|
| 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 |
|
#2
June 12th 08, 05:44 AM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
[Warning: Long Post]
On Jun 11, 6:21*am, Larry Dighera wrote: Here's the announcement: * * NEXTGEN COMES TO FLORIDA VIA DAYJET *(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#198074) I think this post is interesting. I was about to write a post about NextGen, and the PAV program, so I will piggy-back here. After poking around the Internet of the last year or so, I have concluded that there is significant ossification in the lower-echelons of innovation in aviation. What I mean by ossification is a bit hard to describe, but I will try: It seems that there is a historical dynamic that has been created by pilots, aircraft manufacturers, parts manufacturers, FBO's, etc. The dynamic is a bit complex, but the net result is that costs associated with owning and operating aircraft seems to be far higher than they should be. Each time I open GA News, Private Pilot, etc I see components that sell for far more than they could. Sometimes the cost is 10x or even more than what they could be. Some of you will resurrect the argument that costs are driven by certification, which I disagree with, but we can still discuss. I think these costs are driven more by a circuitous, incestuous dynamic that has been created by the aviation community, rooted in early days of aviation and what it takes to become a proficient pilot. So what does NextGen have to do with this? NextGen, it seems to me, is an attempt to brake this ossification (pun intended). Take for example an examination of the word choice of FAA officials who speak about technological advancement in aviation. In every article I have read about NextGen, the protagonist always takes great pain to preemptively reassure pilots that NextGen represents a benefit to them, not a detriment. Why? Each time I ask myself, "Which pilots in the aviation community are so blind that they cannot see that this is good for aviation? Which pilots are so sensitive that the protagonist goes to such lengths so as not to offend them?" I think the reassurance is necessary because there is an intransigence that has developed over the last 80 years in aviation, and the FAA offiicials are acutely aware of the danger of disturbing it. This intransigence seems to be rooted in a philosophy of anti- technology, anti-commodity, anti-advancement. To me, the objectives of NextGen are virtuous, and valuable. If realized, they would open up aviation to a much wider audience. They would provide an evolutionary path from the unscaleable hub-and-spoke model driven primarily by commercial aviation toward a new model where the aircraft and the flying experience becomes very personal, much like driving a car. Not long ago, I had errononeous, preconceived notions that the FAA was the major impediment to technological advancement. I was wrong about the FAA. The FAA is not the problem. I had a similar experience with the FCC. I learned a decade ago that the FCC is very liberal when it comes to experimentation with new technologies. One would think that FCC would be a burden, handicapping and snapping at any attempt to advance the field through unorthodox experimentation, so as not to allow "interference" by disruptive devices. But quite the opposite is true. The FCC *wants* engineers to experiment, so long as they follow a few rules and not disrupt service of deployed technology. What I have seen, to my surprise, is that the FAA has the exact same attitude. They *want* aircraft designs to build the New-And-Improved. And thus is the thesis of my post: It seems that, if there is any blame for the slow progress toward personalizing aviation, it lies not with the FAA, as the FAA is bending over backward trying to get the aviation community to go futuristic, as exemplified by NextGen. I think a big part of the ossification comes from the most suprising sub-group of all - the pilots themselves. Take the CAFE/PAV Challenge for example: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/main_home.php I found this program utterly fascinating when I first read about it. Then I read about the entrants during the 2007 contest. It was embarrassing. The contestants entered no new, experimental aircraft aimed at solving the problems outlined by the contest, but existing commercial aircraft. I made a mental excuse..."Maybe they will do better next year. After all, the program might be only 2 or 3 years old." Then I found that the program is over a decade old. Granted, making an aircraft of any kind is extremely complex, but it is the _attitude_ toward doing so that seems to be an issue. This attitude, which I still find incredible odd, can be seen in pilot's regard toward cost of aircraft components. There are components that I see in aircraft that where the cost is simply outrageous. I know that the raw component in a standard FM receiver cost less than $2.00US. No aircraft is going to fall from the sky if a "cheap" FM radio is built around such a component for, say, $20, and fails. But if one attempts to get an FM radio for his aircraft, the price goes sky-high, with all kinds of questionable justifications. What is remarkable is that the main supporters of the justifications comes not just from the manufacturers, but the pilots themselves. It is almost as if the pilots willing pay whatever it costs to maintain their hobby, and accept it because their financial positions allow them to, almost like a rite of passage, a ticket to an exclusive club that, though costly, places them in a distinguished position, unreachable by the fiscally-challenged. This is why NextGen is somewhat a depressing proposition, in its current state. I imagine that there are multiple proponents within the FAA who are extremely excited by the possibilities of NextGen, and so are pursuing the relationship with the State of Florida and Embry-Riddle University as a means of accelerating progress toward tangible results. But there is a problem here - someone has to know how to actually do the thing. Who are these people, these designers, engineers, technicians, visionaries, who know the details, of how to do the thing? Are they in Florida? Are they at ER? I do research in computer networking of wired and wirless devices. I am intimately familiar with what is required to achieve true mobility of networked devices. The following sentence from the article caught my attention: "• Networked digital radios that will bring the speed and knowledge-gathering qualities of the Internet into the cockpit. " The solution to this problem is non-trivial, and if it is done right, requires simultaneous application of concepts from electrical engineering, computer science, and mathematics. It is difficult for me to see these solutions being solved in a peripheral field like aviation when the people in computer science and electrical engineering are already struggling very hard to solve the exact same problem (though, that does not mean that someone from aviation will be successful). And this problem, the mobility problem, is only one of many problems that must be solved to realized within the vision of NextGen. [Ironically, the people who decided to solve the mobility problem, and the redo-the-Internet problem in general, named their philosophy NextGen too.] So that is the pity: The FAA very much wants the aviation community to think futuristic. But perhaps they realized that the devil really is in the details. Perhaps they realized that, to show progress, they must incite those who know how to do the thing. W this agreement with Florida and ER, they begin a risky scramble, a gamble where vision might fail to precipitate to substance, because problem-solving requires disciplined, unfettered, imaginative thought, and the expectation of success stimulated by premature promises often has a strong tendency to eliminate to opportunity for disciplined thought and fetters much. Who is responsible for this situation? It is not the fault of research organizations like NASA, etc. They have their hands full, and they do offer token awards and grants, under programs like CAFE/PAV, and to universities, respectively. It is not the fault of the FAA. They are practically begging for someone to go ballistic with a solution. It is not the fault of commercial aviation. I see no barriers-to-entry being created here, though it would not be unreasonable to assume that, *if* someone were to create a PAV under the NextGen model, the airliners would not sit idly by. It is not the fault of the non-pilots. Most non-pilots, like myself, assume that, if it were possible to be better, cheaper, etc., it would have been by now. After all, who in his right mind pays 5x as much for something than what he could? I think a large responsibility lies with the pilots. While it is not the pilot's job to create futuristic aircraft, I think the pilots, more than any group, has the responsible for setting the moral compass, and providing primary impetus toward innovation. I think every pilot everwhere should be asking himself/herself a simple question: "Can this be done better, and if so, how much better?" Then expect better, and insist on it. -Le Chaud Lapin- 
|
|
#3
June 13th 08, 06:41 PM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
On Jun 13, 12:55*am, Kevin Horner wrote:
In article 68cfc995-e65d-4c73-aad9-2f4bb6f24f16 @d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, says... This intransigence seems to be rooted in a philosophy of anti- technology, anti-commodity, anti-advancement. Not really. Your goals are different from a pilot's. A pilot wants to fly a plane. You want to fly a car. I want something like this: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php /* 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? -Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
#4
June 13th 08, 07:20 PM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
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. The reason you are seeing the LSA's showing some significant innovation is simply because they need not go through FAA approval - they are built to an ASTM consensus standard. Honestly, that's how all non-commercial use aircraft should be built - but I doubt you will ever see that sort of change. Michael
|
|
#5
June 13th 08, 09:11 PM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
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. That is exactly what I was going to write.
|
|
#6
June 13th 08, 11:04 PM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. The reason you are seeing the LSA's showing some significant innovation is simply because they need not go through FAA approval - they are built to an ASTM consensus standard. *Honestly, that's how all non-commercial use aircraft should be built - but I doubt you will ever see that sort of change. 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 think this is one of the reasons that NASA and other government organizations have begun to sponsor challenges like CAFE/PAV, so that innovation can reclaim first priority. I also think that if someone were to build a PAV that satisfied all the criteria outlined on the CAFE site, it would be very hard for anyone at the FAA to stop it. The pressure to act objectively and responsibly would simply be too great. -Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
#7
June 13th 08, 11:47 PM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
On Jun 13, 6:04*pm, Le Chaud Lapin 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. No, not for whatever reason. For the very simple reason that it is not proven technology. And how would it get to be proven technology? Well, you would need a bunch of them in the air for a long time. Catch-22. I think this is one of the reasons that NASA and other government organizations *have begun to sponsor challenges like CAFE/PAV, so that innovation can reclaim first priority. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Making a PAV is not about breakthrough-type innovation. You can't use bleeding edge technology in something that the consumer must use that can easily kill him. It's never done in cars, for example. It's all about incremental improvement. Think about what cars were like before Henry Ford decided to commoditize them. Well, that's what airplanes are STILL like. And even after Henry Ford risked his own considerable personal fortune on that technology, it still took decades to get to the point where someone who understood nothing whatsoever about engines, mechanical structures, the dynamics of tires, road design, or really much of anything else could just buy a car and take off cross country - and get there reliably and reasonably safely. BTW - despite the decades of ever-improving technology and evolving safety regulation, driving is STILL the most dangerous thing most americans do on a regular basis. Imagine what it would have been like if the federal government had decided to regulate driving on a national level just a couple of decades after the first cars appeared on the US roads. Imagine if every design change needed federal approval. There never would have been a Henry Ford. There never will be a Henry Ford of the airplane world until you abolish the power of the FAA to regulate the manufacture of personal aircraft. I also think that if someone were to build a PAV that satisfied all the criteria outlined on the CAFE site, it would be very hard for anyone at the FAA to stop it. Don't worry about that - with proven technology it is impossible, and there isn't the money available to do it all at once on a maybe anyway. *The pressure to act objectively and responsibly would simply be too great. You're just not getting it - the FAA engineering people are acting objectively and responsibly by their own lights. They are keeping unproven technology out of the air, keeping it from killing people. And in the short term they are right! Regulating aviation made it safer - at first. It's just that the regulations stifled progress. In the automotive world, by the time safety rules kicked in, it was possible to consistently test cars and create objective tests. This allowed the design engineer to use whatever technology he wished, as long as the final design met the objective tests. This was not possible when the type certification rules were implemented for aircraft, so the rules had to be precriptive. At the time they were written, they represented the best of the proven technology. It's just that now they are hopelessly behind the times. What you would really need to do is rewrite all the rules - and there is nobody out there to do it unless you draw on the expertise of the experimental designers - Rutan, Heinz, Nieubauer, VanGrunsven. And how is an FAA bureaucrat to know how to tell the difference between them and a Bede - or Moller? And if you do rewrite the rules, all you do is freeze technology where it is in the popular experimentals now - which would be better but still not good enough to get you that PAV. So if you ever want to get there, the only solution is to remove the stifling regulation - and accept the body count that will follow. Michael
|
|
#8
June 14th 08, 03:25 AM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
On Jun 13, 5:47*pm, Michael wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:04*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: No, not for whatever reason. *For the very simple reason that it is not proven technology. *And how would it get to be proven technology? Well, you would need a bunch of them in the air for a long time. Catch-22. I thought about this. It would seem that something truly revolutionary would almost certainly result in some collateral damage. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. *Making a PAV is not about breakthrough-type innovation. *You can't use bleeding edge technology in something that the consumer must use that can easily kill him. It's never done in cars, for example. *It's all about incremental improvement. Incremental improvement is part of the problem. If one takes a $200,000 aircraft and painstakingly shave 7% off the cost, it would still cost $186,000. I think this situation occurs in almost all engineering disciplines. Incremental is safe and manageable. Disruptive can have huge rewards, but this risk is significant. The US Department of Defense recognized this (or rather, a few insightful individuals in DARPA), and created the Advanced Technology Program (ATP): ATP's overarching goal is "to accelerate private investment in and development of high-risk, broad-impact technologies". I spoke to someone at ATP a while back, and they confirmed that they are interested in "funding projects that no one else would touch". The gentleman said that they wanted to fund extremely high risk, extremely high reward type research. It was clear from the conversation that this program was created specifically to facilitate "big kills". I think a PAV would fall into big-kill category. Think about what cars were like before Henry Ford decided to commoditize them. *Well, that's what airplanes are STILL like. *And even after Henry Ford risked his own considerable personal fortune on that technology, it still took decades to get to the point where someone who understood nothing whatsoever about engines, mechanical structures, the dynamics of tires, road design, or really much of anything else could just buy a car and take off cross country - and get there reliably and reasonably safely. *BTW - despite the decades of ever-improving technology and evolving safety regulation, driving is STILL the most dangerous thing most americans do on a regular basis. Yes, that's true. Let me add to that, the effect of The Scramble: I do work in wireless devices for digital communication and the networking software that goes with. I can recall countless situations where the state-of-the-art for a device or code was far from optimal. Many people in the field know what optimal is, but..there is an obstacle: money. People take the sub-optimal and make large amounts of money from it. People watching people make money, and join in (whether they were meant to be in the field or not). Also, the sub- optimal thing works. People use it, and like it, because it is infinitely better than what they had befo nothing. Before long, an industry is created where there is a large number of players, all jockeying to be on top. What gets lost in this scramble is appreciation for innovation. Management takes over, and management requires a reduction of risk. Every once in a while, someone who is perhaps predisposed to innovate that field will resurrect the power of innovation with something new, and either get sued, bought, or, if lucky, lauded for establishing the new standard by which future generations of incremental improvements will be measutred. Programs like DARPA's ATP were meant to break this cycle, by offering, up-front, significant funding for someone willing to spent (potentially fruitless) years of their career going for the Big Kill, the new standard in the design of the system. Imagine what it would have been like if the federal government had decided to regulate driving on a national level just a couple of decades after the first cars appeared on the US roads. *Imagine if every design change needed federal approval. *There never would have been a Henry Ford. *There never will be a Henry Ford of the airplane world until you abolish the power of the FAA to regulate the manufacture of personal aircraft. Hmm....yes, that's a problem. Don't worry about that - with proven technology it is impossible, and there isn't the money available to do it all at once on a maybe anyway. I find it hard to believe that the steady-state model for a PAV, if it is ever to exist, is what one sees when one looks at a Cessna, or a slightly-modified version thereof. Also, how many people start with clean slates? It took almost 20 years in my field for the designers of the original Internet to realize that incremental is sometimes a very bad idea. Now everyone is talking about redoing the entire thing. Stanford even named their go at it "Clean Slate" (http:// cleanslate.stanford.edu/about_cleanslate.php). The waste of duct- taping the old Internet (IPv6) has simply been massive. Hundreds of millions of dollars from US Government alone was given for researchers to tweak a bit here, a bit there. And what we are left with is something strikingly atrocious from an aesthetic perspective. But the similar arguments were made in 1990 that the best way to move forward was not to change too much too soon. Now they are saying the exact opposite. I think with revolutionary ideas (that is, essentially, what PAV represents afterall), one really has to think outside the box. The standard should be set high, extremely high. Every criteria listed on the PAV web site should be provided to the researcher as requirements. Some requirements will force the designer to relinquish the notion that tweaking is best way to succeed, like prescribing a $50,000 limit on total cost. I think that, if this is not done, many designers will have an extremely strong urge to go find the first Rotax engine that is within budget, and start building from it. The good thing about this approach is that, if the standards turn out to be too high, then that's ok, at least it will be known that the standard was set too high. But right now, many designers are tweaking existing designs. You're just not getting it - the FAA engineering people are acting objectively and responsibly by their own lights. *They are keeping unproven technology out of the air, keeping it from killing people. And in the short term they are right! *Regulating aviation made it safer - at first. *It's just that the regulations stifled progress. Makes sense. Don't you think though that, if a PAV were made, FAA would make accommodations for experimentation? In the automotive world, by the time safety rules kicked in, it was possible to consistently test cars and create objective tests. *This allowed the design engineer to use whatever technology he wished, as long as the final design met the objective tests. *This was not possible when the type certification rules were implemented for aircraft, so the rules had to be precriptive. *At the *time they were written, they represented the best of the proven technology. *It's just that now they are hopelessly behind the times. So chicken and egg again. What you would really need to do is rewrite all the rules - and there is nobody out there to do it unless you draw on the expertise of the experimental designers *- Rutan, Heinz, Nieubauer, VanGrunsven. *And how is an FAA bureaucrat to know how to tell the difference between them and a Bede - or Moller? *And if you do rewrite the rules, all you do is freeze technology where it is in the popular experimentals now - which would be better but still not good enough to get you that PAV. Yes. I was thinking of Rutan and Heinz as I wrote. [Thanks for other names.] I think the only way to break the impasse is to actually make something that works. I think something like ATP program would be best way to go. Anything short of that leaves too much opportunity for discord. So if you ever want to get there, the only solution is to remove the stifling regulation - and accept the body count that will follow. Or maybe make something? There seems to be a *huge* amount of interest in seeing the end product, whether it is legalized or not. If someone were to make a PAV that satified the CAFE criteria, there would be a frenzy in the media. They already get excited by Moller's contraption.  I plan to check over at DARPA's ATP to see what they have going for aviation early next week. -Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
#9
June 14th 08, 04:11 AM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
Kevin Horner writes:
And you would know this because you are a pilot, a private plane builder and/or a member of the aircraft component industry? Anyone who is reasonably intelligent and well read can discuss any subject in a useful way. One need not have a specific job or credential to do so.
|
|
#10
June 14th 08, 04:40 PM
posted to rec.aviation.piloting
|
|||
|
|||
|
NextGen ATC To Be Deployed Throughout The State Of Florida
"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. 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. 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. -- Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion, several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. ~ Mark Twain
|
|
| 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 |
Linear Mode
