FAA efficiency

[Doug Spencer]

With the discussions of user fees and the economic cost of the FAA in
providing critical services (calculated as $22,600/pilot/year by
another user of this group), I've been thinking about just how
incredibly inefficient that statistic makes the FAA look in providing
service. Compared to an organization like USPS, where they've tried
everything from aircraft to optical character recognition to Regulus
cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mail) to deliver
mail, and now have the delivery chain almost completely automated, the
FAA seems comparatively downright archaic in their operations and
technology.

It has been somewhat endearing and on many occasions beneficial to the
flight, for pilots to be able to speak to a real, live person while
flying. Now that they say they must charge user fees to support and
expand their inefficiency, it may be time to shine a floodlight on the
waste and determine ways to improve efficiency.

It would seem that technology similar to ADS-B could go a long way
toward providing similar automation and cost savings in air traffic
services as optical character recognition and the ZIP code has at USPS.
Primarily, ATC is in place to keep two planes from ending up at the
same place at the same time. With data link technology and highly
accurate positioning and trending information, it would seem that a
significant portion of operations could be automated in one way or
another. Conflict resolution and routing algorithms are available from
other technologies that have the potential to provide clearances on
instrument flights. VFR traffic could continue to provide their own
separation, aided with a realtime graphical display of surrounding
traffic.

Radio communication is another area that seems incredibly inefficient.
If you consider the possibility of errors in reception, stepped on
transmissions, the need to repeat clearances nearly verbatim to assure
proper receipt, and the possibility of transcribing a clearance
incorrectly, it would seem much more efficient to have a data link for
the majority of ATC information.

I'm sure this is evident to people who now have datalink weather, it is
much more effective to see the information in front of you than to
imagine "An occluded front at a line starting at the 270 degree radial
of X VOR and extending to Y" when read over the radio while also flying
and navigating. Having a device that allows clearance and flight
information to be displayed and acknowledged via a data link would seem
more efficient.

VFR flights could to be integrated into an automated system with an
inexpensive data link device. The device could alert potential traffic
conflicts similar to ATC calling "traffic is a MD80, 2 miles, 12
o'clock same altitude, climbing" and the pilot could acknowledge
traffic in sight, follow standard conflict resolution procedures, or
request conflict resolution with dedicated buttons for each of those
common tasks.

Considering the prevalence of airport surface incursions, an automated
system that would set routing during taxi, alert when a hold short
area is ahead, and show runway information (runway clear, landing
traffic, etc) could be useful. We already have much of this technology
available with GPS road surface routing. Implementing this technology
could reduce or eliminate the need for clearance delivery and ground
controllers.

I'm sure there are other areas that could be made more efficient as
well. I'm curious about issues and other ideas people have about such a
system. What areas should not be automated? Are the activities I've
outlined above not the root case of the inefficiency? If not, then
where should we be looking? What areas are redundant or no longer
needed?

Doug

[Morgans]

"Doug Spencer" > wrote

> It would seem that technology similar to ADS-B could go a long way
> toward providing similar automation and cost savings in air traffic
> services as optical character recognition and the ZIP code has at USPS.
> Primarily, ATC is in place to keep two planes from ending up at the
> same place at the same time. With data link technology and highly
> accurate positioning and trending information, it would seem that a
> significant portion of operations could be automated in one way or
> another. Conflict resolution and routing algorithms are available from
> other technologies that have the potential to provide clearances on
> instrument flights. VFR traffic could continue to provide their own
> separation, aided with a realtime graphical display of surrounding
> traffic.

At what cost, will all of this technology be available?

For guys like Ron Want-a-jaw, and Joe Q Public just want to go for burgers
and breakfast, and smash bugs.

It will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars for each one of these guys
to buy the stuff that would be required. That isn't an option for most,
either.

Shoot, what about the guys that don't even have an electrical system, or a
transponder? Where are they going to fit in?
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> At what cost, will all of this technology be available?
>
> For guys like Ron Want-a-jaw, and Joe Q Public just want to go for burgers
> and breakfast, and smash bugs.
>
> It will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars for each one of these
> guys to buy the stuff that would be required. That isn't an option for
> most, either.
>
> Shoot, what about the guys that don't even have an electrical system, or a
> transponder? Where are they going to fit in?
>

They sound like the VFR traffic that would continue to provide their own
separation, perhaps aided with a real-time graphical display of surrounding
traffic, if desired.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> They sound like the VFR traffic that would continue to provide their own
> separation, perhaps aided with a real-time graphical display of
> surrounding traffic, if desired.

What about when they want to go into a class C?
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> What about when they want to go into a class C?
>

Guys like Ron Want-a-jaw and Joe Q. Public can find places outside of Class
C airspace to go for burgers and breakfast and smash bugs. The guys that
don't even have an electrical system or a transponder are already missing
the equipment required for entry to Class C airspace.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What about when they want to go into a class C?
>>
>
> Guys like Ron Want-a-jaw and Joe Q. Public can find places outside of
> Class C airspace to go for burgers and breakfast and smash bugs. The guys
> that don't even have an electrical system or a transponder are already
> missing the equipment required for entry to Class C airspace.

True, but if one wants to do the occasional cross country into class C and
has a radio and transponder, they will have to install a bunch of new
technology, costing thousands, right? That sounds like a move in the wrong
direction for GA.
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, but if one wants to do the occasional cross country into class C and
> has a radio and transponder, they will have to install a bunch of new
> technology, costing thousands, right?
>

Sounds about right.


>
> That sounds like a move in the wrong direction for GA.
>

Why? Automation in ATC could provide better service at less cost.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Shoot, what about the guys that don't even have an electrical system, or a
> transponder? Where are they going to fit in?

Depends. How much do they donate to political campaigns?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> Why? Automation in ATC could provide better service at less cost.
How does costs of installing thousands of dollars of technology in a GA
aircraft equate to less cost?

I could pay for many movements without automation, (possibly a lifetime)
before the cost saving would be anywhere close to breaking even.
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does costs of installing thousands of dollars of technology in a GA
> aircraft equate to less cost?
>

By being less costly than the alternative.


>
> I could pay for many movements without automation, (possibly a lifetime)
> before the cost saving would be anywhere close to breaking even.
>

Show me the math.

[Jay Honeck]

> I could pay for many movements without automation, (possibly a lifetime)
> before the cost saving would be anywhere close to breaking even.

How 'bout this:

Give each aircraft owner three years' worth of that per-pilot money
the FAA is now spending to operate the national airspace, with the
requirement that we MUST use that money to add ADS-B and moving map
displays. That's $22K x 3 years, or $66,000.00.

I could put a very impressive glass cockpit in Atlas for $66K, and
I'll promise to never, ever use ATC again, except when entering Class
C or B airspace.

Do this to every aircraft in America, eliminate 75% of the ATC budget,
and in three years the FAA will be rolling in money.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.cmo
"Your Aviation Destination

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Give each aircraft owner three years' worth of that per-pilot money
> the FAA is now spending to operate the national airspace, with the
> requirement that we MUST use that money to add ADS-B and moving map
> displays. That's $22K x 3 years, or $66,000.00.

First they need to fix ADS-B to prevent spoofing.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose]

> Automation in ATC could provide better service at less cost.

For whom?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> For whom?
>

Users.

[Jose]

> Users.

Some users. Not other users.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:yXtzh.105$OH6.60
@newsfe02.lga:

>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
>> Why? Automation in ATC could provide better service at less cost.
> How does costs of installing thousands of dollars of technology in a GA
> aircraft equate to less cost?
>
> I could pay for many movements without automation, (possibly a lifetime)
> before the cost saving would be anywhere close to breaking even.

The question becomes how much must it costs to put a datalink in the cockpit.
I think there are relatively inexpensive Mode-S upgrades available, and if
they were to be adopted by a large majority of the airplanes out there, I bet
the price would go down further and more competitors would show up.

The trick is that the FAA has to make it cost effective to get certified so
that there are competitors out there. But that's not likely to happen.

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:05:23 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in news:yXtzh.105$OH6.60
:
>
>>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>>
>>> Why? Automation in ATC could provide better service at less cost.
>> How does costs of installing thousands of dollars of technology in a GA
>> aircraft equate to less cost?
>>
>> I could pay for many movements without automation, (possibly a lifetime)
>> before the cost saving would be anywhere close to breaking even.
>
>The question becomes how much must it costs to put a datalink in the cockpit.
>I think there are relatively inexpensive Mode-S upgrades available, and if
>they were to be adopted by a large majority of the airplanes out there, I bet
>the price would go down further and more competitors would show up.
>
>The trick is that the FAA has to make it cost effective to get certified so
>that there are competitors out there. But that's not likely to happen.

FAA certification's a pretty moth-eaten umbrella to huddle under when
you're sued. Is XM aware that people are using their service to pick
their way between T-storms? What's it going to cost when they make us
pick up the tab on their liability insurance?

Don

[Doug Spencer]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:17:48 -0500
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article om>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > Give each aircraft owner three years' worth of that per-pilot money
> > the FAA is now spending to operate the national airspace, with the
> > requirement that we MUST use that money to add ADS-B and moving map
> > displays. That's $22K x 3 years, or $66,000.00.
>
> First they need to fix ADS-B to prevent spoofing.

Why is fixing ADS-B to prevent spoofing a requirement? Present day
radio transmissions have no spoofing protection. ATC commonly replies
back with the wrong N number or aircraft type even when you tell
them the correct information. Nothing prevents you from making up some
identifier now. As for radar returns, mode C could be spoofed with
present equipment. I guess ATC may still get primary radar returns and
position reports in the present system, better than nothing.

The issue of spoofing isn't impossible to solve, considering public key
encryption is commonly used for signing and/or encrypting otherwise
insecure messages. I think the bigger issue would be a denial attack
against the system, but we get that with stuck mics and slow talkers
with the present system.

I think there is merit to having an infrastructure in place to
assure that messages from ATC are actually from ATC rather than a rogue
transmitter. A public key infrastructure to validate the digital
transmissions could make spoofing difficult. No security system is
perfect, though.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Judah]

Don Tuite > wrote in
:

> FAA certification's a pretty moth-eaten umbrella to huddle under when
> you're sued. Is XM aware that people are using their service to pick
> their way between T-storms? What's it going to cost when they make us
> pick up the tab on their liability insurance?

Heck - Tort Reform would reduce the cost of EVERYTHING in aviation, as well
as everything in general in the US.

It's completely out of control... To bad most politicians are lawyers.

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:46:06 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Don Tuite > wrote in
:
>
>> FAA certification's a pretty moth-eaten umbrella to huddle under when
>> you're sued. Is XM aware that people are using their service to pick
>> their way between T-storms? What's it going to cost when they make us
>> pick up the tab on their liability insurance?
>
>Heck - Tort Reform would reduce the cost of EVERYTHING in aviation, as well
>as everything in general in the US.
>
>It's completely out of control... To bad most politicians are lawyers.

We tend to throw everything onto the courts, though. We used to have
patent examiners; now you can patent any kind of obvious idea or prior
art and it's left up to the courts to settle it.

But this way, we don't have bureaucrats stifling innovation.

Don

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tuite writes:

> But this way, we don't have bureaucrats stifling innovation.

No, we have lawyers doing it that instead, and they're a lot worse than the
bureaucrats ever were.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article <20070211080342.07e482aa.usenetmail@securitybulleti ns.com>,
Doug Spencer > wrote:

> > First they need to fix ADS-B to prevent spoofing.
>
> Why is fixing ADS-B to prevent spoofing a requirement?

Because spoofing ADS-B has greater potential for more serious hazards
than present day voice.

Because I consider it bad form to expend funds and NOT fix obvious
flaws simply because present day voice has a similar problem (albeit to
a lesser degree).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Doug Spencer]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:45:48 -0500
Bob Noel > wrote:

> Because spoofing ADS-B has greater potential for more serious hazards
> than present day voice.
>
> Because I consider it bad form to expend funds and NOT fix obvious
> flaws simply because present day voice has a similar problem (albeit to
> a lesser degree).

I agree, which is why I said "similar to ADS-B" rather than ADS-B itself
in the original message. http://www.airsport-corp.com/adsb2.htm has
many issues presented with regard to ADS-B. The technology we actually
use should address the issues presented in that document.

Even something like tracking a specific aircraft's movements should be
addressed. We are already seeing places using services like Flightaware
to track their competition's movements on IFR flights, utilizing it as
a type of corporate espionage. I see no reason a transponder or ADS-B
needs to identify a specific plane, just that there is a plane in a
particular part of the airspace so other aircraft avoid that spot. If a
particular plane needs to be intercepted for a legal purpose, that can
already be done.

Doug