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

[Mxsmanic]

See

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-05-28-aircontrol28_ST_N.htm

I assume by "commercial" airspace they mean areas like Class A-B or A-C.

And by "GPS" they appear to mean not just GPS but ADS-B.

The article doesn't say which private aircraft will be expected to install
this equipment, but the deadline is 2020.

I hope the government will not use this as an excuse to decommission VORs.
VORs are the only back-up for a satellite system that is easily jammed or
spoofed (unless you have an INS, but there aren't too many small single-engine
aircraft so equipped).

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

If your ‘aviation interest’ is insufficient to inspire you to monitor more
authoritative sources than USA Today, your reporting is condemned to be as
spotty and non precise as theirs.

The mandate just issued is for ADS-B OUT by 2020 in all aircraft operating in
airspace where a transponder is required today. You may not know exactly what
that means (and in fairness, many pilots may be rusty on this as well), but
they will simply look it up, which is what you should do as well if you’re
willing to go beyond USA Today. This requirement, by the way, is the first
implementation mandate for the system you dismissed as fiction only a few days
ago.

As for VOR’s, the FAA NextGen roadmap clearly indicates a decommissioning of
this system. They do not appear to share your concern that the satellite
system is 'easily jammed' and they are unlikely to consult with you before
decommissioning the VOR’s.




In article >,
says...
>
>
>See
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-05-28-aircontrol28_ST_N.htm
>
>I assume by "commercial" airspace they mean areas like Class A-B or A-C.
>
>And by "GPS" they appear to mean not just GPS but ADS-B.
>
>The article doesn't say which private aircraft will be expected to install
>this equipment, but the deadline is 2020.
>
>I hope the government will not use this as an excuse to decommission VORs.
>VORs are the only back-up for a satellite system that is easily jammed or
>spoofed (unless you have an INS, but there aren't too many small
single-engine
>aircraft so equipped).

[Mark]

On May 29, 5:17*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-05-28-aircontrol28_ST_N.htm
>
> I assume by "commercial" airspace they mean areas like Class A-B or A-C.
>
> And by "GPS" they appear to mean not just GPS but ADS-B.
>
> The article doesn't say which private aircraft will be expected to install
> this equipment, but the deadline is 2020.
>
> I hope the government will not use this as an excuse to decommission VORs..
> VORs are the only back-up for a satellite system that is easily jammed or
> spoofed (unless you have an INS, but there aren't too many small single-engine
> aircraft so equipped).

I carry my waterproof, handheld Lowrance as a
backup. Good for the boat or plane and works
perfectly with independent battery. However, I
haven't taken it underwater and hope not to.

Decommissioning a redundancy system has to
be weighed against the benefit/loss of doing so.

---
Mark

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

On May 29, 4:17*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I hope the government will not use this as an excuse to decommission VORs..
> VORs are the only back-up for a satellite system that is easily jammed or
> spoofed (unless you have an INS, but there aren't too many small single-engine
> aircraft so equipped).

Why do you care? It doesn't affect MSFS.

BTW, you really demonstrate how clueless you are for real world
flying.

If the satellite system is jammed it's just not ONLY going to affect
small engine airplanes. I use the very same satellites in my Garmin
430 and 296 as the airliners do.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If the satellite system is jammed it's just not ONLY going to affect
> small engine airplanes. I use the very same satellites in my Garmin
> 430 and 296 as the airliners do.

It will affect any aircraft dependent upon GPS, and without a VOR back-up,
that will be very dangerous. GPS is trivially easy to jam and almost as easy
to spoof. Airliners might get by en-route with INS, but small aircraft
dependent on GPS will be up the creek, and airliners on approach will be in
danger as well (especially if ILS is decommissioned, too). WAAS does not help.
LAAS is harder to interfere with but interfering with the LAAS transmissions
isn't absolutely necessary to mess up the system. RAIM doesn't help against
spoofing, and although it may detect jamming, that doesn't help much, either,
if you're entirely dependent on GPS and you no longer have it.

And in fact ADS-B is trivially easy to spoof, too. So the airplanes "seen"
via ADS-B may not actually be there, or they may not be where they appear to
be.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> As for VOR’s, the FAA NextGen roadmap clearly indicates a decommissioning of
> this system. They do not appear to share your concern that the satellite
> system is 'easily jammed' and they are unlikely to consult with you before
> decommissioning the VOR’s.

The FAA may come to regret their unwillingness to consider the security
issues.

It's odd that people are so willing to overlook security in their rush to
adopt new technology, and then they claim that they never knew the risks when
bad things start to happen. It's always Someone Else's fault.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In fairness to MX I think he meant that in the event of GPS unavailability,
airliners would be able to resort to their INS navigators, which small planes
do not have. I am not sure though that airliners will continue to be equipped
with INS systems after NextGen implementation, and even if they are this is
not good enough, as it cannot reliably provide better than RNP 1.0 and has no
approach capability. Many were hoping that LORAN-C would be retained and even
developed as a backup, but that was dashed recently when the system was
definitively abandoned. VOR’s are costly to maintain, and the FAA wants to
move away from them as quickly as possible (going back to my statement that
Victor airways are obsolescent and pilots so equipped should be filing \G as
much as possible already).

It could be that the best backup for GPS will be other satellite-based
structures, GONASS or soon to be GALILEO.




In article
>,
says...

>
>If the satellite system is jammed it's just not ONLY going to affect
>small engine airplanes. I use the very same satellites in my Garmin
>430 and 296 as the airliners do.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> In fairness to MX I think he meant that in the event of GPS unavailability,
> airliners would be able to resort to their INS navigators, which small planes
> do not have.

Yes.

> I am not sure though that airliners will continue to be equipped
> with INS systems after NextGen implementation, and even if they are this is
> not good enough, as it cannot reliably provide better than RNP 1.0 and has no
> approach capability.

That is one of my concerns also.

> Many were hoping that LORAN-C would be retained and even
> developed as a backup, but that was dashed recently when the system was
> definitively abandoned.

Thanks to the same reckless policies that may decommission VORs and ultimately
ILS.

> VOR’s are costly to maintain, and the FAA wants to
> move away from them as quickly as possible (going back to my statement that
> Victor airways are obsolescent and pilots so equipped should be filing \G as
> much as possible already).

Safety is expensive. If you don't care about safety, you can save a lot of
money.

VORs can be used for RNAV, too. Flight management systems already do this,
since they use a blend of navigational aids in order to provide a more
reliable and precise position for the aircraft.

> It could be that the best backup for GPS will be other satellite-based
> structures, GONASS or soon to be GALILEO.

They all have common failure modes and vulnerabilities. A solar flare could
knock them all out at once. The only way around this is to have alternate
methods for navigation, such as VORs.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...


>
>It will affect any aircraft dependent upon GPS, and without a VOR back-up,
>that will be very dangerous. GPS is trivially easy to jam and almost as easy
>to spoof. Airliners might get by en-route with INS, but small aircraft
>dependent on GPS will be up the creek, and airliners on approach will be in
>danger as well (especially if ILS is decommissioned, too). WAAS does not
help.
>LAAS is harder to interfere with but interfering with the LAAS transmissions
>isn't absolutely necessary to mess up the system. RAIM doesn't help against
>spoofing, and although it may detect jamming, that doesn't help much, either,
>if you're entirely dependent on GPS and you no longer have it.
>
>And in fact ADS-B is trivially easy to spoof, too. So the airplanes "seen"
>via ADS-B may not actually be there, or they may not be where they appear to
>be.


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!

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> In fairness to MX I think he meant that in the event of GPS unavailability,
>> airliners would be able to resort to their INS navigators, which small planes
>> do not have.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I am not sure though that airliners will continue to be equipped
>> with INS systems after NextGen implementation, and even if they are this is
>> not good enough, as it cannot reliably provide better than RNP 1.0 and has no
>> approach capability.
>
> That is one of my concerns also.
>
>> Many were hoping that LORAN-C would be retained and even
>> developed as a backup, but that was dashed recently when the system was
>> definitively abandoned.
>
> Thanks to the same reckless policies that may decommission VORs and ultimately
> ILS.
>
>> VOR’s are costly to maintain, and the FAA wants to
>> move away from them as quickly as possible (going back to my statement that
>> Victor airways are obsolescent and pilots so equipped should be filing \G as
>> much as possible already).
>
> Safety is expensive. If you don't care about safety, you can save a lot of
> money.
>
> VORs can be used for RNAV, too. Flight management systems already do this,
> since they use a blend of navigational aids in order to provide a more
> reliable and precise position for the aircraft.
>
>> It could be that the best backup for GPS will be other satellite-based
>> structures, GONASS or soon to be GALILEO.
>
> They all have common failure modes and vulnerabilities. A solar flare could
> knock them all out at once. The only way around this is to have alternate
> methods for navigation, such as VORs.

You have no clue what the jamming susceptibility of modern GPS is or what
features exist (current and planned) to thwart it.

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.

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>That is one of my concerns also.
>


I’m sure the FAA is relieved to know that you’re on the case, but 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 then you really have a leaky roof, and
probably a crack in the toilet bowl as well.

As far as the VOR’s are concerned, you’re barking up the wrong tree. ADS-B OUT
is the first mandated item, but far from the last. ADS-B IN will follow
shortly, CPLDC datalink and UAT transceivers as well. At this point we are one
ARINC fiber cable away from full ground-based control of every airplane in the
system (not that this is a stated goal, but to demonstrate that we are soon
achieving far better system integration than your 1980’s instrument textbook
lets on). So the VOR’s are really superfluous with a few exceptions, which
will be retained along with the odd NDB. It will be important to maintain a
minimum structure of surveillance radar as a backup, but then even though I
know the system ten times better than you do I would not be so presumptuous as
to imagine I have something to tell them about implementation.

Where the battle lines will be drawn is over the issue of cost per
participating aircraft and equipment mandates that the AOPA is likely to see
as overkill and overpriced for GA.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

> 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.

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> I’m sure the FAA is relieved to know that you’re on the case ...

The FAA has its head firmly buried in the sand.

> As far as the VOR’s are concerned, you’re barking up the wrong tree. ADS-B OUT
> is the first mandated item, but far from the last. ADS-B IN will follow
> shortly, CPLDC datalink and UAT transceivers as well. At this point we are one
> ARINC fiber cable away from full ground-based control of every airplane in the
> system (not that this is a stated goal, but to demonstrate that we are soon
> achieving far better system integration than your 1980’s instrument textbook
> lets on). So the VOR’s are really superfluous with a few exceptions, which
> will be retained along with the odd NDB.

What takes over when GPS fails? Loran is gone. NDBs and VORs supposedly will
be gone. What's left? A magnetic compass?

> It will be important to maintain a minimum structure of surveillance radar
> as a backup ...

Radar should be permanently retained. It helps prevent spoofing, for example.

> Where the battle lines will be drawn is over the issue of cost per
> participating aircraft and equipment mandates that the AOPA is likely to see
> as overkill and overpriced for GA.

The FAA seems to be much more a friend of airlines than a friend of GA.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>What takes over when GPS fails? Loran is gone. NDBs and VORs supposedly will
>be gone. What's left? A magnetic compass?
>

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 and the thread breaks down into accusations and recriminations. I
have been more than fair to MX, and he has backed himself into a corner,
consoled only by his own ignorance. This is where I sign off.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> I just told you, and you didn't get it.

None of the things you mention provides navigation capabilities. The aircraft
and its crew still have to be able to determine where they are. They cannot do
that with datalinks or other gadgets unrelated to navigation. Even remote
ground control of aircraft would require some sort of on-board navigation
system, unless the system relied on theoretical calculations and dead
reckoning, which would be hopelessly inaccurate in practice.

[george]

On May 30, 8:38*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
> > I just told you, and you didn't get it.
>
> None of the things you mention provides navigation capabilities. The aircraft
> and its crew still have to be able to determine where they are. They cannot do
> that with datalinks or other gadgets unrelated to navigation. Even remote
> ground control of aircraft would require some sort of on-board navigation
> system, unless the system relied on theoretical calculations and dead
> reckoning, which would be hopelessly inaccurate in practice.

Bloody hell but you're thick.
Didn't you read what he wrote and assimilate/understand the
information?

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jim Logajan]

george > wrote:
> On May 30, 8:38*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> VOR-DME writes:
>> > I just told you, and you didn't get it.
>>
>> None of the things you mention provides navigation capabilities. The
>> airc
> raft
>> and its crew still have to be able to determine where they are. They
>> cann
> ot do
>> that with datalinks or other gadgets unrelated to navigation. Even
>> remote ground control of aircraft would require some sort of on-board
>> navigation system, unless the system relied on theoretical
>> calculations and dead reckoning, which would be hopelessly inaccurate
>> in practice.
>
> Bloody hell but you're thick.
> Didn't you read what he wrote and assimilate/understand the
> information?

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.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article
>,
says...

>
>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.

The good news, for all involved, is that Microsoft no longer supports MSFS, so
the advantages and difficulties that those of us flying the real system face
will be completely lost on MSFS users like MX, hopelessly lost in a 1980's
world of air traffic regulation. Each day we live and fly keeps us up to date
on how the system works and evolves, while each day casts MX and his ilk
further into obsolescence and incomprehension. This distinction is useful.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jim Logajan]

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.
>
>

[Jim Logajan]

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/Sept06/solar.flares.gps.TO.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10189-solar-flares-will-disrupt-gps-in-2011.html

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

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.

[a[_3_]]

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”.

[[email protected]]

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/Sept06/solar.flares.gps.TO.html
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10189-solar-flares-will-disrupt-gps-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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> 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 wish that were true. But people have a tendency to avoid dealing with things
they don't like or don't understand, and organizations run by people have
exactly the same problem.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> The good news, for all involved, is that Microsoft no longer supports MSFS, so
> the advantages and difficulties that those of us flying the real system face
> will be completely lost on MSFS users like MX, hopelessly lost in a 1980's
> world of air traffic regulation.

Serious simmers do not use the built-in ATC of MSFS. And the product is still
supported, although it is no longer under active development. Were it to
disappear, there are alternatives such as X-Plane (not a pretty alternative,
I'll grant).

But none of this has anything to do with ADS-B.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 2:42*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:

> But none of this has anything to do with ADS-B.

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CREDIBILITY of working in the real
world.

Tell us, how much experience you have as PIC by FAA standards. Let me
guess it's zero.

[Jim[_26_]]

On 5/30/2010 2:29 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

There is ALWAYS a backup. Look out the window. You're following your
progress on a sectional and always know exactly where you are and where
the nearest suitable airport is. In IMC ATC with radar can guide you to
VFR conditions and/or a suitable airport. Or take a magnetic compass
bearing from your present position (which you know because you've been
following your progress on the chart) and with your airspeed and a timer
you can go to where it's safe.

As an aside, I remember from my training a LONG time ago that ATC can
use direction finding on your radio signal to give you your general
location. A "DF steer", I think it was called. Is that still available?

Jim

[Mxsmanic]

Jim writes:

> There is ALWAYS a backup. Look out the window.

In IMC?

> In IMC ATC with radar can guide you to VFR conditions and/or
> a suitable airport.

What radar? You don't need expensive radar with ADS-B, right?

> Or take a magnetic compass
> bearing from your present position (which you know because you've been
> following your progress on the chart) and with your airspeed and a timer
> you can go to where it's safe.

I'd like to see how many pilots could successfully do this.

> As an aside, I remember from my training a LONG time ago that ATC can
> use direction finding on your radio signal to give you your general
> location. A "DF steer", I think it was called. Is that still available?

I've heard of it. I suppose if the FAA is throwing away everything else,
they'll want to throw this away, too.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 11:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > Or take a magnetic compass
> > bearing from your present position (which you know because you've been
> > following your progress on the chart) and with your airspeed and a timer
> > you can go to where it's safe.
>
> I'd like to see how many pilots could successfully do this.

YOU OBVIOUSLY apparently have no clue about flight training or you
would not say a dumb statement like the above. The above is taught in
flight training. Whether the pilot elects to stay current or not is
pilot discretion.

Apparently YOU don't even simulate it. You probably would have to
restart your kiddy game in MSFS if you had to do the above where at
least in the real world, I would have a chance of survival.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 2:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> But people have a tendency to avoid dealing with things
> they don't like or don't understand,

Did you look in a mirror lately???? You are the leader of the pack.

[a[_3_]]

On May 30, 12:46*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim writes:
> > There is ALWAYS a backup. *Look out the window.
>
> In IMC?
>
> > In IMC ATC with radar can guide you to VFR conditions and/or
> > a suitable airport.
>
> What radar? *You don't need expensive radar with ADS-B, right?
>
> > Or take a magnetic compass
> > bearing from your present position (which you know because you've been
> > following your progress on the chart) and with your airspeed and a timer
> > you can go to where it's safe.
>
> I'd like to see how many pilots could successfully do this.
>
> > As an aside, I remember from my training a LONG time ago that ATC can
> > use direction finding on your radio signal to give you your general
> > location. *A "DF steer", I think it was called. *Is that still available?
>
> I've heard of it. *I suppose if the FAA is throwing away everything else,
> they'll want to throw this away, too.

I wonder how many of my instrument rated GA peers do NOT know, when in
actual, where the nearest good weather is. Note I did not say IMC, nor
VFR, since we know the difference. I can't think of rated pilot I know
who does not know, for example, where his solid gold alternate is, and
if there isn't one, the airplane doesn't leave the ground. Complex
singles have 4 to 6 hours of fuel aboard and speaking for myself if I
can't be plan to be on the ground with half a wing still full of fuel
I'm not going.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim writes:
>
>> There is ALWAYS a backup. Look out the window.
>
> In IMC?
>
>> In IMC ATC with radar can guide you to VFR conditions and/or
>> a suitable airport.
>
> What radar? You don't need expensive radar with ADS-B, right?

Wrong.

ADS-B is just a first baby step.

No one is talking about the POSSIBILITY of eliminating radar until the
whole system is in place.

>> Or take a magnetic compass
>> bearing from your present position (which you know because you've been
>> following your progress on the chart) and with your airspeed and a timer
>> you can go to where it's safe.
>
> I'd like to see how many pilots could successfully do this.

All of them as all of them were trained to do it and that is what the flight
planning form, which you have no clue how to fill out or use, is for.

>> As an aside, I remember from my training a LONG time ago that ATC can
>> use direction finding on your radio signal to give you your general
>> location. A "DF steer", I think it was called. Is that still available?
>
> I've heard of it. I suppose if the FAA is throwing away everything else,
> they'll want to throw this away, too.

Your "suppose" is useless in the real world.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.

Irrelevant to the arguement and an attempt to steer the arguement in a
different direction.

>> 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.

Have you ever heard of the FCC?

The remote possibility is not totally disregarded, it is given the attention
it desereves, i.e. very little as it is very unlikely.

>> 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.

Civilians mean people not in the military.

Jamming is a non problem for civilian aircraft not flying in a war zone.

>> 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.

So now you think that maybe there will be a series of large solar flares?

Do you understand the difference between temporary signal interference and
"knock them all out"?

You are babbling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> 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 wish that were true. But people have a tendency to avoid dealing with things
> they don't like or don't understand, and organizations run by people have
> exactly the same problem.

You mean like flight planning?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> The good news, for all involved, is that Microsoft no longer supports MSFS, so
>> the advantages and difficulties that those of us flying the real system face
>> will be completely lost on MSFS users like MX, hopelessly lost in a 1980's
>> world of air traffic regulation.
>
> Serious simmers do not use the built-in ATC of MSFS. And the product is still
> supported, although it is no longer under active development. Were it to
> disappear, there are alternatives such as X-Plane (not a pretty alternative,
> I'll grant).
>
> But none of this has anything to do with ADS-B.

Which means as a MSFS gamer you have no clue what ADS-B is, how it works,
or what the next step in the system is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>I wonder how many of my instrument rated GA peers do NOT know, when in
>actual, where the nearest good weather is. Note I did not say IMC, nor
>VFR, since we know the difference. I can't think of rated pilot I know
>who does not know, for example, where his solid gold alternate is, and
>if there isn't one, the airplane doesn't leave the ground. Complex
>singles have 4 to 6 hours of fuel aboard and speaking for myself if I
>can't be plan to be on the ground with half a wing still full of fuel
>I'm not going.

That is exactly right! If I'm expecting any actual I always call a breifer,
and my last question (the answer that stays freshest in my mind) is, "Where do
I have to go to find good weather?" and then I plan to see if I can keep it in
comfortable range at all times. I file an alternate if required, but en-route
every suitable airport passed is the current alternate.

Funny we are discussing ADS-B and NextGen with people who have "heard of" a DF
steer!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No one is talking about the POSSIBILITY of eliminating radar until the
> whole system is in place.

And after the whole system is in place, how will ATC find you without radar
then?

> All of them as all of them were trained to do it ...

If all pilots continued to do what they were trained to do after getting their
licenses, there wouldn't be so many of them killing themselves.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Jamming is a non problem for civilian aircraft not flying in a war zone.

Read any NOTAMs lately?

[Bob Moore]

jimp@specsol wrote
>>> As an aside, I remember from my training a LONG time ago that ATC
>>> can use direction finding on your radio signal to give you your
>>> general location. A "DF steer", I think it was called. Is that
>>> still available?
>>
>> I've heard of it. I suppose if the FAA is throwing away everything
>> else, they'll want to throw this away, too.
>
> Your "suppose" is useless in the real world.

DF Steers were available only from Flight Service Stations. Since Flight
Service has been contracted out to Lockheed Martin who have centralized the
service and closed down most of the FSS facilities, I would certainly not
depend on DF Steers being available.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No one is talking about the POSSIBILITY of eliminating radar until the
>> whole system is in place.
>
> And after the whole system is in place, how will ATC find you without radar
> then?

You could read something other than USA Today and find out...

>> All of them as all of them were trained to do it ...
>
> If all pilots continued to do what they were trained to do after getting their
> licenses, there wouldn't be so many of them killing themselves.

Once again you try to turn the arguement in a different direction by stating,
in effect, that real pilots are human beings and aren't absolutely perfect,
which has nothing to do with the arguement.

The fact remains that all real pilots are trained to do something that you
can't understand, i.e. navigate with a compass, a chart, and a flight plan.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Franklin[_23_]]

VOR-DME wrote:

> In article
> >,
> says...
>
>>
>>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.
>
> The good news, for all involved, is that Microsoft no longer supports
> MSFS, so the advantages and difficulties that those of us flying the
> real system face will be completely lost on MSFS users like MX,
> hopelessly lost in a 1980's world of air traffic regulation. Each day we
> live and fly keeps us up to date on how the system works and evolves,
> while each day casts MX and his ilk further into obsolescence and
> incomprehension. This distinction is useful.
>

Isn't there a separate group for MSFS gamers?

[a[_3_]]

On May 30, 2:46*pm, Franklin >
wrote:
> VOR-DME wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > says...
>
> >>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.
>
> > The good news, for all involved, is that Microsoft no longer supports
> > MSFS, so the advantages and difficulties that those of us flying the
> > real system face will be completely lost on MSFS users like MX,
> > hopelessly lost in a 1980's world of air traffic regulation. Each day we
> > live and fly keeps us up to date on how the system works and evolves,
> > while each day casts MX and his ilk further into obsolescence and
> > incomprehension. This distinction is useful.
>
> Isn't there a separate group for MSFS gamers?

Franklin, you may have noticed this is the group for MSFS gamers who
want to offer their "wisdom" and instruct rated pilots.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Jamming is a non problem for civilian aircraft not flying in a war zone.
>
> Read any NOTAMs lately?


There are currently 5 NOTAMS about GPS for the entire country.

There are currently 24 NOTAMS for LA Center alone.

Sounds like a real big problem...

Since you have never flown a real airplane you probably don't know this
but VOR's fail or are taken down for maintenance all the time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You could read something other than USA Today and find out...

If you cannot answer the question, just say so. There's no shame in it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There are currently 5 NOTAMS about GPS for the entire country.

They all reference the same area, but that affected area is larger than the
State of Texas, covering some 338,000 square miles at FL400. At 10,000 feet,
the footprint is "only" 120,000 square miles. It covers the entire state of
New Mexico, eastern Texas, most of Arizona, and part of Mexico, plus some
other areas.

> Sounds like a real big problem...

See above. Bigger than Texas, and large enough to extend into four different
ARTCCs (whence the multiple NOTAMs).

> Since you have never flown a real airplane you probably don't know this
> but VOR's fail or are taken down for maintenance all the time.

I don't know of any in the CONUS that have an unduplicated service area of
340,000 square miles. That illustrates part of the problem with satellite
navigation systems.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"a" > wrote

> Franklin, you may have noticed this is the group for MSFS
> gamers who want to offer their "wisdom" and instruct rated
> pilots.

Ba-domp! <rimshot!>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You could read something other than USA Today and find out...
>
> If you cannot answer the question, just say so. There's no shame in it.

Answering the question is WAY more than I would ever type in for anyone and
since all the information is publically available, why should I?

The fact that you expect an "answer" posted to USENET is just more proof
you haven't a clue.

Here's a link just for you:

http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> There are currently 5 NOTAMS about GPS for the entire country.
>
> They all reference the same area, but that affected area is larger than the
> State of Texas, covering some 338,000 square miles at FL400. At 10,000 feet,
> the footprint is "only" 120,000 square miles. It covers the entire state of
> New Mexico, eastern Texas, most of Arizona, and part of Mexico, plus some
> other areas.

I see you don't know how to read a NOTAM either.

What a surprise.

>> Sounds like a real big problem...
>
> See above. Bigger than Texas,

Wrong.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 11:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> What radar? *You don't need expensive radar with ADS-B, right?

Where is the radar in the Gulf?.

[Mxsmanic]

Stephen! writes:

> A-N

When was A-N retired? I have trouble just finding information about it; I
guess nobody who uses computers is old enough to remember it.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> When was A-N retired? I have trouble just finding information about it; I
> guess nobody who uses computers is old enough to remember it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency_radio_range

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
>
>> A-N
>
> When was A-N retired? I have trouble just finding information about it; I
> guess nobody who uses computers is old enough to remember it.

Guess again.

Google "four course radio range", 36,100 hits.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
>
>> A-N
>
> When was A-N retired? I have trouble just finding information about it; I
> guess nobody who uses computers is old enough to remember it.

Here's a four course station that is operating today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-VqtNY8vpw


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 3, 12:22*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> a > wrote in news:ad2f4ec2-e6ff-4630-a104-cc9246ac9f22
> @j12g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> * Lessee... *According to the "statistics", your best bet of successfully
> accomplishing a flight without a mid-air collision is to: *Fly only at
> night in low visibilty conditions, away from any airport, above 1000 feet,
> with a flight instructor, and only during week days...
>
> * Damn, how I love statistics.
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com

On a personal note, I tend to feel 'safer' when the weather is worse
than marginal VFR and the kids (sorry for the demeaning phraseology)
stay on the ground. Paying attention to the information I offered may
cause some to choose to fly differently than the way they were taught
when around uncontrolled airports, or for that matter in other phases
of flight as well. I've learned from other posters here and
incorporated some of their ideas into my own flying, and made note of
my 'deviations' from standard techniques and think some pilots have
adopted some of them for their own use.

The sort of discussion about what might be safer flying is a worthy
use of RAP but the density of interesting information is pretty low.

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> When was A-N retired? I have trouble just finding information about it; I
> guess nobody who uses computers is old enough to remember it.

Well...it was properly called "radio range" and my Navy Advanced Training
Instrument check ride in the S-2F Tracker included a radio-range
orientation followed by a radio-range approach to the Alice, TX (ALI)
airport. This was followed by a radio-range missed approach with one engine
feathered. Then a single-engine mdf (manual direction finding)
approach...yes, using the loop mode and manually rotating it to find the
null. This was all way back in 1959. Not only do I use computers, I built
my first one from a hand full of parts back in the MITS Altair days,
probably before you were born, 1975 as I recall.

Bob Moore

[Brian Whatcott]

Mike Adams wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> When was A-N retired? I have trouble just finding information about it; I
>> guess nobody who uses computers is old enough to remember it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency_radio_range
>

Before there were radio ranges, there were light ranges.
And the terminal beacon on a light range is still there for you to see,
on a tower near a runway.

Brian W

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 5:34*pm, a > wrote:

> On a personal note, I tend to feel 'safer' when the weather is worse
> than marginal VFR and the kids *(sorry for the demeaning phraseology)
> stay on the ground.

Yep, usually it's those days where you are the only "november" call
sign on frequency :-)

Actually less chatter on the radio as well in my experiences.

[David W[_2_]]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:40:18 +0100, wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> VOR-DME writes:
>>
>>> The good news, for all involved, is that Microsoft no
>>> longer supports MSFS, so the advantages and difficulties
>>> that those of us flying the real system face will be
>>> completely lost on MSFS users like MX, hopelessly lost in
>>> a 1980's world of air traffic regulation.
>>
>> Serious simmers do not use the built-in ATC of MSFS. And
>> the product is still supported, although it is no longer
>> under active development. Were it to disappear, there are
>> alternatives such as X-Plane (not a pretty alternative,
>> I'll grant).
>>
>> But none of this has anything to do with ADS-B.
>
> Which means as a MSFS gamer you have no clue what ADS-B is,
> how it works, or what the next step in the system is.

The poor gamers don't know what they don't know.

--
http://www.mologogo.com/