid airs. It's the rec pilots milling around mostly uncontrolled fields who tend to exchange paint with other airplanes. Having said all of that, I still fly 50 feet under my assigned en route altitude, and when there's enough vis do clearing turns around airports, tend to be at pattern altitude a mile or two out on the entry leg (low wing airplane, If I'm low I can more easily see people descending into my airspace) and lately have been flying the pattern a little wide, a little low and a little fast for traffic avoidance reasons. That way I'm not likely to be overtaken by, and should have a reasonable chance of seeing, someone in a 140, 150, 172, or the like. the paste from the FAA site follows Recent studies of midair collisions involving aircraft by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that: · Most of the aircraft involved in collisions are engaged in recreational flying, not on any type of flight plan. · Most midair collisions occur in VFR weather conditions during weekend daylight hours. · The vast majority of accidents occurred at or near uncontrolled airports and at altitudes below 1000 feet. · Pilots of all experience levels were involved in midair collisions, from pilots on their first solo ride, to 20,000-hour veterans. · Flight instructors were on board the aircraft 37 percent of the accidents in the study. · Most collisions occur in daylight with visibility greater than 3 miles. Here's how you can contribute to professional flying and reduce the odds of becoming involved in a midair collision. 1. Practice the "see and avoid" concept at all times regardless of whether the operation is conducted under Instrument (IFR) or Visual (VFR) Flight Rules. 2. Under IFR control, don't always count on ATC to keep you away from other aircraft. They're human, and can make mistakes. 3. Understand the limitations of your eyes and use proper visual scanning techniques. Remember, if another aircraft appears to have no relative motion, but is increasing in size, it is likely to be on a collision course with you. 4. Execute appropriate clearing procedures before all climbs, descents, turns, training maneuvers, or aerobatics. 5. Be aware of the type airspace in which you intend to operate in and comply with the applicable rules. 6. Adhere to the necessary communications requirements. 7. Traffic advisories should be requested and used when available to assist the pilot’s own visual scanning -- advisories in no way lessen the pilot’s obligation to see and avoid. 8. If not practical to initiate radio contact for traffic information, at least monitor the appropriate frequency. 9. Make Frequent position reports along your route and AT UNCONTROLLED AIRPORTS BROADCAST YOUR POSITION AND INTENTIONS ON COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF). 10. Make your aircraft as visible as possible - turn on exterior lights below 10,000 MSL and landing lights when operating within 10 miles of any airport, in conditions of reduced visibility, where any bird activity is expected or under special VFR clearance. 11. If the aircraft is equipped with a transponder, turn it on and adjust it to reply on both Mode 3/A and Mode C (if installed). Transponders substantially increase the capability of radar to see all aircraft and the MODE C feature enables the controller to quickly determine where potential traffic conflicts exist. Even VFR pilots who are not in contact with ATC will be afforded greater protection from IFR aircraft receiving traffic advisories. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR PART 91.413, WHILE IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE, EACH PILOT OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH AN OPERABLE ATC TRANSPONDER MAINTAINED SHALL OPERATE THE TRANSPONDER, INCLUDING MODE C IF INSTALLED, ON THE APPROPRIATE MODE OR AS ASSIGNED BY ATC. IN CLASS G AIRSPACE, THE TRANSPONDER SHOULD BE OPERATING WHILE AIRBORNE UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUESTED BY ATC. 12. ABOVE ALL, AVOID COMPLACENCY. VISION IN FLIGHT The most advanced piece of flight equipment in any aircraft is the human eye, and since the number one cause of Midair Collisions is the failure to adhere to the see-and-avoid concept, efficient use of visual techniques and knowledge of the eye’s limitations will help pilots avoid collisions. Your vision’s clarity is influenced by some characteristics of the objects you are viewing, including: a. Your distance from the object b. The size, shape, and movement of the object c. The amount of light reflected by the object d. The object’s contrast with the surrounding environment You cannot see all objects in your field of vision with equal clarity. Visual acuity is best in a central area of about 10 to 15 degrees and decreases steadily toward the periphery of the visual field. A similar limitation of the eyes is binocular vision. For the brain to believe what is being seen, visual cues must be received from both eyes. The mind seldom believes that the object is really there if it is visible to one eye but obstructed from the other by a strut or windshield frame. A visual limitation that few pilots are aware of is the time the eyes require to focus on an object. Focusing is all automatic reaction, but to change focus from a nearby object, such as an instrument panel, to an aircraft one mile away, may take two or more seconds. PROPER CLEARING/SCANNING TECHNIQUES An efficient scan pattern is paramount to visual collision avoidance procedures. In developing a proper scan technique, remember that when your head is in motion, vision is blurred and the brain will not be able to identify conflicting traffic. Therefore a constant motion scan across the windscreen is practically useless. A proper scan technique is to divide your field of vision into blocks approximately 10 to 15 degrees wide. Examine each block individually using a system that you find comfortable (e g. from left to right or starting from the left and moving to the right, then back to the left again). This method enables you to detect any movement in a single block. It takes only a few seconds to focus on a single block and detect conflicting traffic. A moving target attracts attention and is relatively easy to see. A stationary target or one that is not moving in your windscreen is very difficult to detect and is the one that can result in a MIDAIR COLLISION. The time to perceive and recognize an aircraft, become aware of a collision potential and decide on appropriate action, may vary from as little as 2 seconds to as much as 10 seconds or more depending on the pilot, type of aircraft and geometry of the closing situation. Aircraft reaction time must also be added. By the way, any evasive maneuver contemplated should include maintaining visual contact with the other aircraft if practical. RADAR ADVISORY SERVICE As an aid to mid-air collision avoidance, Anchorage Approach Control provides radar advisories to VFR aircraft upon request. A transponder is required within Class C Airspace. To obtain radar advisories, state your position, altitude, and intentions, then request radar advisories. Once radar contact is established, traffic advisories will be issued for IFR and known VFR traffic (controller workload permitting). LOW LEVEL FLYING IN THE MAT-SU VALLEY AND R-2203 Military C-130s (Hercules) and HH-60 (Pavehawk) helicopters frequently fly low-level training missions in the Mat-Su Valley. Use of this area is necessary due to the greater distances and time required to fly to areas outside the Anchorage Bowl and the close proximity of a certified drop/landing zone inside R-2203. The depiction on the opposite page is an overlay of just a few of the dozens of routes flown by these crews, and is shown to illustrate how extensively the military uses this area. Altitudes as low as 300’ for the C-130 and down to the surface for the HH-60 are commonly flown. In the interest of noise abatement, flights are conducted no lower than 1000 feet in the Wasilla area (east of Willow and Big Lake). Crews also attempt to avoid heavily congested areas like the mouth of the Deshka, Lake Creek, and Talachulitna River during fishing season. Position reports are broadcast on valley common (122.8/122.9) throughout the routes. It is easy to realize just how congested the Mat-Su Valley can get on a VFR day! See and avoid procedures are paramount. Run-ins to the Drop Zones (R-2203) are normally flown from the north, starting west of the New Wasilla airport southbound into R-2203. Occasionally, a westerly run-in into R2203 is flown. Aircraft operating on the Landing Zone and Drop Zones within R-2203 will normally exit the area to the west toward Goose Bay, setting up for landings at Elmendorf AFB or Anchorage International. R-2203 is a very active military training area, including live artillery firing and maneuvers. Overflight should be avoided when status is “HOT”. Status can he obtained from Elmendorf Tower (127.2), ATIS (124.3), or Anchorage Approach (118.6/119.1). MILITARY OPERATION AREAS Military Operating Areas (MOA) are used by military aircraft for air- to-air and air-to-ground training. If you are flying through an active MOA, it is a good idea to consult Anchorage Approach Control (118.6) to determine if operations are being conducted and their general location. If you can, avoid flight in the MOA while operations are being conducted. According to the Aeronautical Instruction Manual “Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact FSS within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real-time information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories”. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote: Minimizing the effects of jamming for anything other than a military grade, high power jammer is a fairly trivial problem but civilians have no interest as it is in the real civilian world a non problem not worth spending a single dime. ... What makes you think that if there were a solar flare large enough to "knock them all out at once" there would even be a functioning power grid? This appears to be a case of someone who is disliked saying that 1.1 + 1 ~= 2 and someone who should know better dragging what would be a perfectly reasonable assertion through the mud. For the record, solar flares can interfere with GPS signals, probably seriously: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...es.gps.TO.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/...s-in-2011.html No ****, but that's not the point. The original statement was a solar flare large enough to "knock them all out at once", which would take one hell of a solar flare and would likely be a global catastrophe. And if you are really serious about the subject, the run of the mill flare will cause a temporary signal loss, which aviation GPS will detect, and there is no particular reason to suspect that the current sunspot cycle will prove to be anything other than run of the mill. FYI the current solar flux is 74, mid-latitude A index is 26, the mid-latitude K index is 3, and the SSN is 43. If you want to worry about things with remote possibilities, worry about a huge CME that hits the Earth which would fry everything electronic. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(USA) US/Mexico "airspace" (boundary) files available | Tuno | Soaring | 4 | March 27th 10 07:17 PM |
some planes [11 of 11] "old-air-planes-crashed-underwater-photos-pictures.jpg" yEnc (1/1) | No Name | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 9th 09 09:36 PM |
On Sharing airspace with "non-rated UAV "pilots" | vaughn | Piloting | 15 | March 15th 09 04:08 PM |
"Fly Baby, you violated Class B Airspace" | Ron Wanttaja | Piloting | 27 | September 5th 07 08:30 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Connecticut To Get "Creamed" By Airspace Redesign Change? | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 0 | August 8th 06 02:42 PM |