Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 24 June 17, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

BOYER NAMED TO COUNCIL THAT WILL HELP DEFINE NEW ATC SYSTEM
AOPA President Phil Boyer was appointed June 13 to the executive
committee of the council that will work with the federal
government to define a new air traffic control system.


Oooo-ooo. My initial fear is justified. A *new* system. When Ford tried
to build a *new* car, they produced the Edsel.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?

I suggest you read comp.risks.

I've never subscribed to that newsgroup. How is it pertinent to this
topic?

in comp.risks you get to read about the truly bizarre and amazing ways
people trust computer systems. It goes way beyond the idiotic concept
of "it came out of the computer so it must be right"



I hope you aren't suggesting that computerized ATC could be trusted
more than people or that cheats couldn't find a way around a computer
system.

I was just pondering what might change when the inevitable ATC
computerization is implemented. I would suspect that there would be
no incentive bonuses available then, so no motivation would exist to
cheat by under reporting operational errors.

incentive bonuses and computerized ATC are not mutually exclusive.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 24 June 17, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

BOYER NAMED TO COUNCIL THAT WILL HELP DEFINE NEW ATC SYSTEM
AOPA President Phil Boyer was appointed June 13 to the executive
committee of the council that will work with the federal
government to define a new air traffic control system.


Oooo-ooo. My initial fear is justified. A *new* system. When Ford tried
to build a *new* car, they produced the Edsel.

Which (IIRC) was very advanced for it's time but badly marketed and oddly
styled for it's day.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 24 June 17, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

BOYER NAMED TO COUNCIL THAT WILL HELP DEFINE NEW ATC SYSTEM
AOPA President Phil Boyer was appointed June 13 to the executive
committee of the council that will work with the federal
government to define a new air traffic control system.


Oooo-ooo. My initial fear is justified. A *new* system. When Ford
tried
to build a *new* car, they produced the Edsel.

Which (IIRC) was very advanced for it's time but badly marketed and oddly
styled for it's day.


Like many *new computer systems*, it was overhyped, too expensive, had
worse-than-predicted maintenance requirements, and the support network was
ill-equipped to actually support it. It did have its innovations but in the
final analysis it was just another car, and yes it *was* oddly styled for
its day.

Like many *new computer systems*, it was overhyped, too expensive, had
worse-than-predicted maintenance requirements, and the support network was
ill-equipped to actually support it. It did have its innovations but in the
final analysis it was just another car, and yes it *was* oddly styled for
its day.

You wouldn't be talking about the Beech Starship, would you?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The FAA can't get STARS into hardly any facilities, you think this new
system will make it to any?



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:13:29 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::



Larry Dighera wrote:

Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?

The computer doesn't report anything at TRACON's.


That may change in the futu

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 24 June 17, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

BOYER NAMED TO COUNCIL THAT WILL HELP DEFINE NEW ATC SYSTEM
AOPA President Phil Boyer was appointed June 13 to the executive
committee of the council that will work with the federal
government to define a new air traffic control system. Boyer is
the only representative of small general aviation aircraft on the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) Institute's
Industry Management council. It is heavily populated with leaders
from the airline and commercial aviation industry. "Not only is
AOPA fighting for GA access to airspace and airports in 2005, but
the association also is keeping its members at the forefront of
this long-term government/industry effort to ensure that GA pilots
will continue to have that access in 2025," Boyer said. See AOPA
Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...0613boyer.html ).

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:21:35 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::


The FAA can't get STARS into hardly any facilities, you think this new
system will make it to any?

It is unfortunate about STARS. But I believe further incremental ATC
automation is inevitable. It's just a question of time and money.
The will seems to be there.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:21:35 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::


The FAA can't get STARS into hardly any facilities, you think this new
system will make it to any?

It is unfortunate about STARS. But I believe further incremental ATC
automation is inevitable. It's just a question of time and money.
The will seems to be there.

The key word is "incremental".

People hate "incremental" because it smacks of "Band-Aid" "patching"
"putting money into an old system", etc..., They want this "new system" that
will immediately be all things to all people, as evidenced by the quotes
which you posted earlier.

If you could only get them to accept "incremental". It can be sloppy along
the way with two-steps-forward-one-step-back, but at the end of 25 years,
the system would probably compare very favourably against "today".


From what I read, STARS began with "a rocky start" in 1996, and in 2001 the
Executive vice president of Raytheon was testifying to the subcommittee that
"software development for Full STARS is nearing completion and is low risk."
http://www.house.gov/transportation/...archilena.html


And now I read from you "It is *unfortunate* about STARS" ?????!!!!!!

Well, not just from you. Here is a quote from the US Newswire just
yesterday (June 28) at:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49584

"Boston Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), the country's newest
Federal Aviation Administration consolidated facility, is suffering from
numerous problems and technical failures related to radio and land-line
communications as well as the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement
System (STARS), which is becoming not only a source of daily concern to air
traffic controllers at the 18-month-old facility but an aviation safety
concern as well."

Just the kind of stuff the travelling public wants to read 10 years and 1.7
billion later.

In the end, will STARS be one of the two-steps-forward-one-step-back
increments along the way, nothing more... albeit an expensive one???