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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?