Slashdot Mirror
Inside FAA's GPS-Based Air Traffic Control
longacre writes "With the growing number of planes in the air setting its archaic radar-based air traffic control on a course toward 'total system collapse,' the FAA has quietly begun testing a new GPS-based system on Alaska Airlines 737s. While radar can take over half a minute to determine a plane's location, GPS technology known as ADS-B broadcasts an aircraft's position to controllers and nearby pilots essentially in real time. If all goes as planned, travelers will see fewer delays as planes will be able to fly closer together and in reduced visibility conditions, and airlines will achieve significant fuel savings by flying more direct routes. The feds plan a gradual rollout over the next two decades that may cost up to $40 billion." There's still some contention about where the funding will come from.
I can velcro a Garmin to the dash of every plane in the country, hook it up to a cellphone, and get the same data. And I'll only charge $39 billion.
Courtesy of Mr. John Q. Public, The Taxpayers. What? You thought the airlines would have to come up with the money to upgrade their equipment?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Delta owns the following:
a tion/delta_stats_facts/aircraft_fleet/
71 Boeing 737s @ $50 million per
68 Boeing 757s @ $65 million per
75 Boeing 767s @ $140 million per
8 Boeing 777s @ $200 million per
63 MD 88s @ $40 million per
16 MD 90s @ $45 million per
68 CRJ 100/200/700s @ $24 million per
that brings this one airline's fleet cost to just about $25 billion. And I was giving the low estimate for the cost of the planes.
http://www.delta.com/about_delta/corporate_inform
"Can anyone offer some financial perspective.."
c le/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485_pf.html
I don't know about airplane costs, but here is some perspective on other government upgrade projects... each upgrade involved both hardware and software systems.
The IRS attempted to update their systems (originally designed in 1962). The project began in 1999 and was spread over several 'projects.' The 1999 plan was eventually scrapped after the main database was already around 40 million over budget and way over deadline. Further attempts to modernize the system in a more compartmentalized fashion lead to the $318 million lost due to excessive tax refunds in 2006 (for tax year 2005 returns). The system responsible was also scrapped and the old one was put back into service.
Though not mentioned in the overview that I link below, a GAO report I saw a couple years ago put the total actual losses (internal/external/disaster recovery etc...) at several times the publicly reported loss numbers.
Here is a general overview: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/192502071
The FBI attempted a complete systems overhaul (agents still can only use one search term in many of their databases, and much info is still paper file only). That was finally scrapped in 2005 after $170 million in costs, and over 170,000 lines of code... the project had been in progress for three years. The Washington Post put total upgrade costs since 9/11/2001 at around $600 million.
Here is a general overview: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
I suppose the successes don't make as much news as the failures, but the real perspective we should be looking for here is who the F*** is going to plan and manage a project that will be responsible for our air safety? The upgrade attempts that I know of all ended with the old systems being put back into place.
NASA probably gets my vote. I have heard that their software design requirements and beyond insane, and that despite the catastrophic structural failures they have endured, the shuttle software systems are beyond rock-solid. They still use multiple levels of 'readers' to proofread every line of code as you would a thesis manuscript in addition to all other testers/unit-tests/sims etc..
Regards.
failures ?
A single plane that will have a broken device, and wont transmit its position properly will have the option of taking down a lot of stuff.
Whatever the shortcomings of the current radar system, radars tend to work regardless of the planes condition, and regardless of its position.
Heck, IIRC planes only need special equipment to identify themselves, not to tell if they are actually there, and where they are.
Sorry - but i prefer false positives (radar ghosts, or whatever their names) from false negatives (nah, its not a plane, it doesnt have GPS, it must me a bird. [15 minutes later] OH F*CK, EVERONE - RUN!!!....).
If its not going to replace radar systems for good - i see no point in spending 40b, and i dont see how it can replace them - given the requirements for such systems.
No you're not missing anything. The altimeter provides the altitude readout and it's just sent as a "sentence" along with the other information. Altitude data is already encoded from the altimeter and sent to the ground based radar as part of a coded signal from a transponder in the aircraft. This has been the way for decades. There is no need to get altitude from GPS. Position data from GPS is another thing. It is theoretically more accurate than a radar position, but there a bunch of innaccuracies that have to be built into a 'tolerance" that has to be applied to the aircraft position as reported.
TCAS is a traffic collision avoidance device also in use today that transmits altitude data between aircraft. Again the data comes from the altimeter.
Automatic Dependant Surveillance (ADS) data provides position (from INS or GPS) and altitude from the altimeter. The data can be sent via radio link or satellite. The amount of times per minute (or hour) that this data is updated to the ground station provides the basis for seperation of aircraft. If you update quite often you can run planes just a few miles apart. If you update every thirty minutes or so by expensive satellite links (trans-ocean) you might have to run the aircraft 100 miles apart. Some of the cost is in the aircraft but much of the cost is in ground station receivers, computers to interpret the data, displays to show the aircraft positions and then training for everybody along the line to use it.
The benefit is in better routing and less time in the "stack" when you arrive. Less fuel burnt is a cost saving but also think in total cost per minute of crewing and running a 747. It costs a bundle to switch to this but the longer term savings are far greater.
The FAA in technology terms are the dunce of the class in global Air Traffic Control terms, sure people can point to the "ooh its a big country" but Europe has a single upper airways control centre in Maastrict (Netherlands) and has continued to churn out new approaches and solutions from its single policy, R&D and Simulation organisation Eurocontrol. Europe is also embarking on a single pan-european system which will be deployed in around 15 years time (this is the HARD end of technology).
Part of the issue is the FAAs view that it knows best (despite the evidence to the contary) so when new approaches to ATC are created elsewhere (mainly Japan and Europe) they push back against them and try and create their own solution. They are continually trying to take the short cut (expensive short cut) with some new technology gizmo rather than doing the hard way of actually planning a pan-USA federated ATC system with a single upper airway controller and decent federation around the major hubs and then delivering that incrementally focusing on the key cruch points in the existing systems. They just look for the silver bullet.
The FAA is a case study on how not to do large scale IT, and a case study on how not to learn from others.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Most planes have a dedicated instrument for just that purpose: the altimeter. IMHO GPS altitude is at best a backup.
For higher altitudes, the altimeter usually measures the air pressure. This isn't a problem-free method. You have to set the altimeter before each flight (to compensate for the height above sea level of the airport you're at). It's also not very accurate, as the indicated height varies with the barometric pressure. Incorrectly-set altimeters have been known to cause crashes.
A GPS altimeter would solve all this. Connect the GPS unit with a terrain map, and you're even better off: you'll know both your altitude above sea level, and above the local terrain.
There currently is zero contention on where the funds will come from. Under current fee schedules, the FAA with have some 120 million extra in their coffers AFTER they complete their ADS-B deployment.
How do I know this? Because it's in the public record. The airlines and their lobbyist have been spreading misinformation and FUD on a make believe funding crisis. They have been doing this to take control of the FAA. What? Ya, sounds odd, but here are the details.
Right now, ever ticket sold has a tax which pays for infrastructure costs. Plus, every gallon of fuel sold (per gallon tax) pays for infrastructure costs. The airlines, by far, are the largest users of FAA services. What they want to do is to have the per ticket tax waived, pocket it, reduce their tax on Jet fuel and increase the taxes on the planes that hardly or rarely use FAA services. On top of that, they then want to create a "user fee" system where the FAA is free to set their own rates. The want to charge for items such as weather briefing, landing fees, IFR (instrument flying) service fees, in route update fee, etc. This means two things. One, and most importantly, the FAA would no longer have to own up to Congress on how and where they spend their money. Which is sad because right now they can not even explain where some 20 million went. And two, the small guy would be expected to pay the airline's share in taxes. Worse yet, even by the FAA and airline's own admission, they would suddenly create a significant funding short fall.
In a nut shell we have:
o Airlines want per ticket tax waived so they can pocket it (ticket prices would not be reduced)
o Airlines want a tax reduction forcing small guys to carry the airline's tax burden
o The airlines/FAA and crying the current infrastructure will not pay for new tech deployment
o Both the FAA and airlines have finally admitted their scheme will fall short of the existing taxes by hundreds of millions. AOPA has been saying this for a long time using the FAA's and the airline's own numbers with VERY conservative accounting.
Contrary to the assertions made in the article, there are fewer planes flying now than there has been since the 1970s; which is the US's peak in aviation. Even the current infrastructure can handle the load. The FAA's concern is a new category of jet has been created; the Very Light Jet (VLJ). The problem is projections indicate the FAA's current tax schedule will be able to handle the growth until at least 2030.
Long story short we have the airlines and the FAA working to break free of Congress' funding oversight. Currently, the US's FAA model is considered the best model in the world for both funding and safety, bar none. In all other places in the world where user fees have been implemented, GA has been destroyed, costing thousands and thousands of jobs. Worse, most analysts exist aviation safety will begin to decline almost immediately as pilots will now be reluctant to use federal services because it costs a per use fee. This means more pilots in higher densities without being in contact with each other. Worse, this means more pilots flying into unknown weather conditions.
Long story short, the funding for this system is already well established. Any short falls will be addressed by congress. Their current effort is to break free of congress and create a windfall for the FAA and the airlines; as they would be free to charge anything they want for their services. If they get their way, US skies will very likely become a dangerous place to be, even in commercial planes.
If this concerns you, I highly recommend you contact your representatives and congressman to let them know you expect the airlines to pay their own way and you demand the skies remain the world's example of safety. Tell them absolutely no user fees.
If you want more information, please go to http://aopa.org./
One last note, there is a FAA crisis looming. Right now, there is a mandatory re
Has anyone considered the security repercussions of this idea?
If you trust the planes to tell you where they are, there is a potential that the planes could lie to you. I really hope they take that into account when designing the system.
Coding Blog