Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS

Your conveyance of information through written text being somewhat
sub-optimal, I’m trying to work through what you are trying to say. 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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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

In article ,
says...


Among other things, I said the FAA isn't as competent as you seem to
think they are.

I can accept your judgment, but to think they have not dealt with scenarios as
obvious as GPS blackouts in developing the new system, as MXIDIOT suggests, is
patently ridiculous.


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.

Which engineering features? Are you an engineer? I am. Are you a pilot? I am.
Are you instrument/commercial rated? I am. Why is it that you say ADS-B "sucks"
when I don't see it that way? Tell us what is wrong with it.


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?

As you know from your engineering and aviation background, obstacle avoidance
is not really a primary ATC function. I do not mean to discredit your argument,
but primary ATC functions are concerned with systemic risks (other aircraft)
while terrain and local hazards are relegated to more basic avoidance
procedures. ADS-B is an air traffic control protocol, not a terrain or obstacle
avoidance protocol.



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.

Well, if you start by telling me what collision avoidance is provided by
VOR/DME's then we're on course! VOR's enhance collision opportunities by
placing multiple aircraft in the same position. Avoiding same is progress.

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”.

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.

writes:

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.

That's the way people usually feel until someone is killed, then they
overreact.

Yeah, and anyone can make a big bomb and blow up a building.

The response to both would be the same.

The fact that it can be done doesn't mean that the risk should be disregarded.

Which is but one reason civilian jamming is a non problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by civilians. I suppose terrorists or troublemakers
would not necessarily be active members of any military organization.

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?

They don't have to all be knocked out at once.

writes:

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.

If your GPS becomes unreliable, and you have no other means of navigation,
what do you do? Just knowing that GPS has failed doesn't help you much if you
have no back-up.