Slashdot Mirror


Senate Votes To Replace Aviation Radar With GPS

plover writes "The US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 margin a bill that would implement the FAA's NextGen plan to replace aviation radar with GPS units. It will help pay for the upgrade by increasing aviation fuel taxes on private aircraft. It will require two inspections per year on foreign repair stations that work on US planes. And it will ban pilots from using personal electronics in the cockpit. This just needs to be reconciled with the House version and is expected to become law soon. This was discussed on Slashdot a few years ago."

37 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Great... by T-Bucket · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the nextgen plan is a good thing, the rest is crap. We can get legislation to ban laptops, but we can't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed. How about NOT giving in to the airline lobbyists for once and actually doing something to make air travel SAFER????

    1. Re:Great... by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Funny

      gah.
      sorry about that, had 2 windows open and got the 1 mixed up.

      Mod offtopic.

    2. Re:Great... by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Funny

      You assume people understand what their wishes are. There was a news story of a guy marching against socialized medicine in his Medicare provided scooter.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    3. Re:Great... by AlecC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is as much about increasing airway capacity as increasing safety, over ocean there is no radar coverage so that aircraft have to be kept very well spaced, which is becoming a bottleneck on busy routes e.g. US North East to Northern Europe. With GPS you can increase density without decreasing safety. And it will probably save money in the long term - the GPS based systems are inherently cheaper, but you have to put up money in front to run both systems in parallel, and you don't get the payback until you can begin switching off radars. So it needs short term funding to cover the spending hump.

      Basically, this is an unsurprising bit of good housekeeping - as shown by the vote. It was a change that would have to be made sometime, and the only real question was exactly when: costs will almost certainly fall if you delay, but that puts off the arrival of benefits as well.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Great... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can get legislation to ban laptops, but we can't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed.

      One plane harmlessly overshot its target because somebody was paying attention to a laptop, and now all personal electronics are a threat to our safety and national security. The stewards/stewardesses noticed that they were later than expected, asked the pilots what was up, and they realized their mistake and corrected it. No one was ever in any real danger because we already have safety rules to ensure that there are enough people on the plane to limit the danger posed by these sorts of mistakes. The system worked. But Congress just isn't capable of understanding that. They need someone to blame because the incident got media attention.

      Unfortunately, Congress really is that simple-minded. Whenever something bad happens, their primary goal is to find someone or something to blame, then try to come up with a change to the law that will at least appear to thwart whatever scapegoat they chose, all while failing to address any of the real problems, simply because they aren't sufficiently aware of what those problems are to be making these sorts of policy decisions.

      The FAA should be making these rules, not Congress. That's why we have federal regulatory agencies. If they aren't making the right rules, Congress should ask the President to replace the head of the agency with someone else. As soon as Congress gets into the regulatory business, we all get screwed. The only role Congress should be playing in this is approving the budget for the new equipment if it was requested by the FAA. If it wasn't requested by the FAA, then the whole bill is crap. Either way, the rest of it is crap.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Great... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The worst part about this law? Personal electronics in the cockpits of small planes make then safer when used for flight-related purposes, and using personal electronics for purposes unrelated to flying is already against the rules, so this law can't possibly do anything but cause harm. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard about:

      • pilots using cell phones/PDAs to check weather.com or wunderground.com or whatever so they can actually see the weather system
      • pilots using cell phones to talk to the tower after a radio failure
      • pilots using laptops for various flight operations calculations or to more rapidly search the operator manuals for an esoteric problem or...

      Might as well provide a link to professional pilot discussion on the subject. To sum up the thread, they mostly think our Congress are a bunch of morons. Usually if the people you are regulating think you are utterly incompetent, that's a clear sign that you should take a step back, pull your head out of your backside, and rethink your position.

      Sadly, Congress in their infinite ineptitude, will almost certainly blaze ahead and pass this law, thus dooming some flight a few years from now that could have been saved with personal electronics in the cockpit. And, of course, they'll never know that the flight could have been saved because they aren't smart enough to recognize the hundreds of times this has already happened.

      I think we need a constitutional "cooling off period" amendment that says that with the exception of laws to provide financial relief, no law may be passed in response to any accident, catastrophe, or other incident, whether of natural or human cause, for a minimum of one year (or even two) after the incident in question. Such a law would have prevented so many of Congress's worst screw-ups. Hmm. I think I've said this before.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Satellite vulnerability by PhilHibbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just adds to the consequences of the inevitable solar flare that will knock out all our satellites.

    1. Re:Satellite vulnerability by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Senator 1: "Isn't there some saying about putting all your eggs in one basket?"
      Senator 2: "Hey! Good idea!"

    2. Re:Satellite vulnerability by AlecC · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are talking about replacing the ground radar which generates the "blips" on ATC screens with "secondary" radar that just interrogates the plane's on-board GPS. They already interrogate the plane for ID, bearing and speed - this just adds the position and altitude from the plane. Obviously the GPS receiver and the transponder must be extremely reliable.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    3. Re:Satellite vulnerability by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well lets look at the benefits.
      1. More accurate. GPS can produce a more accurate position fixes than radar can.
      2. More reliable. The ATC radar system is big expensive and is a point of failure. With GPS transponders you can replace the radar with a few simple and redundant data links.
      3. Can provide more coverage. Every aircraft in the system can transit it's location even when out of radar range. Radar is limited by line of site. "ATC radar we will not get into back scatter systems as they are not used for ATC"
      Downsides.
      1. If the GPS system goes down we are in a world of hurt. To be honest if the GPS system goes down we are already in a world of hurt.
      2. If you turn of your GPS beacon you are invisible. Not that big of a change really. If you turn your transponder off you may also be invisible to some ATCs
      3, Dangers from jamming, How hard will it be to jam the GPS signal or worse spoof it near an airport?

      The ATC system and air navigation system in the US has been in need of an overhaul for a long time.
      VOR/DME systems where very useful in the day but GPS is much more accurate.
      Most communications are still using analog voice systems that have changed very little since the 40s and 50s.
      Of course there is a huge problem with any massive upgrade.
      That is simply cost.
      There are thousands of small Mom and Pop airports and FBOs that are just barley staying in business as it is. They can not afford spending thousands of dollars to get new radios.
      Then you have all the private pilots that also really can not afford the cost of upgrading. It is a myth that all private pilots are rich. A lot of them just have a passion for flying. They tend to be no more rich than must boat owners. That and people tend to forget that General Aviation also provides lots of jobs as well. Not as much as it used to but still a good number.
      I fear that unless these beacons are really cheap we will see a lot of aircraft grounded or restricted to none controlled airports.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  3. sounds risky by seeker_1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?

    1. Re:sounds risky by vxice · · Score: 5, Funny

      and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy? what if...

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    2. Re:sounds risky by CODiNE · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was clearly a feral oompa-loompa, NOT a munchkin. Completely different man.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    3. Re:sounds risky by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm pretty sure we would still have VFR, VOR/VORTAC, NBD/DME, etc.

      Sure, it might be a bit more 'interesting' not running into anyone, but you hardly NEED gps (or radar) to get from A to B.

      Links below, because having [wikipedia.org] fifteen times in the middle of the text is irritating.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_flight_rules
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VORTAC
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-directional_beacon
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measuring_equipment

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  4. Security by The+Aethereal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control? How is this system secured? This will be breached repeatedly. Also, what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites? I'm sure GPS is a better system under normal circumstances, but circumstances are not always normal.

    1. Re:Security by shrtcircuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Planes already send their location back to ATC using query/response from the ground radar in an easily breached system. We haven't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet. In fact the current system is significantly more vulnerable, as it can only handle so many planes in its "view" at a time. Try to imagine loading that up with a few hundred fake transponders that block out real aircraft from showing up - essentially an ATC DoS attack. NextGen would, I hope, be considerably harder to attack in that method. With the current method it isn't unheard of for busy areas to DoS themselves from overload so it's already a weak model.

      Also while I don't think GPS is or could ever be 100% reliable, we pilots do have something called pilotage, paper charts, and good old fashioned flying that we can use to get where we're going. It isn't as cool or convenient as a big moving map on your panel, but is a tried and true way to safely navigate that folks have been using since Jeppesen invented aeronautical charting. Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites, pilots aren't going to suddenly find themselves completely lost, and planes aren't going just drop out of the sky. GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time, and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on. It's really not the end of the world. In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.

      NextGen is not the end of the world, it's a much needed upgrade to a vastly outdated system. It's better than what we have now, and if it breaks there won't be airliners crashing right and left. It's OK.

      My personal beef with it is the "personal electronics" thing. I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing. Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.

    2. Re:Security by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control?

      ADS-B

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast

      How is this system secured? This will be breached repeatedly.

      No technical means what so ever.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast#Public_Access_to_ADS-B

      No public reports of anyone intentionally messing with the 50 year old transponder system, which basically did "about the same thing" but without GPS. Probably because the military spent enormous amounts of money on gear and training to stop the Russians from doing it effectively, by being able to pinpoint the source, launch HARM missiles at the source, etc. If you can do a better job than a world superpower, then the USAF might be concerned... maybe.

      There is an economic limitation in that the cost of the gear to "mess with the system" would be staggeringly far in excess of the cost of a simple cheap surface to air missile or an explosive in a suitcase (or shoe). And when all is said and done, you've knocked out air surveillance, something that happens on occasion right now due to equipment failure and its "no big deal".

      Also, what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites?

      GPS sats are pretty tough, vaguely EMP proof. They were built and launched by the military for the military, you know.

      Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear, today... You won't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible, but by no means do you have to "shut down ALL traffic" or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.

      The cheapest/simplest solution might be to scramble the AWACS planes temporarily, until you can hotwire some patriot missile radars into the civilian facilities.

      It would be an expensive and annoying PITA, but far less severe than the first couple days post-9/11

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Security by ktappe · · Score: 4, Informative

      My personal beef with it is the "personal electronics" thing. I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing. Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.

      The /. summary was incorrect (surprise surprise). The actual bill "bans pilots from using wireless devices or laptops in the cockpit that are unrelated to work." So you can still use your weather info. In fact, the MSP pilots were also doing work-related stuff so I don't know what ninny put that clause in as it doesn't even apply in a knee-jerk manner....

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  5. Inquiring minds... by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So exactly how prone will this system be to;

    1. Solar storms and sunspots?
    2. Terrorism foreign or domestic?
    3. Hacking or cracking?
    4. The problems surrounding an aging satellite service?

    Don't get me wrong, this has a lot of upside, it's just important we have a good idea what the down side is, how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.

  6. Re:By replace I hope they mean augment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Leave my X-Men LARPing out of this :(

  7. Soo the FAA said this was good? by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine.

    In cockpit systems a standby attitude device must be installed in the cockpit as a fallback system unless the existing cockpit systems have dual redundancy.

    Along the same token the GPS DAMN WELL better have a backup system of some sort. This backup may be a radar system or it may be an INS system combined with altitude sensors or use of VOR/TACAN systems. There just has to be something there.

  8. What about UFO's by rossdee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the literal sense, light aircraft not equiped with GPS, (Drug or people smugglers), and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.

    Or some kid in a baloon (hoax or not, its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...

    And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...

    It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.

    1. Re:What about UFO's by jittles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right now the Gen AV radar system is actually based upon transponders reporting their altitude, position, speed and bearing. The only people that use active radar these days are the kinds of guys that work at NORAD or on an AWACS.

    2. Re:What about UFO's by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.

      Well, of course not. If you're one of those people who uses the phrase "post-9/11 world" without (conscious) irony, you're never going to feel safe. Just be thankful you have the specter of terrorism to focus your fear on, instead of the countless vague fears that preyed on your mind in the long and dreadful period between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of al Qaeda.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  9. Didn't they delay a launch by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Didn't they delay a shuttle launchto avoid a GPS clock rollover? Will they ground all the world's aircraft for the next one?

  10. Security issue... by SaberCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Point one: GPS, since the plane's antenna is semi-omnidirectional, is easily jammed. GPS signal strengths are weak. Point Two: Radar is not easily jammed. A jammer can only jam one radial -- and he gives away his angular position when he does. Point Three: Radar can skin track a plane even when the plane's transponder is turned off.

    1. Re:Security issue... by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      GPS, since the plane's antenna is semi-omnidirectional, is easily jammed.

      The problem is, the semi-direction, as you call it, is pointed up. Most GPS satellites are up there rather than down here. And most/all jammers will be down here, where it isn't pointing. You're going to need about 20 dB more power just for that alone.

      A weak signal can't interfere far away. So, just fly on for a mile, and its all good again.

      A strong signal can be easily detected/pinpointed/eliminated by military ECM/ECCM aircraft.

      Its unlikely a ground based jammer could be effective for more than a couple hours.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  11. Re:Finally Congress gets down to business by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
    government. It can only exist until the voters discover
    that they can vote themselves largess from the public
    treasury. From that time on the majority always votes
    for the candidates promising the most benefits from the
    public treasury, with the results that a democracy
    always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed
    by a dictatorship.

    -- Alexander Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)

  12. Re:Finally Congress gets down to business by smpoole7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or, as Robert Heinlein once put it: once the Plebes discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, it's all over.

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  13. Re:What about $50 GPS Jammers? by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...and then ...nothing bad happens. The pilot reports a gps failure, air traffic guide her by radar towards the airport. When in range of the airport (assuming the weather is bad enough that the pilot can't see out the window) the pilot lands using the airport's instrument landing beacons.

    There is slight disruption to traffic in the area due to slightly wider berth being given to our troubled aircraft, and the priority landing pattern.

    (precise details made up - broad effect accurate)

  14. Re:93-0 margin by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, there are a couple of senators who are sick and cannot attend, and if it wasn't for the amendment to the health care reform bill, many of them would have been off on junkets or in committee meetings. 93 is actually a high number for such an uncontroversial bill.

  15. Re:The way I read it, radar won't be retired. by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm guessing that they will not throw out radar entirely for primary surveillance. They'll need it to track things that don't transmit their position, like aircraft with failed electronics.

    Or drug smugglers, or hijackers, or an incoming air raid, or anybody else who doesn't want to intentionally broadcast their location... Granted, civilian primary radar is not going to help much with an incoming military air raid.

    Overall, however, I think that it is a good way to cut down quite a bit of the cost (potentially) and provide better service.

  16. Re:What about $50 GPS Jammers? by GSMacLean · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're missing the point. The idea behind GPS-driven ADS-B is that it REPLACES surveillance radar.

    Here's how it works right now: The ground-based radar sends out a signal; it hits the aircraft and bounces back; ATC now knows which direction and how far away the aircraft is. On top of this, there is a transponder in the aircraft which sends back a coded number assigned by ATC, so that ATC can determine which dot on their radar screen is which aircraft. Additionally, if the transponder has (and has enabled) Mode C (which is required in most congested airspace), it sends back the aircraft's altitude. ATC now has a 3-dimensional fix on the aircraft, with positive verification as to who you are.

    ADS-B gets rid of all of this. Instead, the aircraft has a GPS receiver, which gives itself a 3-dimensional fix in space. It transmits this information along with a unique identifier, when interrogated, to ATC. ATC utilizes this information to identify and track the aircraft in 3 dimensional space, as is now done with conventional radar/Mode C.

    The problem is, what if GPS goes out? What if some pimply 17 year old kid buys a GPS jammer from Mexico and sets it up on his roof? Every aircraft in the area suddenly loses their ability to receive GPS signals, and all of a sudden ATC has no idea where any of the aircraft are. There is no backup system, because part of NexGen is the decommissioning of all primary surveillance radar.

    THAT is the issue.

  17. Re:GPS and altitude by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've noticed that when the lives of hundreds of thousands of people depend on a single piece of equipment, that it tends to be designed and tested to higher standards than cheap consumer equipment..

    --
    which is totally what she said
  18. I've helped test this system, and it's good by Goldenhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can tell from reading the other comments here that my opinions will be in the minority, but I can personally testify how GOOD this system is.

    I do flight testing of military aircraft, and we did a demo with several planes and helicopters a couple years ago on the "ADS-B" system, which is a component of NextGen. I've played with it inflight myself, and surveyed many pilots who used it. So you know I'm not blowing smoke, I won an award for a paper about this system at the 2006 Society of Flight Test Engineers annual symposium.

    To give you some context about what NextGen and ADS-B do, here's the idea. (I think this description will be useful, since it appears most of the comments here demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge of the system... but this *IS* /. so I'm not surprised.)

    Each plane is equipped with a transponder. It receives GPS position, and broadcasts a packet of data once per second (much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds) containing identity, position, aircraft type, speed, heading, altitude, and more.

    With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment, each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft. In other words, an airplane will see what the other nearby airplanes are reporting too. Right now, a pilot has very little idea what is around his own plane - if the controller doesn't warn him, he doesn't know about it. The existing collision avoidance systems only show a rough approximation of what's in front of you at roughly the same altitude, but it's very error-prone (based on WWII-era-technology directional radio beacons), and hard to find the targets in many cases. But this sytem lets you see everything that the airspace controller is seeing, and almost instantly - once per second. We found the pilots experienced a four-fold increase in their ability to identify conflicting traffic in front of them, and for the first time were aware of overtaking traffic too (faster stuff coming up behind them).

    The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace. Along with this data, it also uploads precipitation radar and other weather data, plus airport information. So the pilot has access to a vast amount of new information. And most of the systems have onboard maps with terrain mapping, helping to keep the pilot away from mountains and other dangerous "cumulo-granite" features.

    For the pilot himself, the increase in situational awareness was simply amazing. The immediate and crystal clear presentation of the location of all nearby planes meant that he knew everything going on around him. For the ground controller, the much higher frequency updates combined with the much more detailed information about each plane means improved ability to track and direct those airplanes.

    There ARE a few downsides, but they're vastly outweighed by the improvements. As some comments indicate, it does depend on GPS. Well, duh. But so do the navigation systems already onboard the airplanes... and cars... and commercial trucks... and ships... and trains. If GPS goes down, there will be much worse problems than this system going away. Despite what it sounds like, the radars are not going away - some will, but there will still be enough for "skin paint" and radar transponder tracking if needed (Congress and the FAA are not totally stupid). As to GPS jammers, note that the airplane is receiving the GPS data, and broadcasting its information on a totally separate frequency to the ground and to other aircraft. So any GPS jamming (since it's localized) will only affect a few airplanes, not the whole system. And by the way, all serious aircraft have multiple navigation systems; jamming GPS won't kill any airplanes, despite the alarmists.

    Finally, let's talk about real-world - this system was installed in portions of Alaska around 2000-2001, as a

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  19. This is BAD by Phairdon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can tell from comments that not many of you are private pilots. They are paying for this with yet another tax on fuel for private planes. The FAA keeps raising fees on everything associated with having a private plane while giving big breaks to commercial companies. I'm sick of it.

  20. Re:Maybe Americans just fly too much? by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Informative

    As somebody who knows and works with several private pilots, that statement is utterly false. Private aircraft are certainly not cheap, but they are definitely not out of reach of the middle class.

    Just because *you* don't like them doesn't make those that do wrong. Do you have any statistics on GA fuel usage vs commercial vs automotive that I'm not aware of? I simply don't understand why you're hostile to general aviation. I certainly can agree with you on the over-reliance on commercial air travel. A better utilized rail system would do us some good here-- but private aircraft are most often flown as a hobby by regular people.

    --
    +1 Disagree