4 ms·

> The issue of people impersonating pilots on VHF AM, or broadcasting spoofed ADS-B positions is well managed procedurally and through technologies that can cro

> The issue of people impersonating pilots on VHF AM, or broadcasting spoofed ADS-B positions is well managed procedurally and through technologies that can cross check each other. Not really. Maybe in part 121/135 ops (not sure, I don't fly that) but that's definitely not the norm in part 91. > Key management is a non starter Even having just signed digital comms would be interesting. However, frequency congestion and talking in general are the better things to target here. We have had text communication for a long time now and can send clear messages in fractions of a second. Talking on the radio is an art form to try and reduce the amount of time you are pressing xmit so as to not block others while maintaining the expected coding and being clear. Still, people get stepped on and partial messages are received and then someone has to re-verbalize what they need. We do have things like D-ATIS and technology like ForeFlight which brings IFR filing. You can get a clearance sent to your phone while on the ground. That's about as far as things go in most part 91 ops (and many don't even approach that.) Once you are in the air, almost no personally owned aircraft have things like ACARS and all communication is done via voice over the radio. The only way to know that you are getting a wrong instruction is when others hear it and call it out. (MEOW!) > Then there’s the fact there are hundreds of thousands of aircraft Yeah, that's why we are where we are. We still encode NOTAMS/ATIS/TAFs in inscrutable acronyms because bytes were expensive at one point and people had to be able to interpret them with some training. The same systems re-imagined today would use less bandwidth and provide easily readable text and in many languages. We had to slowly bring in ADS-B and then require it for certain airspace; We can do the same with other improvements. The strategies aren't even new. Yes it will cost money. Once not having it costs lives, the money won't be an issue.

bigfatkitten 1y ago
> Not really. Maybe in part 121/135 ops (not sure, I don't fly that) but that's definitely not the norm in part 91. From an ATC perspective there’s a bunch of possible position sources for an aircraft; MLAT, ADS-B, CPDLC/ADS-C, primary radar, SSR as well as verbal position reports from pilots, depending on a combination of location and ATC and aircraft capabilities. The ATC system is responsible for fusing these sources to paint a track on the screen for the controller. The system (at least Eurocat and TopSky, I can’t speak for others) will throw errors if these sources don’t agree. The controller will ask questions if the pilot says one thing and the display in front of them says another. There are established procedures for dealing with transponders transmitting garbage, for example. If you’re tooling around in Class G in your part 91 op, then for the most part nobody’s really watching you anyway.

bigfatkitten 1y ago

> Not really. Maybe in part 121/135 ops (not sure, I don't fly that) but that's definitely not the norm in part 91. From an ATC perspective there’s a bunch of possible position sources for an aircraft; MLAT, ADS-B, CPDLC/ADS-C, primary radar, SSR as well as verbal position reports from pilots, depending on a combination of location and ATC and aircraft capabilities. The ATC system is responsible for fusing these sources to paint a track on the screen for the controller. The system (at least Eurocat and TopSky, I can’t speak for others) will throw errors if these sources don’t agree. The controller will ask questions if the pilot says one thing and the display in front of them says another. There are established procedures for dealing with transponders transmitting garbage, for example. If you’re tooling around in Class G in your part 91 op, then for the most part nobody’s really watching you anyway.