tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post1893082416750111612..comments2024-02-21T03:48:52.674-05:00Comments on Flying Lessons: FAA Gives Airlines an "Update to Latest Version" DeadlineChristine Negronihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15190247339367487575noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-31873928144496784912010-05-28T15:35:54.456-04:002010-05-28T15:35:54.456-04:00This genie is not goin' back in the bottle. Ho...This genie is not goin' back in the bottle. However, since the "efficiency, accuracy and performance" of planes in a satellite based system is being argued here, I'll have to remove incontestable from the post. Busted on that one.Christine Negronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15190247339367487575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-1266972479639620222010-05-28T10:26:35.491-04:002010-05-28T10:26:35.491-04:00Chris:
Please don't drink the FAA's kool-...Chris:<br /><br /><i>Please</i> don't drink the FAA's kool-aid on this issue. They have their agenda (reduction in costs of acquisition and maintenance of ground-based equipment), and they are promoting it with visions of sugar plums. They get people like you to say things like, "And then it will <i>incontestably</i> improve efficiency, accuracy and performance."<br /><br />Well, there isn't anything incontestable about it! As our friend airphoria points out there's nothing here to increase the capacity of the concrete at ORD...or at LAX or ATL or JFK/LGA/EWR. The neck of the bottle is not bigger and the system will be just as dynamited by a summer supercell as it is today.<br /><br />With best regards,<br /><br />FrankFrank Van Hastehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10821687850881538546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-71313049697488455232010-05-28T01:33:12.103-04:002010-05-28T01:33:12.103-04:00"There are no losers in next-gen"? Chris..."There are no losers in next-gen"? Christine, please forgive my polite disagreement...<br /><br />While a number of 121 aircraft already may have satnav onboard, how many of them actually have the requisite ADS-B equipment on board now? While both technologies may share the same position source, they are separate boxes with separate functions. So the equipment that 80% of the fleet may have doesn't do the ADS-B part.<br /><br />There already have been noises in the press about airlines wanting taxpayer subsidies to equip. Thus, if they get their way, we socialize the costs, but they get to profit? Who wins there?<br /><br />Will this technology double or triple the number of airplanes that can fit on the runway at O'Hare between 7 and 9AM on any given day? Does the traveler win here?<br /><br />What about the hundreds of thousands of non-121 aircraft in existence? The published rule mandates that they carry a $15000 TSO'ed box that sends out position information (ADS-B-out), but provides nothing in return (ADS-B-in). The spec for the latter has been conveniently omitted. NextGen was sold to operators on the assumption that weather and traffic information could be uplinked, and that would be part of the value proposition to equip. Now there's no proposed value for the operator at all.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, if you need to fly over 18000 feet, you get to equip with two of these boxes, because there are two incompatible specifications published for them. Who wins there?<br /><br />The government wins, and the equpment makers really win. Airlines, we'll see. But there are some definite losers here, notably taxpayers and aircraft owners and operators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com