Something TERRIBLE about the air industry...

**sdashiki** · 11-12-2005, 10:41 AM

Just watched CNN, ill paraphrase:

Air traffic controllers (ATCs) might possibly finally get what they have been asking for since 1990. The ability to track aircraft on the ground at their airport, in real time. Just in the same way the radar screen etc that ATCs look at all day, just not at 1000-40000 feet, instead at 0 feet.

So basically youll have a screen that looks like a map of all the tarmac/runways/gates etc. With little blips for each "active", which I guess means either pulled away from a gate or turned "on" in some sense, aircraft. Each blip tells you the carrier/tail#/flight# etc of the plane. Without this, its up to each aircraft/pilot and the ATCs to make sure no one is taking off with someone landing, etc etc.

One would think that this kind of thing is in place already, but no, its big towers, glass windows and binoculars with maybe some computerization.

What struck me as so odd is that this is like common sense, especially when we have the ability to track the same info IN THE AIR, yet not 1/4 mile in front of us.

Just had to tell you something Im sure you assumed ATCs and pilots had access to. But they dont. CNN was remarking on the fact that a couple of airports are testing these kinds of systems, but nothing is approved and even when approved the NTSB has yet to say whether it will ever get federal funding for every airport.

LOL.

**kiltjim** · 11-12-2005, 10:55 AM

What the hell does this have to do with the production and sale of air?

Scary nonetheless...

**RPI Geek** · 11-12-2005, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by sdashiki

Without this, its up to each aircraft/pilot and the ATCs to make sure no one is taking off with someone landing, etc etc.

When I took flight lessons one of the first things they taught me is that it is ALWAYS the ultimate responsibility of the PILOT to keep a watchful eye and avoid collisions. This might have changed when it came time to file for IFR flight but I never got that far.

Originally Posted by sdashiki

What struck me as so odd is that this is like common sense, especially when we have the ability to track the same info IN THE AIR, yet not 1/4 mile in front of us.

"Ability to track" for what purpose, security? safety?
Security:
Even the in-air tracking can be disabled by simply flipping a switch on the transponder, and in certain circumstances it is legal to fly without a transponder at all. Heck, I've flown once or twice when I forgot to turn it on until I waws 10 miles from the airport. The radar might not even pick up the plane if it's far enough out of range / the right height / has a mountain in the way / there is no radar like in rural areas / a whole combination of other factors. What I'm getting at is that if a similar device is used, or even if it's the transponder itself, the pilot can just turn it off.
Safety:
IMHO no pilot should ever cross a runway without carefully checking for traffic, and at lots of airports there are cars, baggage handlers, maintenance and construction vehicles, flocks of birds, etc. I was going to blast this too, but now that I think about it I can see how safety could improve, but only marginally. I suppose that even if 1 life is saved it would justify the costs.

Originally Posted by sdashiki

Just had to tell you something Im sure you assumed ATCs and pilots had access to. But they dont.

If you thought they had this then you'd probably be amazed with the minimum equipment list required for flying, it's pretty damn sparse. Then again, the last time I flew was before 9/11 so things may have changed since then, but I doubt it.

**Bugbyte** · 11-12-2005, 02:20 PM

This is a case where a seemingly simple problem isn't. And when problems are complex, they cost big $$$. That is the case here.

Tracking the position and information of every aircraft on the surface of the airport is fundamentally different from doing it in the air because there are other things on the surface, including vehicles, buildings, and people. In the air, this is not the case.

On the ground, radar returns are affected by the weather such as rain and also by the fact that if you only use a single antenna, it is difficult to ascertain the exact position of the aircraft without some way to triangulate. Radars measure how long it takes for a signal sent to be returned. On the surface of an airport, this requires an extremely accurate system.

In the air, the minimum separation distance is 5 miles in most cases. The accuracy of the radar doesn't have to be nearly as high and in many cases, returns from several radars are pieced together to ascertain the position of the aircraft. However, ATC doesn't know PRECISELY where the aircraft is but they have a reasonable estimate and the separation standards are designed to accomodate any error.

Add on to this that you are talking about a government agency procuring a limited number of systems (perhaps 400 at the absolute outside, but more like 100 or less for the larger airports) and one that doesn't have a good track record for coming in on time, under budget, or even successfully completing their projects.

In addition, runway surface movement is accomplished by trained professionals who may only use their eyes but are nonetheless trained professionals. The system works and works well. Add to that budgetary pressures cause procurement to be drawn out over a period of years rather than outright cancellation of a project and you can begin to see why they don't have this.

**rushnrockt** · 11-12-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

In the air, the minimum separation distance is 5 miles in most cases. The accuracy of the radar doesn't have to be nearly as high and in many cases, returns from several radars are pieced together to ascertain the position of the aircraft. However, ATC doesn't know PRECISELY where the aircraft is but they have a reasonable estimate and the separation standards are designed to accomodate any error.

It is 2 miles for most international airports and the main concern is not the "accuracy" since radars and gps systems are capable of figuring out the distance pretty darn well, but the fact that any distance closer than that, the turbulence of one airplane will mess with the next airplane. Radars have been around for a century, they are not so imprecise that you have to "guesstimate" the location of the airplane. Radar guided anti-aircraft artillery has been around for decades and that requires one hell of a good accuracy.

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

In addition, runway surface movement is accomplished by trained professionals who may only use their eyes but are nonetheless trained professionals. The system works and works well. Add to that budgetary pressures cause procurement to be drawn out over a period of years rather than outright cancellation of a project and you can begin to see why they don't have this.

You sure that those trained professionals would not have something against a computerized system that will take their jobs away? Hmmm, might be another hurdle in implementation process over there

**Scouse Monkey** · 11-12-2005, 03:54 PM

I can't be arsed reading this. is it about ground radar tracking of planes and vehicles around the airport? If it is then it has taken ages to do because it is so bloody hard to do accurately. There is no point in having such a system if it is not 99.99999% accurate or cars will get squashed by a 747!

**Enforcer** · 11-12-2005, 04:28 PM

Just give them nice big wing mirrors (I mean the wings are big enough for gods sake) and a nice CCD reversing camera, and there'll be no problems.

**Bugbyte** · 11-12-2005, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by rushnrockt

It is 2 miles for most international airports and the main concern is not the "accuracy" since radars and gps systems are capable of figuring out the distance pretty darn well

First, you are talking about what is called the "terminal" domain. You'll not that I said "in most cases". The terminal is a case where that separation standard can be reduced if visual separation is maintained by the pilots. In that case the wake turbulence can be a limiting factor and varies by aircraft size. 2 miles for some, more for others such as the 757.

Second, GPS has nothing to do with radar surveillance. Yes, pilots know where they are very accurately but that information is not relayed to the air traffic controller.

Radars have been around for a century, they are not so imprecise that you have to "guesstimate" the location of the airplane. Radar guided anti-aircraft artillery has been around for decades and that requires one hell of a good accuracy.

You are incorrect on this point. Radar is used to determine the range and bearing but is not used to guide the projectile. In addition, radar is not as accurate as you think.

You sure that those trained professionals would not have something against a computerized system that will take their jobs away? Hmmm, might be another hurdle in implementation process over there

An automated ground control system is so difficult to design, they don't need to worry.

**rushnrockt** · 11-12-2005, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

Second, GPS has nothing to do with radar surveillance. Yes, pilots know where they are very accurately but that information is not relayed to the air traffic controller.

I am aware of that, yet no one prohibits this simple device from being used.

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

You are incorrect on this point. Radar is used to determine the range and bearing but is not used to guide the projectile. In addition, radar is not as accurate as you think.

Radars had an accuracy of 50m before WWII... they have since improved a bit

And again, I don't see particular use for a radar in the airport when GPS or RFID tags would do.

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

An automated ground control system is so difficult to design, they don't need to worry.

Although admittedly its a very detailed task, it is not so difficult, considering how there are entire automated factories out there. People involved in wrestling with each other, meaning government (the one spending money), outside companies (the ones getting money) and the previously mentioned professionals (the ones standing to lose money) would be the most significant factors in slowing down the creation and adoption of such systems. If Walmart can do tracking, government backed designs better be able, or I am voting for Waltons in the next election.

**Bugbyte** · 11-13-2005, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by rushnrockt

I am aware of that, yet no one prohibits this simple device from being used.

True, but we are discussing the ASDE-X ground radar tracking system and that does use radar. You are correct that the best solution is to have aircraft self-report their own positions and use that information for surveillance. This is known as ADS-B or Automated Dependent Surveillance (Broadcast) and would work not only on the ground but also in the air. This system is still experimental and would solve the problem but requires all vehicles/aircraft to be equipped to this standard. Since the system is already extremely safe (not foolproof, but very safe), the cost/benefit story isn't positive.

Originally Posted by rushunrockt

Although admittedly its a very detailed task, it is not so difficult, considering how there are entire automated factories out there.

I believe you underestimate the challenge. Remember that air transportation has an unparalleled safety record and maintaining such a standard requires a system that works perfectly at all times and under all circumstances or it will be less safe than the current manual system.

Factories are controlled environments where repeatable processes can be refined and controlled. They do not have to work when snowplows have accidentally crossed an active runway, when pilots accidentally land on the wrong runway or taxiway, when a tire blows on landing and closes the active, when the taxiway is blocked by a pilot unfamiliar with the airport layout, when a pilot has a stuck microphone blocking communications with everyone on that frequency or any of a thousand other unexpected variables that require human judgement and problem solving skills.

One must also deal with differing levels of equippage of those aircraft, some of which may have full blown avionics and flight management systems in them, and others which may have non-working transponders.

Insurmountable problems? Maybe, maybe not. But devising an automated ground control system would almost certainly cost more than the benefit it would deliver and the safety certification of such a system would be monumental. It may be much cheaper to simply help controllers out by giving them better information about where the vehicles are on the surface.

BTW, in case you wonder why I'm all over this, I work at a federally funded research and development center that researches and analyzes the air traffic control system for the FAA.