Slashdot Mirror

Six years ago, we had estimated that launching a satellite required permits, lawyers and insurance in excess of twice the cost of the launch vehicle. The gov't is truly being kind to Mr. Rutan.

• Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/DOT)
• Office of Space Commercialization (Department of Commerce)

Yes, they do.

They're called Pilot Licenses.

The need for a Pilot License to operate a car-sized plane is being removed in the US. The new Sport Pilot categorization will let you fly a single-seater (bigger than an "ultralight") with only a driver's license and 1 week of intense instruction.

This is all well and good for most of the world, but they could be looking at patent infringement from Airborne Autonomous Systems who's utility patent on what they call the SFD (semi-autonomous flight director) covers functionality of a Flight Director (whether or not it's called AI) in an unmanned aircraft. Regardless, though, the FAA has made it clear before that commercial UAVs must not have exposed rotor blades, so it is unlikely that something like this will ever be sold or used in America. (partial repost from rizzn.com)

There's a semi-official definition of space. Anything below 100km is atmospheric, and the FAA takes jurisdiction. Above 100km, it's space, and nobody much does; until reentry.

I'm sure there are international sovierenty laws that kick in when say, one country's fast black recon plane flies over a another at 87,000 feet at Mach 3.

In spite of that Burt Rutan did have to comply with a slew of rules regarding rockets luanched from the US. He says the laws said that the company would have to prove that that the craft would not fail in some high number of launches (200,000?) that NASA has never achieved. He managed to comply somehow.

GPS gets jammed all the time, is not 100% reliable and no critical transportation application ever uses it as it's sole navigation system. When it is used, it reports any problems immediately, allowing its users to fall back to other, perhaps less convenient systems. Even a system designed in a way that can't be jammed can suffer unplanned outages for other reasons. Because operations are structured with this in mind, the potential for negative economic impact is elminated regradless of the reason for the outage.

You could say that long term jamming could have some economic impact such as decreased traffic density, though nothing like that theoretical missile hitting its target.

In California it's a felony to aim a laser pointer at an aircraft.

Laser pointers can blind pilots.

I would turn them all on at once and aim them at the moon and see if you can get it to explode! Just make sure you don't hit any aircraft.

Have fun!

So the FFA is good, but not the FAA?

What about Fafa Island? or the AAFF?

Jay J. Ely and team are pretty much the leaders in tearms of research in this area, as the NASA Langley Technical Reports Server shows.

You can get actual reports of incidents related to PEDs and aircraft events at The National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center .

Also in Oct 2002, at the Digital Avionics Systems Conference in Irvine, CA, Session E addressed this topic:

Session E - The Electromagnetic Environment
Co-Chairs - Paul Cox, Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems Bill Larsen, Federal Aviation Administration

• "A Description of the Software Element of the NASA Portable Electronic Device Radiated Emissions Investigation" Sandra V. Koppen
• "Determination of Receiver Susceptibility to Radio Frequency Interference from Portable Electronic Devices" Truong X. Nguyen
• Avionics Interference from Portable Electronic Devices: Review of the Aviation Safety Reporting System Database" Bill Strauss
• "Ultrawideband Electromagnetic Interference To Aircraft Radios" Jay J. Ely
• "Electromagnetic Interference Assessment of CDMA and GSM Wireless Phones to Aircraft Navigation Radios" Jay J. Ely
• Investigation of RF Emissions from Wireless Networks as a Threat to Avionic Systems" Maria Theresa P. Salud

I dunno what the real costs are in making spacecraft, but I doubt they have to deal with the FAA, their costs should be reasonable.

A significant cost of aircraft (non-experimental) is having to deal with the FAA and all its requirements.

Realize that even as reliable as GPS is, satellites can give false information. There's a system to counteract this problem, called RAIM, but it requires 4 birds to be visible to detect a problem, and 5 to remove the faulty signal from nav calculations, assuming you have a redundant, GPS-compatible, digital barometric altimeter on board. Otherwise, you need 6 birds visible.

Guidance seems to be relatively straightforward: figure out where you are (with 95% confidence), and aim toward your next waypoint. Here's a quick overview of what that entails:

1. Determine lat/lon for you and the waypoint
2. Determine true (ground) course
3. Determine magnetic course after correcting for the aforementioned deviation
4. Determine magnetic heading after correcting for wind
5. Determine compass heading after correcting for onboard instrument magnetic interference
6. Issue commands to the flight control system to head that way

That leaves flight controls. You need to maintain proper attitude, keeping in mind that there's gonna be turbulence. In order for any magnetic navigation system to properly realigned (remember gyroscopic precession?), you need to be flying straight and level, which requires extensive compensation for unsteady flight dynamics. It's not as simple as saying "pitch up" when your speed gets too high or your altitude is too low. What if you get inverted? It can happen. Even human pilots don't do so well flying instruments only -- see the NTSB findings in the JFK junior crash. Maintaining stability and control over dynamical systems is a hard problem, which is why many colleges offer entire majors in CDS.

Disclaimer: I am a Space Shuttle enthusiast and a student pilot (hopefully, that will change in two weeks). I know that NASA have the expertise to overcome these problems, and I'm willing to give these engineers the benefit of the doubt. I wish them good weather and no system malfunctions.

Realize that even as reliable as GPS is, satellites can give false information. There's a system to counteract this problem, called RAIM, but it requires 4 birds to be visible to detect a problem, and 5 to remove the faulty signal from nav calculations, assuming you have a redundant, GPS-compatible, digital barometric altimeter on board. Otherwise, you need 6 birds visible.

Guidance seems to be relatively straightforward: figure out where you are (with 95% confidence), and aim toward your next waypoint. Here's a quick overview of what that entails:

1. Determine lat/lon for you and the waypoint
2. Determine true (ground) course
3. Determine magnetic course after correcting for the aforementioned deviation
4. Determine magnetic heading after correcting for wind
5. Determine compass heading after correcting for onboard instrument magnetic interference
6. Issue commands to the flight control system to head that way

That leaves flight controls. You need to maintain proper attitude, keeping in mind that there's gonna be turbulence. In order for any magnetic navigation system to properly realigned (remember gyroscopic precession?), you need to be flying straight and level, which requires extensive compensation for unsteady flight dynamics. It's not as simple as saying "pitch up" when your speed gets too high or your altitude is too low. What if you get inverted? It can happen. Even human pilots don't do so well flying instruments only -- see the NTSB findings in the JFK junior crash. Maintaining stability and control over dynamical systems is a hard problem, which is why many colleges offer entire majors in CDS.

Disclaimer: I am a Space Shuttle enthusiast and a student pilot (hopefully, that will change in two weeks). I know that NASA have the expertise to overcome these problems, and I'm willing to give these engineers the benefit of the doubt. I wish them good weather and no system malfunctions.

Realize that even as reliable as GPS is, satellites can give false information. There's a system to counteract this problem, called RAIM, but it requires 4 birds to be visible to detect a problem, and 5 to remove the faulty signal from nav calculations, assuming you have a redundant, GPS-compatible, digital barometric altimeter on board. Otherwise, you need 6 birds visible.

Guidance seems to be relatively straightforward: figure out where you are (with 95% confidence), and aim toward your next waypoint. Here's a quick overview of what that entails:

1. Determine lat/lon for you and the waypoint
2. Determine true (ground) course
3. Determine magnetic course after correcting for the aforementioned deviation
4. Determine magnetic heading after correcting for wind
5. Determine compass heading after correcting for onboard instrument magnetic interference
6. Issue commands to the flight control system to head that way

That leaves flight controls. You need to maintain proper attitude, keeping in mind that there's gonna be turbulence. In order for any magnetic navigation system to properly realigned (remember gyroscopic precession?), you need to be flying straight and level, which requires extensive compensation for unsteady flight dynamics. It's not as simple as saying "pitch up" when your speed gets too high or your altitude is too low. What if you get inverted? It can happen. Even human pilots don't do so well flying instruments only -- see the NTSB findings in the JFK junior crash. Maintaining stability and control over dynamical systems is a hard problem, which is why many colleges offer entire majors in CDS.

Disclaimer: I am a Space Shuttle enthusiast and a student pilot (hopefully, that will change in two weeks). I know that NASA have the expertise to overcome these problems, and I'm willing to give these engineers the benefit of the doubt. I wish them good weather and no system malfunctions.

There's an FCC rule explicitly addressing cell-phones, but that's not why the airlines are requiring you to turn off your phone during flight.

The FAA rule (for part 121 operations, i.e. the airlines):

Section 121.306

Portable electronic devices

• (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
• (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
  1. Portable voice recorders;
  2. Hearing aids;
  3. Heart pacemakers;
  4. Electric shavers; or
  5. Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
• (c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

The last provision is what gives the airline the option to allow you to use your electronic device during certain parts of the flight.

There are similar provisions in Part 91 (for general aviation) and Part 121 (charter) and Part 135 (commuter).

I was going to make an argument about vehicle age, but I ran out of patience. Here's some facts I've been able to glean:

For each aircraft model in commercial use in the USA, the FAA reports average ages. There are 85 different models reported, with an average (design) age of 23.5 years (not weighted by count of planes). Another site on airline safety (with counts of planes, year 2002) puts a weighted (by total planes) average of the top 14 carriers at 11.7 years. A rough guess from this is that 75% of the entire fleet is less than 13 years old (1989 with respect to the survey).

In 2001, the Department of Transportation conducted a National Household Travel Survey , which has an online query engine attached to it. From that data, I was able to find that of the reported 196.5 million cars in the USA (that the owners know the date of ownership), 75% of all cars driven in 2001 were built after 1990 (the 11 years matching the planes). 50% of all cars in use were built after 1995.

This matches fairly well with the age of planes in use, therefore age alone is not a factor. But then again, we should know that, because a plane has many different design considerations than an average car.

Incidentally, a brief history of the cellphone lists that it wasn't until 1987 that the FCC opened up the 800MHz band to digital cell phone research. Standards weren't complete until 1991, and digital PCS bandwidth was officially reserved in 1994.

You could argue that planes & cars built before that date could not take cell phone use into account. However, my gut tells me that it is the chassis of each vehicle that is the restriction... because planes are designed to be airtight, they tend to also be signal-tight Farraday cages, trapping EM inside. Secondly, cars are mostly hollow frames covered with plates and have fewer distributed sensor arrays that are critical to operation.

Put differently, what would the US response have been if the GPS system was run by France and they'd degraded the signal quality over the Middle East to be accurate to within a kilometer? It would've made the invasion as it was handled impossible because of the difficulty of doing precision targeting without GPS use. Do you think the US wouldn't do similar things if our leadership disagreed that strongly with something another nation was doing? "Fine, go ahead despite our objections but don't expect our assistance (including the provision of accurate positioning signals)."

Second, Europe is doing this for the same reason the FAA wants WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) - so it's possible to do precise navigation for all sorts of purposes, including automated takeoff and landing. Systems like that are useless unless they can actually be relied on, and with SA as an option the reliability of the systems is a political issue not a technical one.

Having attended the conference, I'd like to add a couple points.

Few people who presented at the conference have any doubt that they will be able to obtain their objectives. Many pointed out that financing is a hassle, but the single obstacle that everyone had collectively in mind was that of FAA licensing. No license, no launch. Period.

It does not matter if you launch from Florida, the ocean, or Australia. If you are a U.S. citizen, you must obtain a launch license from the FAA. Failure do so will land you fines and probably even jail time.

Now the good news. Obtaining a license is less complicated than many of us previously believed. As of yet, no licenses have been granted for civialian, manned, suborbital flights. XCOR is in the queue and pushing heavily; I believe that they will likely be the first to receive one, and more power to them. Meanwhile, groups like Armadillo Aerospace have recently begun the process, and I expect that they will be able to draft behind XCOR through the obvious portions of the licensing procedure.

The FAA itself has over 80 people dedicated to making civilian space access work. The delay is in determining how to properly balance the needs of the budding civilian space industry with the very serious safety needs of the people living down-range. This is very uncharted territory, and the FAA (AST) is no hurry to reach any conclusions. The policy is literally being formed as the applicants complete the process since the laws as specified are not sufficiently complete. Anyone wishing to be part of this process is encouraged to attend the COMSTAC meeting on May 21st. This is effectively a town-meeting for civilian space access.

The real bottleneck is the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). All the groups who are seeking launch licenses are being held up on environmental impact issues. Plus, where you launch from will ultimately determine when you launch since the environmental impact studies for some sites are not complete. Launching from White Sands would be preferable to the Oklahoma "spaceport" as the White Sands studies were completed years ago.

If anyone has any questions about the conference, I'd be happy to reply them. Overall, I think many of the people at the conference will either die in the process or entirely fail to get off the ground. Someone will succeeded however and in a couple years, probably even me.


-HopeOS

Having attended the conference, I'd like to add a couple points.

Few people who presented at the conference have any doubt that they will be able to obtain their objectives. Many pointed out that financing is a hassle, but the single obstacle that everyone had collectively in mind was that of FAA licensing. No license, no launch. Period.

It does not matter if you launch from Florida, the ocean, or Australia. If you are a U.S. citizen, you must obtain a launch license from the FAA. Failure do so will land you fines and probably even jail time.

Now the good news. Obtaining a license is less complicated than many of us previously believed. As of yet, no licenses have been granted for civialian, manned, suborbital flights. XCOR is in the queue and pushing heavily; I believe that they will likely be the first to receive one, and more power to them. Meanwhile, groups like Armadillo Aerospace have recently begun the process, and I expect that they will be able to draft behind XCOR through the obvious portions of the licensing procedure.

The FAA itself has over 80 people dedicated to making civilian space access work. The delay is in determining how to properly balance the needs of the budding civilian space industry with the very serious safety needs of the people living down-range. This is very uncharted territory, and the FAA (AST) is no hurry to reach any conclusions. The policy is literally being formed as the applicants complete the process since the laws as specified are not sufficiently complete. Anyone wishing to be part of this process is encouraged to attend the COMSTAC meeting on May 21st. This is effectively a town-meeting for civilian space access.

The real bottleneck is the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). All the groups who are seeking launch licenses are being held up on environmental impact issues. Plus, where you launch from will ultimately determine when you launch since the environmental impact studies for some sites are not complete. Launching from White Sands would be preferable to the Oklahoma "spaceport" as the White Sands studies were completed years ago.

If anyone has any questions about the conference, I'd be happy to reply them. Overall, I think many of the people at the conference will either die in the process or entirely fail to get off the ground. Someone will succeeded however and in a couple years, probably even me.


-HopeOS

Sec. 121.306 Portable electronic devices. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-- (1) Portable voice recorders; (2) Hearing aids; (3) Heart pacemakers; (4) Electric shavers; or (5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. (c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

What we really need is more bandwidth, and we're getting that by reducing the channel spacing (comm channels have gone from 50kHz to 25kHz, and are moving to 8.33kHz). 8.33kHz spacing provides 2280 discrete channels for voice comm, which ought to be plenty for the forseeable future (i.e. until we go to digital comm using whatever the successor-to-the-successor-of-IP is).

Actually, the FAA and industry are currently testing the NEXCOM system as a replacement for the current 25 kHz AM voice system, rather than the 8.33 kHz system the europeans are using. Even the Europeans have acknowledged that 8.33 kHz is an interim solution to the spectrum crowding problem. NEXCOM is a TDMA, digital communication system that, depending on the configuration, can provide a user with simultaneous voice and data on one channel. Up to four channels per 25 kHz are supported.

Actually, whatever plane the President is on is called Air Force One, no matter if it's military or civilian. Even if it's just Uncle Jethro's Piper Cub, it's still called Air Force One while the President is aboard. The only exception is if the Pres. is on one of the US. Marine Corps helicopters assigned to White House duty, it's called Marine One.

The FAA disagrees with you.

When the President is aboard a military aircraft, state the name of the military service, followed by the word "One."

When the President is aboard a civil aircraft, state the words "Executive One."

You continue:

There is no "Navy One" for ships, or anything like that.

Of course not, this is a communications protocol for aircraft. You stick the President on a Navy aircraft, and it will be referred to by ATC as "Navy One".

The reason you never hear about anything other than Air Force One is that the President doesn't fly on anything else.

www.faa.gov has already got NOTAMs posted regarding inaccurate GPS readings and not to rely solely on GPS for IFR flight.

>No, the space station was placed in that orbit as a compromise
>so that both the American (Shuttle) and the Russian (Soyuz)
>vehicles could get to it. Baikonur [astronautix.com] and Cape
>Canaveral [nasa.gov] are at quite different lattitudes. ISS is
>half way in between.

Yes, true to a point - and it was a stupid compromise. Had we relied on the cheaper, more reliable Russian boosters and scrapped utilizing the Shuttles for ISS construction, crew delivery and resupply, the ISS could have been placed into a substantially higher orbit, requiring fewer reboost missions and therefore becoming inherently cheaper to operate.

Compare the cost of launching unmanned payloads (say, ISS components) on a Russian Proton rocket to the cost of launching them on the Shuttle. It costs around $4,729 a pound to put a payload into low earth orbit with the Shuttle, as opposed to $1,953 a pound with the Proton. Proton can't launch payloads that are quite as large as the Shuttle's (19,760 kg for the Proton vs. 28,803 kg for the Shuttle), but the cost per pound for the Russian vehicle is vastly lower. As opposed to the $300 million plus launch cost of a Shuttle, a Proton costs a comparatively paltry $85 million to build and launch.

And you don't need a rocket as big as a Proton to launch men into space - the Russians routinely send people to the ISS aboard the relatively tiny Soyuz rocket, which only has a capacity of 7,000 kg and costs just $37 million to build and launch (the per-pound cost is also cheaper than the shuttle - $2,432). Compare this to the Shuttles, which cost at least $2 billion to build each (probably more, if you factor in R&D), and well in excess of $300 million each launch (some accounting puts Shuttle launches at an incredible $500 million each).

There also hasn't been a fatal accident involving Soyuz since the 1970's, when an air seal failed during reentry and the crew suffocated. There was a serious accident during the '80s when the booster failed, but the cosmonauts were able to successfully escape the destruction of the vehicle and came away with only minor injuries. That's simply not possible with the Shuttle, since the astronauts are strapped right next to huge tanks of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (an insanely stupid design - there's no way to be safely blown clear).

There have been something like 1,600 launches of Soyuz-family rockets, as opposed to a little more than 100 Shuttle launches, so clearly most of the bugs have been worked out of the Soyuz system by now. The fact it's a far smaller rocket means less energy is required to launch it into orbit, reducing the stress and strain on the system and making it inherently safer than the Shuttles, with all that fuel and weight they have to contend with. There's also no reason to couple human payloads with equipment and supplies bound for orbit. In fact, it's downright senseless.

Here are some reliability figures for boosters in common use. With the exception of Soyuz, these are all unmanned boosters. Note that many of these unmanned boosters are as reliable (or even more reliable) than the Shuttle, which becomes a 2 billion dollar supersonic crematorium for all 7 astronauts aboard roughly 1 mission in 50:

Atlas 1&2 - 49 launch attempts, 95.9% reliability
Delta 2 - 73, 98.6%
Ariane 4 - 81, 96.3%
Proton - 254, 89.4%
Soyuz - 958, 99.3%
Long March - 54, 90.7%

Quite frankly, the Shuttle is nothing but a jobs program. Everything that's being done with the ISS could be done - cheaper and safer - using Russian launchers. For some interesting stats regarding launchers and costs, see this PDF file (sorry for the format, but it's informative), this NASA FAQ on launchers (it's from the mid-'90s, but still mostly accurate), and

The rules (look at part II.A.2) were changed within days after being issued -- flights in the traffic pattern are exempt from being in communication with ATC. Really, my non-aviation friends were shocked to learn that GA pilots don't have to be in contact with air traffic control at all times, anyway. (Response: "How do you avoid hitting other cars when you're driving?")

I agree that the 15-mile TFR -- excuse me, "special flight rules area" -- I mean, "flight restricted zone" -- around Washington DC is annoying. The ADIZ, for the time being, isn't that big an inconvenience. Takes another 10 minutes to get off the ground and maybe another 5 circling in the air until ATC lets you in. You don't even actually have to file to your destination -- the only thing flight services care about is to file you from your starting point outside of DC. In some ways, it's nice -- controllers who would ignore you before now have to tell you about other traffic to avoid, and it's sometimes easier to fly through the airspace around big airports you'd otherwise need to avoid.

I'm sure these delays will get worse come spring, and meanwhile the gov't needs to have more people watching the radar... but for now, it's hardly an "ass-fucking".

I know this is somewhat OT, but how goes current integration of Palm and GPS? That is, I know you can buy an amazing little GPS tab for a Palm that plugs into the CF slot, and that you can buy some map software that looks to have better European street info than Garmin's own maps.

But do they work well together? If I use the CF slot for the GPS can I no longer add memory those maps will want so much?

Should I just hope to get the Garmin Palm device (which is not out yet) before I travel this spring, and hope it lets me use third party maps?

And what about those GPS tabs? It looks like at least some of them need to be factory serviced in order to switch between WAAS and Europe's experimental equivalent of EGNOS .

Help a fellow electronics fetishist!

I know this is somewhat OT, but how goes current integration of Palm and GPS? That is, I know you can buy an amazing little GPS tab for a Palm that plugs into the CF slot, and that you can buy some map software that looks to have good European street info.

But do they work well together? If I use the CF slot for the GPS can I no longer add memory those maps will want so much?

Should I just hope to get the Garmin Palm device (which is not out yet) before I travel this spring, and hope it lets me use third party maps?

And what about those GPS tabs? It looks like at least some of them need to be factory serviced in order to switch between WAAS and Europe's experimental equivalent of EGNOS.

Help a fellow electronics fetishist!

Finally a /. topic I have some decent knowledge about.

A homebuilt/amateur-built aircraft - otherwise known as experimental - is one that the builder builds 51% of the aircraft.

They must be inspected by an FAA Inspector or a Designated Inspector (essentially the same, similar to a contract position) in order to get an airworthiness certificate. You cannot expect to get away with slapping a gyrocopter blade on your lawnmower and flying around Podunk, Iowa (Not legally, anyways).

Per the Experimental Aircraft Association
The builder(s) must provide logs of when, where and how construction took place, along with supporting documents and photographs. If the aircraft passes this inspection, a pilot must fly between 25-40 hours of test flights in specific non-populated areas to make sure all components are operating properly. Only after that test time is flown may passengers be flown in the aircraft.

Anyway, in reference to the question about where you could operate this contraption at.... In accordance with federal aviation reg (FAR) 91.319, you and your skycar would be limited to joyrides (no charging!) over non-dense population areas (no flying through downtown Manhattan) operations in visual conditions during the day only.

Densely populated areas are shown on aviation sectional charts as yellow (that's the shape the lights of the city look like at night from altitude) so as long as you avoid those you should be ok. You might want to check with your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO - pronounced "Fizz-do") to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, legal-wise.
As far as the regs go, FAR91.119 states
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. [Emphasis added.] Active monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.

I was unable to locate any pertinent regulations. The incomplete copy of the regs on my Palm makes no mention of GPS. Perhaps this would be a good question for AOPA's legal services!

As a pilot who routinely uses GPS, if I catch some bastard jamming my signal because they think it makes them 1337, I'll personally pee on their head from 4500 feet.

Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. [Emphasis added.] Active monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.

I was unable to locate any pertinent regulations. The incomplete copy of the regs on my Palm makes no mention of GPS. Perhaps this would be a good question for AOPA's legal services!

As a pilot who routinely uses GPS, if I catch some bastard jamming my signal because they think it makes them 1337, I'll personally pee on their head from 4500 feet.

The FAA was in on it too.

For what it's worth the Flight 261 crash doesn't seem to have hurt the company at all, people aren't perceving Alaska as a ValuJet. Alaska was one of the few carriers to have profitable quarters in 2002.

"Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft...Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."" - Dick Cheney

http://www.deafpilots.com/

and

http://www1.faa.gov/AVR/afs/deaffaq.htm

are two good reference points for seeing how deaf people can fly up there without using a radio, etc. No, they can't fly at LAX, etc. On a related note, I checked out the T-Mobile Sidekick after seeing an ad just now on slashdot saying that CmdrTaco recommends it. I checked it out and it looks exactly like what I've been looking for: email, unlimited web and AIM.. but one caveat... after one year, they start charging $3.50 per megabyte above 15 megabytes/month.. ouch.. i wonder how bad this would be..

These are applicable statistics taken from: faa.gov

Table 5. Lifetime Vehicle Reliability Rates

Vehicle-----Launch Attempts----Reliability
Atlas 1 & 2------49---------------95.9%
Delta 2----------73---------------98.6%
Delta 3-----------1----------------0.0%
Ariane 4---------81---------------96.3%
Ariane 5----------2---------------50.0%
Proton----------254---------------89.4%
Soyuz-----------958---------------99.3%
Long March-------54---------------90.7%

(Source: STAR Database, October 14, 1998)

?sp

Todays launch was for a French commercial satellite, Eutelsat. The shuttle is banned from commercial satellite launches. See here. Minor payloads, such as experiments, routinely fly in the Shuttle and also the International Space Station.

When flying across oceans or remote parts of the world (many parts of Asia, Africa, South America, Australia), pilots are not under radar coverage, and conventional VHF radio that they use to talk to air traffic controllers and their own airline don't work, and satellite usage is expensive, so they have developed technology called (Airccraft and Crew Reporting System) and closely related CPDLC (Controller/Pilot Data Link Communication) for communications between a plane and airline operations or ATC respectively. These are basically text messaging links carried over HF radio. It's not Internet email, but the concept is very much the same.

These days, an airliner on a transoceanic flight may very well be doing all its communications overwater by HF text messaging, and the pilots will not actually speak to anyone for the entire ocean crossing. While it might seem strange, ACARS and CPDLC communications frees up a lot of frequency congestion for non-routine emergency messages that would otherwise be taken up by traffic such as routine status reports, etc. Think about that next time you cross the pond. :)

As a pilot and former aircraft owner, I can assure you the FAA will create an insurmountable obstacle for aircraft owners wishing to convert. All aircraft in the US are certified to run on certain fuel. Deviation from this certification must be made on a case-by-case basis, backed up by engineering data for each aircraft to be modified. Obviously, this can be cost-prohibitive for individual aircraft owners.

Usually what happens is a company will spring for the engineering studies, then sell an STC (supplemental type certificate) to aircraft owners wishing to modify their aircraft. (The company still controls the STC, and each aircraft must have its own STC). For instance, owners of certain aircraft wanting to burn auto fuel can buy STCs from two different companies.

At any rate, the bottom line is that the conversion to alternative fuels in production aircraft (at least in the US) is extremely prohibitive, thanks to the FAA. You can read more about the hoops that have to be jumped through here.

No it's not, I have the FARs right in front of me. They cover this very subject. And I quote:

"Dropping objects.

No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property."

- FAR Sec. 91.15

Or, here's a link.

And just for clarification, "civil aircraft" or civil aviation covers everything in the US that's not military aviation. Private, commercial, recreational, whatever.

Um... If you had actually read the CNN story, you would see right there at the bottom this little snippet of text:

RELATED SITE:

FAA Alaska weather webcams

Open mouth
Insert foot

And one final note: How is posting this story on /. any different than posting this story on CNN?

I'd carry a plastic bottle that I could put snow into, then put the bottle into my clothes. After it melts, then you can drink it. That's much safer.

Do not eat without melting! Eating snow and ice can reduce body temperature and will lead to more dehydration.

Melt ice or snow and boil it if possible. Don't eat crushed ice - it can injure your mouth and can also cause further dehydration.

Lundin says eating lots of snow is a common and potentially deadly mistake.

"Don't eat snow," said Mike Sheets. "Don't put it in your mouth and try to melt it if you're thirsty. You'll use up too much of your body's heat, and you need that energy for yourself."

Drink a lot of water, 8 to 12 glasses a day. But do not eat snow to satisfy your thirst. Eating snow can lower your body's core temperature, triggering deadly hypothermia.

Don't waste body heat by eating snow. Make a fire; heat water before drinking.

Do not eat snow as it tends to dehydrate the body

Do not eat snow to obtain water, it will just make you colder.

actually the issue has to do with dropping stuff on other countries, diplomatic incidents etc etc

Checking up I see I was slighly wrong - the organization was folded into the FAA a few years back. It's still independant of the people we normally have to get a permit for high-power flights under 100k ft

Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.

The ADIZ (and DEWIZ in Alsaka) is simply a buffer zone to allow NORAD to identify all tracks entering US airspace. In the link you copied, you'll notice that identification of unknown tracks is initiated by NORAD, not ATC, but idntification is performed by ATC not fighter jets. NORAD is not Customs or Boarder Patrol. Once they establish that you aren't a cruise missle they aren't going to care what you are. It will be up to the FAA/Customs/Boarder Patrol if you get busted or not.

This is what the FAA has to say about ADIZ intercepts:

"Identification intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted under increased states of readiness. Unless otherwise directed by the control agency, intercepted aircraft will be identified by type only. When specific information is required (i.e. markings, serial numbers, etc.) the interceptor aircrew will respond only if the request can be conducted in a safe manner. During hours of darkness or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. The interception pattern described below is the typical peacetime method used by air interceptor aircrews. In all situations, the interceptor aircrew will use caution to avoid startling the intercepted aircrew and/or passengers."

In other words, they don't care who you are and what you are doing. They just want to know what TYPE of aircraft you are flying. You could be "intercepted" in your Cessna flying across the boarder and you wouldn't even know it.

This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.

The terrorists on 9/11 would not have responded to an intercept. Besides, that requires time and distance, a luxury that you don't have over that part of the US. The only option would be a shoot down, but when do you make that dicision? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot fleeing suspects in the back (something about due process) but you would advocate shooting down US commercial aircraft without time to make an informed dicision? That's assinine.

It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.

If you can have fighters in the air in 5 minutes, within 5 minutes of any airspace in the US, you must keep all civil aircraft at least 15 minutes from any major population areas. How do propose to do this? Most major airports are IN cities. Once a plane is 10 minutes off it's ground track it could be in the White House, the Pentagon, Sear's tower, Downtown LA, the Statue of Liberty, etc. F16's wouldn't have done any good on 9/11.

I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel.

They aren't MP's they are soldiers, and unlike most of the NG at airports in this country they have real bullets, and they are quite well trained. They still can't prevent suicide bombers. What makes you think we can with less invasive steps?

I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way?

If they were tracked from Cuba they would probably be forced down at a field in Florida and met by Border Patrol/Customs/USCG most likely NOT military.

What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?

I know of no foreign airforce that could accompish this, but if they did quite simply we would be screwed, yesterday today and tommorow. If a foreign airforce can fly across the Atlantic with enough force to do damage and get here undetected, does it matter what we do when they get here? Should we set up SAM sites on the Eastern Seaboard?

FAA/NORAD Regulations would tend to indicate otherwise.

This also jives with what I was told by more experienced pilots at the flight school I received training at, relating situations where a lack of communication entering the U.S. DID result in a pair of interceptors flying out to them.

But this has nothing to do with obeying ATC or fear of terrorists. It has everything to do with unlawfully entering US airspace. Of course this is a completely different problem than US planes diverting from their filght plans.

Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.

Aside from the great expense this would generate for very little benefit (what would the fighters do exactly)

It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.

Federal law prohibts the use of the military to enforce the law against US citizens

This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.

I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel. I don't even want F16s doing CAPs over U.S. airspace constantly.

I DO want the military ready to protect our homeland. I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way? What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?

Our country is so strong we've spread our military out all over the world to protect our interests, but I get the impression the actual homeland is quite vulnerable to attack.

"..Infosecurity czar Richard Clarke said in his speech at RSA that Nimda cost US companies an estimated $2 billion."..

What he also did, which struck me as more interesting thant the dollar value, was draw a parallel with the early days of aviation.

And how the FAA stepped in as the authority to make things safe. Reluctantly perhaps at first - but much needed as the industry had made itselfs a mess.

Which is more than just a parallel - and might well be the much needed shot in front of the bow and Lima-Lima call this industry needs.

You can be averse of govt. regulation - and if you see the pain and stiffling the FAA imposes on the Aerospace industry - you will even more so. But they will, and are supposed (or at least expected by the people) to step in if things are not fixed and society as a whole is harmed. And that last part is hard to deny.

Perhaps the first sign of a stick. A stick which is much harder to dodge than, say, the DCMA or SCSS.

The airways are how the system remains safe if the radio in the plane stops working. A simple look at graph theory shows they can not provide the level of redundancy that exists now and allow free flight but they are going ahead anyway. The problem is that you end up with an exponential growth in the data set size and you have to solve that in real time. Its just too complex for moden computers to deal with no matter how good the rigged demos look. If you force the problem into the realm of comptuers, you must depend on them and we all know thats asking for trouble.

When I fly in the US, I use airways but since I'm flying VFR (visual flight rules), I could go direct. The last flight over about 1/2 the US would have resulted in a savings of less than 15 nmi (25km) over a course of over a thousand miles.
Here is a small picture of airways near salt lake city. The airways are grey lines, airports are circles and the triangles are VOR (radio beacons)

So I went and looked for myself. According to the FCC cellular FAQ, their regs ban cell use only when the plane is in the air. (Section 22.925 47 CFR Part 22.) I couldn't find an official explanation as to why, but news reports say that FCC hearings in 1991 raised concerns over interference ground networks. In any case, it's difficult to see why else the FCC would care.

This regulation may or may not make sense technically, but it does exist.

As for use of electronic gadgets on airplanes, that's covered by this FAA circular. Transmitters of any kind are banned. There's nothing specific about receivers or other gadgets, but operators are required to make their own rules banning devices that might interfere with the operation of the plane. So obviously the rules against "things with antennas" and lasers come from the airlanes -- or maybe even individual flight crew.

Here's my last word on the gas station story. Your logic is very interesting, but I prefer to actually count the teeth. In a previous link (I can't be bothered to find and post it again) I referred to a safety expert who reported the utter absence of this episode in his professional literature.

The FAA is slowly moving towards open-air navigation using GPS. They recognize the ease in workload on both pilot and ATC with this in place. Unfortunatly, the occasional position error is a bad thing for air traffic. The FAA has started a program called Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), which is a network of ground stations that take sattilite data, correct any signal errors, and beam the corrected data to the GPS onboard.

The only other problem is the fact that any aviation-certified GPS decks are usually pretty pricy. Expect GPS to explode over the coming years for aviation though.

GPS & FAA

Since the latest reports seem to suggest that there was a mid-air explosion before the plane came down, people might be interested in reading this notice from the FAA requiring that modifications be performed on Airbus A300 series aircraft in order to eliminate a possible cause of fuel tank explosion. Judging by the dates on the notice -- effective September 10, modifications must be performed within 18 months -- I'd guess that many planes haven't been modified yet.

Given the current events out there, I find it doubtful this technology will succeed. Not only is this technology inherently dangerous, but you will not be allowed to travel on a plane with these devices, not be allowed to ship these devices, and not be allowed to even stow them in your luggage when you travel.

They're simply too easy to be altered/overheated for destructive purposes.

They don't need a US launch license, which you get from the space people at the FAA. They are going to be on a multiple payload launch of a Russian Dnepr rocket. This means that if they aren't ready in time, they have to duke it out with the other missions which are going on that rocket.

Still around. You can see some basic info about that program (pre-bombing) on the FAA site. (Report at DOT site on the program is also available.) 9-15 USA Today article also discusses this.