What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
104 Comments
- t3hmyth, on 10/13/2008, -2/+80I'm surprised that airlines hadn't taken to adopting GPS sooner.
- StevenBullen, on 10/13/2008, -5/+53Give all the pilots iPhones.
- tnerd, on 10/13/2008, -2/+46Instead of $35 Billion make it $50 Billion and let the politicians have their share!! Things will start moving rightaway!
- keithwired, on 10/13/2008, -2/+42Yes, CamZak pretty much is correct, although a Sattelite based system would make things more efficient, it also would increase the likelihood that in the event of a catastrophic failure of the sattelite system due to hacking, or space debris damage, or electromagnetic pulse damage (solar flare). The potential disaster that that could cause would be tremendous, instead, by relying on VOR stations which transmit a simple omnidirectional beacon, even if one station is compromised, there are hundreds more stations that pilots can use to determine their geographical position. The simpler you keep things, the less likely they are to fail and if they do the consequences are much less severe.
- majortom1981, on 10/13/2008, -0/+38From a commenter on treehugger.com
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/how-gps-ca ...
" Joe says:
There probably ought to be a requirement to have a pilot's license with an instrument rating before being allowed to comment on this thread.
All major airliners have instrument-certified Aviation GPS units in them. As for small private aircraft...I don't have exact figures, but I'd wager that nearly *every* private pilot has or uses at least a portable (VFR) Aviation GPS.
For purposes of this article, only Instrument flight plans (IFR)--which all commercial airliners fly on--need to be considered.
The problem is definitely *NOT* the aircraft--virtually all of them are equipped properly for direct GPS flights.
The problem is the FAA & Air Traffic Control (ATC), or rather the bureaucracy and challenge of guiding thousands of airplanes through the air while providing necessary spacial separation to keep them from crashing into each other.
The somewhat "zig-zaggy" routes the article complains about are like highways in the sky, and ATC has "preferred routes" between most airport areas to facilitate that safety and separation. Also, there are numerous parts of the country--and I mean hundreds--where you are simply not allowed to fly over, sometimes at any altitude because they are restricted military training areas--so an absolutely direct routing may not be possible.
Believe it or not, the established routes are generally fairly direct--the article really overstates the difference to be saved. It otherwise makes inaccurate gross generalizations about how much GPS would save when, if fact, GPS is already regularly and extensively used. The real problem is in safely separating air traffic and lining up those big aluminum tubes in a way that is predictable and safe--but also requires everybody to get in a handful of lines to arrive in an orderly manner, rather than a hundred different airplanes all converging on a single airport from 100 different directions. GPS can't and won't solve that problem.
Also, while flying enroute, even if the flight plan is a little bit ziggy-zaggy, ATC generally tries to help you "cut corners" wherever possible--they want you done and finished just as much as you want to be, so if they can issue a "direct clearance" anywhere in the flight plan (allowing you to bypass some of the zigs or zags for a more direct routing), they most always do so.
Otherwise, the arrival procedures (called an "approach" for any given airport are designed to do 2 things: (1) Make the flight paths into an airport predictable and safe, since everyone is doing the same things, and (2) Provide a known path with known safe altitudes to guide in an aircraft even when they can't see (i.e., in clouds & fog). GPS has added to this capability a bit, but fundamentally doesn't change it. Obstacles are obstacles, and flight paths need to be designed in a way that doesn't always allow for a direct routing if you wish to safely avoid those obstacles.
In summary, GPS is *already* used extensively. And it wouldn't shorten routes or save fuel any more than it already does.
What the article means to argue is for a new ATC system called "ADS-B" which would presumably eliminate the need and expense for ground-based radar to track where planes are, because the planes themselves could transmit their position to ATC. It would save money there on the upkeep of ground-based radar and navigation beacons (transferring that cost to airlines to install on-board ADS-B equipment), but otherwise would not save any real amount on fuel due to the reasons outlined in the previous paragraphs.
The fact is, the problem isn't lack of GPS--virtually everyone already uses it extensively, and routing is already about as direct as it can be, given the need for separation into & out of metropolitan airports. ADS-B would save the cost of land-based infrastructure, but won't save fuel anymore than the already widely-used GPS already does.
I thought it important to inject a dose of facts and real-world experience to this posting. Hopefully you found it enlightening. I know because I have had to plan and fly these routes, and in every case, I always prefer to go "direct" as much as possible because it does save time and money (fuel) to do so. But practically speaking, its not strictly possible, even though I *do* have GPS, and ATC knows I have it. Restricted areas, terrain, separation, and safety all work prevent a strictly direct routing.
But given those restrictions, GPS already makes it as close to possible as it can. And it already does.
- RJW
" - Protoss, on 10/13/2008, -0/+30Well I'd think they would work past all these issues first.
But why not build the GPS in, and in case of emergency, have the VOR stations as a fallback? - oneredeye, on 10/13/2008, -1/+29Um, Airlines _do_ use GPS. Just not to make efficient routes.
- RyeBrye, on 10/13/2008, -8/+35iPhone GPS is among the worst out there. It gives GPS a bad name.
- marzipanbrown, on 10/13/2008, -0/+26I work in the operational control center of a fairly major airline and hold several FAA licenses and would like to clear some things up.
The airlines do have, and use, GPS. Not only GPS, but the Flight Management System (FMS) gathers data from several sources: GPS, INS, VOR, and DME. It is constantly cross-checking data between the independent systems to determine its location. That aircraft knows where it is, period. If information form any one source does not jive with the others, it is eliminated from the computation and the pilot is warned.
The shortest flight between two points is almost never a straight line. Depending on the winds aloft, the shortest flight can wind up being over a hundred miles longer.
Delays usually do not occur due to too many aircraft being in the air, they are the result of too many aircraft trying to land at the same airport. Major airports (JFK, for example) have more aircraft scheduled to land then the do pavement to accept them. As I am writing this, for the 18z hour JFK has 72 aircraft scheduled to land with a capacity of 61. If the runways get wet, or low clouds roll in, the capacity can quickly drop to 30 or less. While the design of the route structure may be old, I do not feel in any way that it is out dated. The un educated assertion that filing flight planed as "GPS direct" everywhere to save money would do nothing more than cause chaos for ATC.
Hope that sheds some light on things. - CamZak, on 10/13/2008, -1/+26It's not that easy. Basically from my old days of flight sims, there's these things called VORs, they send out directional radio signals. So navigating from one point to another consists mostly of plotting out which VOR towers are where, and then learning how to tell your position relative to the tower. The towers can't tell you where you are, just where you are directional wise to them. If that makes sense.
- AmyVernon, on 10/13/2008, -1/+25I was pretty stunned by it, myself...
- DairyCreamer, on 10/13/2008, -0/+24As an air traffic controller, I'm here to say this article is the same BS that the FAA spews all the time... the only thing that's going to increase capacity is MORE RUNWAYS. GPS isn't going to do crap. We already cram them in at the airports as much as we can. It's not the airspace between the airports that's the problem, as we sling people direct places hundreds of miles away already.
- AdeleMor, on 10/13/2008, -10/+33My iPhone has GPS, why not major airplanes?
- arcticblue, on 10/13/2008, -2/+16GPS doesn't really work too well at high speeds. They'd need to get some military grade (or close to it) equipment for it to be usable at all.
- entropy71, on 10/13/2008, -0/+12I was stunned that it will cost over $200,000 USD to purchase a GPS system for each plane. What!?
- tj111, on 10/13/2008, -0/+10You have to keep in mind there are strict FAA regulations for IFR flight, especially in the commercial space. Approach vectors are attained through a tried and true method that relies on ground-based radio signals to align the approach. Even if all the computers in a plane malfunctioned, a pilot could still shoot VOR approaches using standard instrument displays that are present in all modern cockpits.
The fact of the matter is that the FAA approval process is extremely lengthy, they don't take chances on new technology. The fact that the majority of GA aircraft still use carburated engines proves it. - mac888, on 10/13/2008, -3/+13Put the same money in passenger rail and you'll save even more fuel and greenhouse gases. Most if not all trips until 300 miles should be on a train or bus.
- Kazaki, on 10/13/2008, -1/+11Space is a weapons free area, and a nation who violates the trust of the world by deploying such measures will face the wrath of the entire planet.
- ross., on 10/13/2008, -1/+11Why not just let the iPhone fly the planes...talk about killer apps.
- beansy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+9More than 10 years to finish a GPS Network? Only a government run project can be so wasteful and slow
- Pilot85, on 10/13/2008, -0/+9They do have GPS. Hell, there are published GPS approaches. Its just that there are many radio navigation systems in use, and GPS is only one of those. The framework they operate in was built to accommodate aircraft WITHOUT GPS. You could technically use the GPS on a comm. carrier for all stages of flight, from departure to cruise planning to approach/landing (even for stuff like ILS and VOR approaches), it just isn't legal. Redundancy is a good thing, but at this point, you have a half century of entrenched systems to work through.
- tocsy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8I don't know why you're not getting more attention with this post. It's true.
The problem is not the technology. The problem is that pilots are required to fly on "air highways", because of the fear of mid air collisions. If pilots were allowed to chart their own flights in the most efficient manner, flights would be shorter and more efficient. I don't ACTUALLY know whether the risk of collision would be any greater, but if you're using the entire sky instead of small corridors, it seems to me like there wouldn't be a problem. - bstock, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8Lol, 'the satellite for gps'? Like there's only one.
- nickymouse, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8Oh *****, wait a minute... We're still trying to acquire the satallites
- trakie, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7i hate amtrak with a passion because ive never once been on a train that has been on time.
that said i still enjoy the train rides because i just sit in the dining car and drink. - ProfessorRamrod, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8ATC saved my ass once, but yeah..sometimes they really do waste time
"*tailnumber* Turn to 035 *20 seconds later* Turn to 135" and no my instructor never could afford gps >_> - oda1, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8So my car has a more sophisticated tracking system then the airlines? sweet.
- ATCclears, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6DairyCreamer's assessment is correct. This is a ***** article pushing an agenda.
Yes, "free flight" (more direct/GPS routes) will save some time and fuel. However, the congestion will still exist at the airports for takeoffs and landings. That congestion translates to idling on the ground awaiting takeoff, put into a holding pattern awaiting a landing slot, or being asked to slow down enroute to avoid later congestion at the destination airport. - entropy71, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6They also use a network of satellites -- not one -- to calculate position.
- pjkli, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Popular Mechanics wrote a good article on this subject back in August of '07.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/ ...
Gives the breakdown of how our current system works and how the new GPS based system will work. - affeking, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Do a lot of people take planes for trips under 300 miles? I think the time spent fooling with the airport security would kill any time savings of the flight.
When I fly, its usually over 1K miles and no real contest there. - Smuikas, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5They aren't, in the US anyways. Usually. Last year I took Amtrak from NYC to Raleigh, NC. It was maybe a $150 cheaper on the train. I encountered the following problems:
-No internet available, at all.
-Unruly and obnoxious passengers
-Food available was about on par, if not worse, than airline food - though, to be fair, it didn't cost as much and you could get it whenever you wanted.
-The train on the NYC-DC leg looked about thirty years old. Upholstery was falling apart, it was grimy, and so forth.
-On the DC-Raleigh leg, the train was much nicer - but we had to stop the train at one point for about an hour to let a freight train through.
-it took six hours longer to get there than it would have on a plane including security and layovers - 10 hours. That's traveling an average of 48 miles per hour. It takes less time to DRIVE!
About the only plus side was that you had more room in the seats, and pretty much guaranteed a plug for your laptop (something that, for whatever reason, is STILL spotty on airlines).
Contrast this with a train from London, UK to Lyon, FR. The distance is about the same, a little under 600 miles. Of course, you're also traveling about 25 miles through a tunnel under the channel.
- six and a half hours - including a one hour layover in Paris. This is pretty comparable to how long it takes to fly, taking into account the drive to the airport, the security, and any layovers you might encounter (one time I flew from NYC to RDU, and had a layover in atlanta. ummmmmok, that's only an 800 mile detour)
- $151 at its cheapest (Amtrak was a LITTLE cheaper at $133 - but you're also going across country lines on RailEurope)
- While they don't offer wifi on the trains (they do in terminals), they have a real dining car. That you make reservations at. The Amtrak "dining car" was an old guy standing behind a counter selling you week old hot dogs and movie theater nachos. And microwave pizza.
As a nation, we should be very, very ashamed of our rail system in respects to travel. It's absolutely horrible to use, and despite my dislike of flying, I'll continue to fly until it improves. Which it, sadly, probably won't any time soon.... - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5I'm wondering how difficult would it have been without a GPS !!
- glockman69, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5lol! That sounds about right, I am sure the 50 billion is just to get this project off the ground...
- FlyingPhotog, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Think of the numbers as compass degrees. With 0/360 being due north. So 035 would be somewhat north-northeast, and so on.
- breckinshire, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5I have no idea what the ***** you're saying but I dugg you anyway.
- mapfelzweig, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5@ entropy71:
You'll find that just about everything in the aerospace industry is tremendously expensive compared to what you may consider is a counterpart in consumer electronics. That's partly because it has to work 99.999999% of the time and it needs to be reliable and accurate. Plus it needs tons and tons of testing before the FAA or (any airline for that matter) would even consider putting such a piece of equipment on an aircraft.
The switch to GPS is coming but there are so many hurdles that must be crossed, pilot training, infrastructure....it gets complicated. I've read some articles in Aviation Week magazine that talk about all sorts of programs that are in place trying to improve the commercial air transport system. It's a really complex system though and any changes you see are changes that have been brewing for a long time, and that costs a lot of money. - wedges, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4i don't either. but it's mostly that there isn't anywhere worth going within 300 miles of denver.
- JimMayJr, on 08/06/2009, -0/+4At the speeds airliners fly at, GPS is plenty fast enough. Since the fidelity of the systems increased sometime around the Clinton administration, this GPS system could be implemented easily today.
- thesandbender, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4THIS. Atlanta, Chicago, New York (LGA, JFK and Newark) are all cycle limited and choke the instance the weather goes bad. I go through ATL frequently. Can't remember the last time I had a trip that went through ATL that didn't have at least one ground or route hold. To get some idea of how messy it is... you can look at the ATL radar in realtime:
http://www.atcmonitor.com/ - glockman69, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4lol don't you mean the wrath of the united nations? I am sure that they would be real tough to deal with! lol
- Tenlow, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Train rides are usually more expensive (amtrak vs expedia) for trips > 100 miles. Under 100 miles, it's cheaper to drive.
Train rides are never cheaper than flying. Until they tackle that, it's staying out of the option. - oneredeye, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Sure, but there are an awful lot of GPS satellites. The American military could probably stop them before they killed enough to be effective.
- Rysac1, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3The main reason Amtrak has a reputation for being late is that they don't own most of the track they ride on. Freight carriers like Union Pacific own the track and let Amtrak use it. If there is a freight train and an Amtrak train on the same track, the freight train gets the right of way, and since it runs slower than a passenger train it makes it late.
- NomadThree, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4ok quick lesson on the workings of the GPS system. There is only one GPS satellite network in the world. Garmin, TomTom and the FAA don't go putting up their own navigation satellites. That one network is owned by the U.S. (specifically the military.) They were originally plopped up there for military use, and all civilian receivers (which lacked some secret gizmo that military receivers have) had their signal strength degraded such that they were only accurate to within 1000m. A couple years back the Gov't removed that restriction and gave birth to the modern GPS navigation device craze (since there is no upstream to a GPS it doesn't matter to the system how many receivers are listening.)
Now since the satellite network is primarily for military use... if someone tried to 'shoot down' the satellite. Commercial Aviation is NOT going to be the first concern of the U.S. Gov't it's going to be 'bomb the bejesus out of the guys blinding our military'
so the satellites getting shot down, not a major point of failure for this system - Nothlit, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3It's not as simple as just sticking a GPS receiver into the cockpit, like you do in your car. Sure, you could find your way where you want to go. But there is also the matter of the air traffic control system being able to follow you and plan where you will be going, and make sure your route is clear before you get there. The current ATC system is based on a network of airways, which are essentially like highways in the sky...straight lines between established ground checkpoints. Those ground-based ATC systems will have to be updated to be able to handle large volumes of traffic flying direct to their destination rather than via the airways, and that is something that cannot happen overnight.
- SPNKrPunk, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Kind of off topic, but a big thanks to all the ARTCC and Approach controllers out there. Pain in the ass job - thanks for doing it.
GPS certainly isnt the cure-all for aviation's woes. What this article is talking about is really the new transponder and TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) technologies that should allow aircraft to do their own position reporting, both to ATC and each other. Hence, traffic avoidance should hopefully be less the responsibility of the controller, and more the responsibility of the pilot. The end result being tighter sequencing during IFR conditions at airports, which hopefully will translate to smaller delays. The only thing that will really impact congestion is fewer planes in the air, which means less regional CRJs and more large aircraft moving people. Won't happen as long as fuel is as expensive as it is.
Don't expect, however, that the VOR system will be going away anytime soon. Many, many GA airplanes still rely on it, and there needs to be a backup in case GPS goes down for whatever reason. Hell, the FAA has been trying to get rid of NDBs (VOR's predecessor) for years, yet there are a ton still in active use. - drifter, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Yea, but we live in the United States, where you have a choice. Plus due to cost, i think many people are starting to only use planes for long distances.
- macattacks10, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I've been on many planes here in the US that have the same thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the GPS is being used for that purpose.
- mst3kcrow, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3The problem is that if politicians have tracks going through their district, they'll want a train stop to please their constituents. A stop in every district leads to very slow travel via train. :(
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is