3 ms·
"FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, IF YOU PURCHASE WI-FI IN COACH, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH BETTER OFF THAN THE PILOT." So why does ATC not having GPS tracking make the pi
by cmurf 12y ago
"FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, IF YOU PURCHASE WI-FI IN COACH, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH BETTER OFF THAN THE PILOT."
So why does ATC not having GPS tracking make the pilot worse off? The pilot does have GPS, and even more precision navigation in certain cases like instrument landings.
If the FAA and the companies they keep hiring weren't so f'n sclerotic, I'd say they need to look at a totally decentralized system that account for autonomous drones, so all positive control flights (non-VFR) can be integrated into the same system; but obviously starting over yet again is a great way to just burn another $5 billion. No actually burning the cash would at least have residual value as potash.
- jrockway 12y agoNextGen gives the pilots (with "ADS-B in") the same view of the airspace that the controllers get. Right now, they only have a limited view, via the TCAS.
- cmurf 12y agoYes, but WiFi doesn't give me the same view of the airspace the controllers get, or pilots will eventually get. WiFi gets me something like flightware tracking which is a lot slower and more delayed than primary/secondary radar, TCAS or ADS-B. My point is I think the article's author thought they were making a funny. And it wasn't correct or funny.
- Animats 12y agoIt's unsafe for aviation to be entirely dependent on GPS and self-reporting systems like ADS-B. Planes should still have VORs available, even though they take up a lot of acreage next to airports, the ground should still have primary radar, and aircraft should still have their dumb old AM VHF radios. Large aircraft typically have at least three completely different navigational sources - VOR/DME, GPS, and inertial guidance. Over- reliance on GPS is dangerous.