4 ms·

Sure, analog FM wouldn't be a good idea either. But why not use something digital with proper collision avoidance and EMI resistance?

by fsh 7y ago

jsjohnst 7y ago
Expensive to retrofit worldwide.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  Where there is an effective solution to a problem, it can be done, as with the adoption of TCAS itself.
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    An effective solution to never losing a plane like Malaysian Airways 370 has existed for a long time (automatic transmission of GPS location via satellite), but hasn’t been done due to cost. The cost of doing that would be far less than the cost of upgrading all radios worldwide to be digital (remember, it’s not just planes, but ATC, airports, the handhelds used by ground crews, etc).
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      MH370 is hardly relevant, because something like that was not considered to be a plausible scenario. My point is simply that there are historical precedents demonstrating that, when there is a sufficiently large perceived benefit, the cost of rolling out the change globally is not an obstacle preventing it being done. In the case of radio, we are currently in the situation where there does not seem to be an alternative that delivers a big enough benefit to justify making the switch.
      - jsjohnst 7y ago
        > because something like that was not considered to be a plausible scenario. Except 12 other planes (among hundreds in the past century) have mysteriously disappeared without recovery since 2000 alone, so maybe it should be considered before more lives are lost?
        mannykannot 7y ago
        None of those events were remotely comparable to MH370, which included actions by whoever was in control of the aircraft to disable systems that would have given additional information concerning its whereabouts. In this thread, you have gone from the position that the cost of retrofitting would prevent the adoption of improvements to radio communication, to a position of advocating just such a change over a different matter. In both cases, the answer is the same: if there is an available solution that is seen to provide sufficient amelioration of a sufficiently serious problem, the cost will be borne, as was so in the case of TCAS.
        jsjohnst 7y ago
        > to a position of advocating just such a change over a different matter No, I haven’t, so please don’t put words in my mouth. If you notice, I’ve corrected inaccuracies in your statements, not commented on your core premise. I’m not going to do so again (but could) as we seem to be violently agreeing without you realizing, so as such have a good day!
        mannykannot 7y ago
        I am happy to leave it to third parties to decide for themselves whether you have stated a coherent position.
        jsjohnst 7y ago
        Was the cheap shot really necessary? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
wbl 7y ago
Collision avoidance is bad. Pilots want to shout "mayday!" even if other people were talking.

Sure, analog FM wouldn't be a good idea either. But why not use something digital with proper collision avoidance and EMI resistance?

by fsh 7y ago

Sure, analog FM wouldn't be a good idea either. But why not use something digital with proper collision avoidance and EMI resistance?

jsjohnst 7y ago

Expensive to retrofit worldwide.

mannykannot 7y ago
Where there is an effective solution to a problem, it can be done, as with the adoption of TCAS itself.
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  An effective solution to never losing a plane like Malaysian Airways 370 has existed for a long time (automatic transmission of GPS location via satellite), but hasn’t been done due to cost. The cost of doing that would be far less than the cost of upgrading all radios worldwide to be digital (remember, it’s not just planes, but ATC, airports, the handhelds used by ground crews, etc).
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    MH370 is hardly relevant, because something like that was not considered to be a plausible scenario. My point is simply that there are historical precedents demonstrating that, when there is a sufficiently large perceived benefit, the cost of rolling out the change globally is not an obstacle preventing it being done. In the case of radio, we are currently in the situation where there does not seem to be an alternative that delivers a big enough benefit to justify making the switch.
    - jsjohnst 7y ago
      > because something like that was not considered to be a plausible scenario. Except 12 other planes (among hundreds in the past century) have mysteriously disappeared without recovery since 2000 alone, so maybe it should be considered before more lives are lost?
      - mannykannot 7y ago
        None of those events were remotely comparable to MH370, which included actions by whoever was in control of the aircraft to disable systems that would have given additional information concerning its whereabouts. In this thread, you have gone from the position that the cost of retrofitting would prevent the adoption of improvements to radio communication, to a position of advocating just such a change over a different matter. In both cases, the answer is the same: if there is an available solution that is seen to provide sufficient amelioration of a sufficiently serious problem, the cost will be borne, as was so in the case of TCAS.
        jsjohnst 7y ago
        > to a position of advocating just such a change over a different matter No, I haven’t, so please don’t put words in my mouth. If you notice, I’ve corrected inaccuracies in your statements, not commented on your core premise. I’m not going to do so again (but could) as we seem to be violently agreeing without you realizing, so as such have a good day!
        mannykannot 7y ago
        I am happy to leave it to third parties to decide for themselves whether you have stated a coherent position.
        jsjohnst 7y ago
        Was the cheap shot really necessary? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

wbl 7y ago

Collision avoidance is bad. Pilots want to shout "mayday!" even if other people were talking.