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."
Actually, having flown extensively in both airspaces, it works like shit in Europe and the Eastern US. Your European system is exactly the same as the US system, as it is in all of the developed world. Moreover, the current system is horribly inefficient; most air traffic routes are at least 5% longer then needed. For example, the preferred jet routing from BWI to MIA is DAILY J61 HUBBS J193 HCM ISO J121 CHS J79 OMN.AMNEY1 which is 8% longer then a straight line. Yes, that's 8% more jet fuel burning, 8% more aircraft in the sky, 8% longer I get paid for, etc. European airspace isn't any better; most of it's worse; I'm used to seeing 10-15% longer routings, worse for shorter flights.
If this next gen ATC thing works (I still have my doubts) then we'll be able to reduce it to point to point until entering the terminal area. This will make the ATC system much more efficient There will still be military airspace to avoid, but that's a small part of the puzzle. The real problem, though, is that this system is so dependent on GPS that any GPS problem will cause it to all come crashing down.
And, dumbfuck, you can't just build more runways. I'll give you a hint -- people hate airplanes. They do their damnedest to prevent runway construction. Overrunning the end of the runway and killing a kid in a car? Well, notice, nobody's suggested closing the road, tearing down buildings, or making the runway longer. Try to make air traffic more efficient around NYC and tens of millions of people object to the changes because they *might* hear airplanes. I think my useless, shitty untion should strike until congress enacts law protecting airports from encroachment, and creates criminal penalties for building unlicensed tower (shut up hams, I'm talking about 500' tall monstrosities that show up in the flight path without permits) and prevent every single local pseudo-governmental organization from preventing airport construction.
Per seat-mile, air traffic beats everything but trains. Trains work in europe and would, if the yanks weren't so stupid, work on their east coast, but the rest of north america is so barren that trains won't work there.
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
DUH nothing. If the planes can talk to the towers they could certainly transmit their GPS co-ordinates. There may be some reason why the Feds don't want aircraft broadcasting their precise positions, though.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The difference is that high-speed trainset will tend to stay upright when derailed, and slowly grind to a stop due to its articulated design. Although the train will "derail" in the sense that the wheels will be touching the ground instead of the track, in order for one car to topple, either an extraordinary amount of force must be applied to that one car, as to cause it to shear away from the rest of the trainset (at both ends!), or the entire trainset would have to topple simultaneously. The amount of energy that would be required for either of those things to happen is considerably more than what you'd get from some nutjob carrying a backpack full of explosives.
The French TGV has had a number of high-speed derailments, and out of the 1.2 billion people that have used the service, there hasn't been a single fatality while the train was running over 100mph (160km/h), with an exceptional low-speed safety record as well. This includes a number of rather severe incidents, including a terrorist bombing, level crossing accidents, and at least two incidents in which the ground beneath the track dropped into a sinkhole.
Compared to virtually any other form of transport on the planet, the TGV's safety record is probably as close to perfect as you're ever going to get.
Unlike a plane, in which a bomb would likely down the craft, killing all on board, an attack upon a train a highs-speed train wouldn't be all that deadly, given that there would hardly be any casualties outside of the blast radius. The train station would be a far greater point of vulnerability than the train itself.
So, no. I don't think we have anything to worry about. If you're concerned about safety and security, articulated high-speed rail is hands-down the safest form of transport known to man.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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