Slashdot Mirror
New ATC System To Rely On AT&T Cell Towers
longacre writes "The FAA has awarded the long-anticipated first contract for development of its NextGen air traffic control system: a $1.8 billion deal with ITT Corporation, beating out bids from aerospace heavyweights such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. ITT's design will make use of hundreds of specially modified AT&T cellular phone towers which, in addition to their normal communications duties, will relay an aircraft's position to air traffic controllers and other aircraft in real time. The initial contract is only enough to wire and test the so-called ADS-B system in the Philadelphia area and around the Gulf of Mexico — hooking up the rest of the country will take an estimated 20 years and $20 billion."
FROM ARTICLE Today, radar-based air traffic control is reliable but makes inefficient use of airspace; widely separated planes fly dogleg jetways (yellow). The GPS-based NextGen system, slated for completion by 2025, will straighten routes (blue) and allow more planes to safely share the skies. Currently, Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) guide planes through takeoff, then hand them over to a Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility that keeps approach and departure corridors orderly over the next 50 miles. Air traffic then follows jetways under the surveillance of Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC). TRACON picks up planes on descent, and ATCT takes over for landing. NextGen will provide pilots and ground control crews with identical real-time displays of aircraft positions, enabling pilots to reduce congestion by choosing more efficient routes and separation distances.
Image of technology http://www.forumpix.co.uk/i.php?I=1195756427
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
...I can use my cell phone on the plane. But only in Philadelphia.
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
I hope no aircraft fly around here in the mountains, AT&T signal sucks around where i live. AT&T (well cingular) built the towers in the valleys rather than on the mountains, so not sure if they would work.
Its great if you live in the valleys, you get awesome signal, but if you live at higher elevations it sucks (like my town on a plateau above the tower).
$20 billion 'today'. Extrapolating ITT speak into real numbers over 20 years says the former and once again monopoly AT&T is drooling all over itself while looking for a bigger calculator.
Somehow those words take on a rather ominous tone.....
Three Squirrels
International flights are operated under treaties which frequently place restrictions on number of weekly flights allowed by all flag carriers. (Not everyone has Open Skies with the USA.) Plus, flying over large bodies of water requires planes that either have more than two engines, or are rated for long distances under a single engine. (Not that they frequently lose an engine any more the way four-engined piston planes used to when the rule was made, but a rule's a rule.) Even in Open Skies cases, some airports (ie. London Heathrow) are heavily slot-constrained. What this all means is that you can't in general fly smaller planes point-to-point on international routes. You often have to fly the biggest plane you can, because you only get one flight a day. (This is what motivated Airbus Industrie to make the A380.) Thus, carriers that have both international and domestic routes are forced into a hub-and-spoke model because they have to get people to the hub to get them on the international flight.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
Can you say ROAMING?! lol. But seriously, whenever you're "roaming" with a cell it's because your carrier doesn't own the tower you connected to. And a lot of the time that's because it's a privately owned tower. Like some company or person built it and now they sit around doing nothing while the money pours in from all the carriers paying for their customers to use the tower. And they can charge whatever they want so that's why roaming is so expensive. So if a plane wants to connect to a private tower, they can't do it for free because no carrier owns it. That'd be like connecting to my wireless router for free. Who knows how they're gonna handle it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I'm guessing that that 20 bil is just for the prototype. It'll be another hundred before it's actually operational, if ever.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
FTA: "the entire overhaul will cost taxpayers up to $20 billion over 20 years. But the airline industry insists that any early advances can't come soon enough.
You can say that again. From a users perspective, they have been doing things the same way for as along as I've been involved (20 years)- well overdue for some significant technological advances! It really doesn't strike me as a difficult problem as it boils down to to a space/time/position equation.
And again: "We are at catastrophic levels in terms of congestion," says David Castelveter of the Air Transport Association, the trade group for major U.S. airlines. "The controllers are using age-old procedures and separation standards that they put into place decades ago.""
While this might make a difference for enroute control, it will have no impact on airport congestion. For that, only more concrete will make a difference and this is the primary driver of delays. Huge barriers exist to improving airports, both political and economic.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Why can't the planes own internal GPS relay their EXACT position to the ATC towers?
What am I missing?
Floating from balloons at 30,000 feet?
Damn, it's a good thing you mentioned that though, I bet the FAA never even considered mountains!
It sounds like this system is just picking up the Mode-S transponders in modern planes, and relaying that information to ATC. Aircraft equipped with modern GPS, even general aviation aircraft, also pick up these Mode-S transmissions and plot other aircraft on the GPS display.
Right now, only Mode-C is required by law, and even then only within 30 nautical miles of a Class B airport. Mode C just transmits your altitude information and it is up to radar to determine your x-y position. Mode S is much more accurate because GPS is accurate to feet, where radar is only accurate to hundreds (or maybe thousands) of feet in x-y, and not accurate at all for altitude (which is why we have Mode C).
I can't imagine it'll actually cost 20 Billion to retrofit cell towers with Mode S receivers and internet relays. A land-based Mode S receiver is probably $100, and they can ride the data on AT&T's EDGE or 3G network for next to free. This seems like a cash grab to me.
We're going to rely on tech that's been developed by a company that's primary specialty is WASTEWATER?! Oh, sure they have a defense systems department, but their main headline is fluids management.
Someone get me an aspirin and kick the laugh track on.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
I am glad ITT won. I worked a contract on Lockmart's effort. It was one of the worst large projects I have ever seen. It was a C++/AIX effort and managed by pinheads like something out of the 1950's. For what the software does it was horrendously complex. Because the government is unwilling to retrain the air traffic controllers the system has an bizarre anachronistic GUI. They actually worked hard to reimplement the interface feature for bizarre feature. It is no great comfort that the US depends on systems like this for air safety.
an ill wind that blows no good
So, it sounds like they're spending $1.8 billion to create an infrastructure to do what our current infrastructure does, except using cell phone towers. How is this better than radar + mode C or mode S?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
The ADS-B system was invented by Håkan Lans. His business home page: GP&C Systems International AB.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
... and the public transit systems to tie them into urban centres. There is no reason why airports have to be within a metropolitan area, if there's a fast monorail/train/rapid transit from the city to the outskirts, there is PLENTY of cheap land left to build airports.
Or better yet, start re-developing our aging and deteriorating rail networks. IMHO there's no good reason much of the east coast is dominated by air travel at all. I'm not sure about Americans, but here in Canada traveling from Toronto to Ottawa (about 450km) takes about the same time by air as by rail (including check-in, security times, etc). Rapid rail transit, IMHO, is THE answer to short and medium range travel. The only time one should have to step on board an aircraft is when flying halfway across the continent. Even going all the way across the state should be well within the means of fast rail travel (not to mention cheaper).
Hell, on a train I get on-board WiFi, a HUGE amount of legroom, seats that don't try to squeeze me, and non-dry non-stuffy air. Not to mention a soothing, quiet clickety-clack of the rails instead of the roar of jet engines. Oh, and no security, no travel restrictions... It is a superior way to travel in almost every way.
To me, piggy-backing the ATC on AT&T's equipment would have some immediately obvious advantages and disadvantages. On the downside, air traffic controllers might start noticing flights getting 'dropped' from their radar screens, especially during peak call times. On the other hand, if they get too busy, the NSA could totally jump in and help them out.
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
Simply abolish the FAA which is unconstitutional anyway.
The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate travel and run a traffic directing organization
Libertas in infinitum
Tis passingly strange to me that a document written 113 years before the invention of powered flight details no agency to regulate it. How can this be?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, buses beat airplanes now (not transoceanic of course...), and with the new diesel electric hybrids hitting the streets (a few hundred out there now), the gap will widen further.
Besides that you make some points. Airplanes are certainly faster and can haul some people and cargo, but efficiency has not caught up with cost of fuel, and it is only going to be getting worse. It takes a *lot* of energy to keep big heavy things up off the ground. A lot, and you are tied to conventional petroleum products because of the temperatures at altitude.(for the most part, I know branson is working on getting his own fuel, he still has to deal with cold temp jelling) Cheap air flights are a thing of the past real soon now.
Well, since all pilot-ATC communications are and have always been tape recorded at least NSA's budget won't have to increase.
- rf interferes with the avionics
- the cellphone basically spams all cell-towers
They're now going to implement a system which enables every airplaine over the continental US of A to use rf to cell-towers for the sake of better tracking.Someone please clearly explain how they've not just flat out admitted lying to everyone since the dawn of time.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Nice to see that doing the government's illegal wiretapping is paying off for them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
Are you adequate?
U.S. Government: Can we listen to all Internet traffic? We'll give you the fat FCC contract.
AT&T: Um...OK!
Looks like spying for the NSA paid off. When does the revolution start?
I cannot for the life of me understand why there isn't a TGV-style fast train between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC. Next step would probably be a line from New York or Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and Cleveland, and from there on to Detroit.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If anyone needs to hide a plane, you can park it in my driveway if you'd like.
Any solution that takes 20 years to implement is no solution at all. By the time they get it setup and running, it will be obsolete...actually, half way implemented would be long enough to render it stoopid. They require some real innovation and thought to be put into engineering a real solution, not some half baked idea about using a companies towers which may be rendered obsolete next year by some new form of 21G wireless or something. Come on! Give me my tax dollars worth. SHIT!
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
You'd want to have amazingly fabulous encryption on that or you've just created the terrorists vision of heaven.
I trolled Wikipedia: ADS-B messages can be used to know the location of an aircraft, and there is no means to guarantee that this information is not used inappropriately. Additionally, there are some concerns about the integrity of ADS-B transmissions. ADS-B messages can be produced, with simple low cost measures, which spoof the locations of multiple phantom aircraft to disrupt safe air travel. There is no foolproof means to guarantee integrity and it referred me to this page about security concerns for ads-b
Sounds like it's a great concept, but may have some major holes which are yet to be addressed.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
A little background first: I work in IT at an airport, and I'm somewhat familiar with some of the administrative aspects of airport management.
"The problem with building more runways is that in most areas (New York, Los Angelas, Chicago), development is already done around the major airport. You can't expand further out."
While this is true somewhat, its still not an impediment to airport growth. Most airports are public entities, and thus have powers of eminent domain. Most will try to buy properties they want without resorting to ED in order to keep good relations with the neighbors, but if pressed, they'll use ED if needed. Airports have purchased entire border neighborhoods and paved them over, and they've gone to court and seized them as well. They still have to pay compensation, but likely not what owners would have gotten had they sold when first approached.
"What's needed is for airlines to move away from the hub and spoke model, and fly smaller planes directly between routes."
Airlines are already doing this, but with mixed success. The fact is, those kinds of routes just aren't as profitable. In fact, the airline industry will probably contract severely over the next twenty years. We might well end up with only two or three major carriers, and far fewer airports, as smaller regional airports close down. In order to keep current levels of air service, unless a major technology breakthrough comes along that makes direct flights cheaper, it'll take massive government subsidies to keep the number of flights we have now. I just don't see that happening.
Just as the coming of the airliner spelled the end of passenger rail, the coming of teleconferencing may spell the end of business travel, which is what drove the airlines in the first place. The airline industry will likely be dominated by cargo in a quarter century, with goods far outstripping people in the airplanes. Its likely that air freight companies will be America's largest commercial air providers in a quarter century. Fedex already has the largest commercial fleet in the world.
A much-smaller airline industry will be transporting mostly pleasure travelers, as high speed Internet has made long distance meetings a reality. America's greatest aircraft designer, Lockheed's Kelly Johnson, has predicted that the airline industry will basically disappear soon because of advances in IT. Looking at the numbers, its hard to disagree with him
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
When Acela is doing New York-Washington in under two hours, then talk to me about having "high speed rail".
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Gee, whats it gonna cost...
gps + linux + multipath transmitter using UHF transponder uplink to satelite or downlink to ground receivers...
Surely its already been invented/designed/built, just send the plans to china to build 1 million of em and install em in all planes for free.
Just ask NORAD / NASA to 'clone' their current operations. I thought nasa can track every space junk and rock in orbit, and NSA can track all planes already, just
upload that data to the airports.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Hello?
"...specially modified AT&T cellular phone towers which, in addition to their normal communications duties, will relay an aircraft's position to air traffic controllers and other aircraft in real time."
Am I the only one this rings a big alarm bell with? Anyone who's been in an earthquake or similar disaster knows how quickly the cellular network becomes utterly useless, either due to being overloaded with "We just had a quake!" traffic or equipment failure. Witness the Nisqually quake of 2001, or the Loma Prieta quake in the Bay Area in 1989.
Within five minutes after those events, the cellular phone networks in the area were completely unusable. I know, because I lived through both events. The only things that kept working were (in most cases) POTS landlines (and even then you sometimes had to wait about a minute for a dial tone), public-safety two-way radio systems that did not depend on the cell network, and ham radio repeaters.
I don't care how "specially modified" these towers will be. The idea of entrusting something as critical as air traffic control data to something that's part of the cellular network makes my skin crawl.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
For perspective, the cost estimate to expand Ohare airport to handle more traffic was $7.5 billion. So you aren't building a whole lot of runways for $20 billion.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Atlanta's 5th runway, 1.3billion, Seattle's 3rd runway, 800million...
I think you might be underestimating the cost of runways.