If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another Boeing Boondoggle Creates Potential Hazard In Skies Over Los Angeles
Larry Dighera wrote:
Another Boeing Boondoggle Creates Potential Hazard In Skies Over Los Angeles Call me Chicken Little, but.... I take issue with this quote from the following article: "The Metroplex system relies on sophisticated automation and global positioning satellites that will let controllers and pilots know exactly where aircraft are at all times instead of waiting every nine to 12 seconds for radar signals to bounce back." In fact, controllers will not KNOW the correct position of aircraft at all. ATC will know the position each aircraft reports via the GPS-based ADS/B system. That's significantly less certain than the empirical evidence provided by physically bouncing a radio signal off the aircraft, as it has been demonstrated that weak satellite signals can be overridden with more powerful terrestrial-based radio transmitters, and satellites are vulnerable to solar disturbances such as Solar Mass Ejections. It also opens the specter of ATC spoofing and the hazards to national security that potentially poses. Further, with all the aircraft in the very congested Los Angeles skies operating at reduced separation standard distances, what ATC procedure has been SHOWN to be safe when the satellite link suddenly fails and all those airborne passengers suddenly find themselves in much closer proximity to each other than has ever happened before? Surly, radar will be a fall-back safety net, so there is no public financial incentive to purchase, deploy, train, and operate such a satellite-based ATC system. It's inherently more hazardous due to its reduced separation minimums. I would speculate that it only benefits the airline industry and primarily contractor(s) installing Metroplex at the expense of the tax payer, and paves the way for a reduction in the ATC controller workforce due to increased computerized automation. If the controller workforce is reduced, who will manually control the increased traffic density of marginally separated flights when the system goes down? Who the hell is in charge here, the profiteers or those charged with keeping the skies safe? It also relies on constant reliable communication between airplanes and ground, ground and airplanes, and airplanes to airplanes. That is 1) An incredible amount of bandwidth, and 2) Not likely - there's hardware involved - hardware _will_ fail. It may be a noce to have, but there needs to be a backup that works with non-cooperating aircraft. .. -- Pete Stickney Always remember to close all parentheses. We're not paying to air-condition the entire paragraph. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tail dolly hazard | Andy[_1_] | Soaring | 3 | June 20th 14 12:02 AM |
Mexico hazard | Rich S. | Home Built | 4 | January 9th 06 10:42 PM |
Radiation hazard? | Allen Thomson | Military Aviation | 10 | September 18th 04 12:44 AM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
"Volcanic ash is aviation hazard" | Mike | Military Aviation | 4 | June 30th 04 06:51 PM |