New ATC System

I

It's just Rick

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
21
Display Name
Display name:
I'ts just Rick
Microsoft and Boeing have the tools to fix this, and I can forward your input, if you please.

What we need is a completely new ATC designed for a more complex matrix with inputs from all the airborne planes' computers. As planes burn fuel at at optimum power settings, they gradually gain altitude as you all well know. It's now just a matter of intellegent weaving.

If the feds continue to wallow in their inertia, they'll miss the revolution.
 
I think that is a grand idea.

Ideally speaking, it would be administered by the airlines, because they know best how to operate aircraft and complex air routings.
 
Being a libertarian by nature, it hurts to disagree. This is one of the few times that the federal government needs to oversee the system. Too bad we don't have a system to oversee the government.

Perhaps this forum might actually be the tool to turn it all around?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Please explain it.

It Is a grand idea and Would be ideally administered by the airlines if they weren't so miopic. That's why we have ATC.

We have traffic lights at intersections to keep us from running over one another in spite of the fact it violates our or freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How that translates to a second ammendment issues begs a whole lot of questions.
 
The ATA wants for the airline industry to be given effective control of the ATC system; some of us consider that a bad idea. ATC is an inherently governmental function, national infrastructure.

As for the second amendment? That's our system of overseeing the government.
 
my plane doesn't gain altitude when it burns fuel...and the only computer on board is the e6b in the flight bag

maybe i'm missing something
 
Mr/Ms Cuttler,

Are you suggesting we just exercise our second amendment rights and shoot down any airplanes that get in our way?

What do you do when you come to an intersection where the stop lights don't work, pull out your sawed off shotgun?
 
Last edited:
Yes Mr/Ms Standby.

You are indeed missing the point, but please don't take it personally. You're not alone.

The higher aircraft fly, the more efficient they are.
The lighter they are the higher they can fly efficiently, and engines operate in a very narrrow range of optimum efficiency.

The optimum flight begins with knowing the takeoff weight as close as possible. Don't trust the reduced power data complelely because the fuel you save won't help that much at the end of the flight but could kill you on takeoff.

Ideally, once in the departure stage, you could set an optimum variable power setting to achieve an optimum but naturally diminisioning rate of climb 'til reaching the initial cruise altitiude. Once there, you'll be cleared to cruise... ie, let your on board computer (your brain) allow the plane to gain altitude gradually as the fuel is burned off.
 
It's just Rick said:
Mr/Ms Cuttler,

Are you suggesting we just exercise our second amendment rights and shoot down any airplanes that get in our way?

What do you do when you come to an intersection where the stop lights don't work, pull out your sawed off shotgun?
Click to expand...


Rick:

I am strongly against the use of firearms against vehicles of all kinds. :yes: Besides, I don't even have a sawed-off.

My reference to the second amendment is intended as a dramatic reference to the historical importance of the populace maintaining a check on the rampant growth of governmental power.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson

---

Any more on this subtopic, and we'll have to move the thread to the Spin Zone, to where I never go.
 
Ahhh, youthful naivete.

Spike, your post #2 is classic. Perhaps POA needs a "subtle sarcasm" tag. :)


-Rich
 
SCCutler said:
As for the second amendment? That's our system of overseeing the government.
Click to expand...
No that is our system if we as citizens have failed to oversee our government. There are plenty of other checks and balances in place prior to haivng to over throw the government.

Maybe I am a little touchy on this one after what I saw yesterday afternoon at the train station. A congressional candidate was doing a meet and greet of the people waiting for the trains. What a great chance for us to have direct contact with a congressman and let them know what we are thinking. But there were at least two people that said 'uh oh lets get out of here before he corners us and tells all the great things he is going to do'. That is so sad to me.

I used it a chance to speak my support for several bills that I want to see passed, let him know what he has not done and has done to earn my vote again, and generally make a pitch for my two favorite issues, one of which is general aviation and the poor state of ATC support in the Chicago area.

Chicago Approach already is set up and run by the airlines. Our ATC is not so good for GA. I feel it causes safety problems for many pilots here but the Chicago controllers only kow tow to their masters at United, America, Southwest, etc.
 
Microsoft and Boeing have the tools to fix this,
Click to expand...

Just exactly what is "this" that Microsoft and Boeing have the tools to fix? From what I recall of Microsoft, every Windows product they have introduced has had quite a few problems requiring frequent patches, upgrades, and the like. I've had my current computer since Feb07 and I have 127 updates in my Windows folder. Would we really want our ATC system to require that many critical updates in a similar time period?

I can forward your input, if you please.
Click to expand...

A few specifics on the plan would allow more input on its viability/desirability. Maybe a link or two?




What we need is a completely new ATC designed for a more complex matrix with inputs from all the airborne planes' computers. As planes burn fuel at at optimum power settings, they gradually gain altitude as you all well know. It's now just a matter of intellegent weaving.
Click to expand...

We already have a similar system. The carbon based computers in the front of the aircraft, relay their flight profile requests (based on information they have gathered from multitude of sensors at their disposal) to the carbon based computers on the ground. This current system has been working for 50+ years and is the best in the world. What is it about your/their system that would make us want to adopt it instead of the system we have in place?

How much would this cost the average Cessna/Beech/Piper owner?

If the feds continue to wallow in their inertia, they'll miss the revolution.
Click to expand...

What revolution is that?
 
It's just Rick said:
Microsoft and Boeing have the tools to fix this, and I can forward your input, if you please.
Click to expand...

If I ever see a screen boot up with Windows on any plane I'm flying, I'm turning off the master switch and getting out. It would give the "Blue screen of death" a whole new meaning. No way, no how!

And give the airlines control of ATC? Who are you kidding? They can't run their own businesses (with a few exceptions). Keep them out of running the ATC system I depend on.
 
It's just Rick said:
The higher aircraft fly, the more efficient they are.
The lighter they are the higher they can fly efficiently, and engines operate in a very narrrow range of optimum efficiency.
Click to expand...

Unless you're talking about turbine airplanes, this is blatently false. As you go higher the TAS goes up at max range speed but the efficiency (MPG) in still air remains constant. For those of us who choose to operate at speeds higher than max range (most efficient) there is some potential fuel savings at higher altitudes but in general the wind trumps that.
 
Yes. I'm talking about turbines. That's where most of our aviation fuel is being wasted. Just because Microsoft and Boeing haven't yet worked this out, are you suggesting they should just give up because you're still having troubles with your laptop?

Who's going to fix this? Airbus?
 
It's just Rick said:
Yes. I'm talking about turbines. That's where most of our aviation fuel is being wasted. Just because Microsoft and Boeing haven't yet worked this out, are you suggesting they should just give up because you're still having troubles with your laptop?

Who's going to fix this? Airbus?
Click to expand...

Rick,

I think you're addressing the wrong crowd. Mostly piston plane owners here.


It's just Rick said:
Microsoft and Boeing have the tools to fix this, and I can forward your input, if you please.

What we need is a completely new ATC designed for a more complex matrix with inputs from all the airborne planes' computers. As planes burn fuel at at optimum power settings, they gradually gain altitude as you all well know. It's now just a matter of intellegent weaving.
Click to expand...

You're waaay understating the ease of a solution. Have you ever heard of the Traveling Salesman problem? I'm pretty sure air traffic control is at least the same order of magnitude of difficulty as that.

Perhaps you'd like to read up on the Next Gen ATC. Boeing is already heavily involved:

http://www.jpdo.gov/

http://www.ncat.com/ngats/index.html


As far as Microsoft goes, I would not trust their software with my life.


-Rich
 
Sorry. Thanks for letting me know.

I didn't realize this forum was so narrowly focused.
 
It's just Rick said:
Sorry. Thanks for letting me know.

I didn't realize this forum was so narrowly focused.
Click to expand...

It's OK, Rick.

We have plenty of airline and corporate jet-jocks here, but we are united by our love for general aviation.

Best, Spike.
 
It's just Rick said:
Yes. I'm talking about turbines. That's where most of our aviation fuel is being wasted.
Click to expand...
I think we ought to start by getting the FAA to issue RVSM LOAs to new owners in a much more timely manner...
 
Sorry for sticking my nose back into your forum, but I'd really appreciate any specifics as just proffered by iNverted. Can't promise results, but will forward all suggestions to Microsoft and Boeing.

Can't make any progress without first stirring up a little ****.
 
....the second amendment...
Click to expand...


I LOVE it.

I really don't understand what the OP is saying. Are you saying we should all have computers installed in our aircraft so ATC can control them? We already have Transponders. I don't get it.

And I'm a Mr. as noted by my first name.
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
If I ever see a screen boot up with Windows on any plane I'm flying, I'm turning off the master switch and getting out. It would give the "Blue screen of death" a whole new meaning. No way, no how!
Click to expand...

I know for sure that the Avidyne MFD and Garmin MX200 are running Embedded Windows. I believe the Garmin 400/500 and 1000 are also but don't have proof.

Joe
 
Spike -- I got your jokes, and I thought they were funny. :rofl:





What we have here is a failure to communicate.....:dunno:
 
long distance flights already do this. climb-cruise-climb-cruise-climb-cruise, ect. why make it more complex than that?
 
I'm still trying to work out how airliners override the autopilot altitude hold and climb as fuel burns off, and why ATC doesn't tell the crew to descend to assigned altitude, and why I didn't know that. Maybe I read it wrong.
 
Why do you keep referring to Microsoft? Since when has Microsoft been involved with aviation software? In particular since when has Microsoft wrote software that peoples lives rely on? I just don't get it....

People *might* build some aviation gear on Windows embedded but I can promise you that Microsoft isn't jumping up and down over it. They just provide an OS that is it. The last Windows embedded license agreement I read made it fairly clear that it isn't meant for something peoples life's rely on.

And yes--I have developed on Windows Embedded.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Microsoft makes FLight Simulator.
Click to expand...

but in flight simulator if you crash a Boeing 747 going 90 degrees straight down, by default it bounces off, and keeps flying, and everyone live happily ever after. you have to enable crashing, and even then no one dies.
 
I'm pretty sure there is Windows code in the G1000. Virtually positive. :hairraise:

I'm no code monkey, so I can't really speak to embedded or any of that. Just going by what I read.
 
Microsoft and Boeing are the kingpins of what's still left of our commercial aircaft industry and has been out bid by Airbus whose planes seem to be falling out of the sky at an alarming rate.
 
It's just Rick said:
Microsoft and Boeing are the kingpins of what's still left of our commercial aircaft industry and has been out bid by Airbus whose planes seem to be falling out of the sky at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...

While I am no great Airbus fan (for reasons of national pride), I may have missed this whole rain of falling Airbii.

I believe that Microsoft's principal connection with aviation is that the vast majority of airline tickets are purchased on computers running Windows.
 
On Our planet over the next two or three decades, Bob, unless our government continues to sell us out to the lowest foreign bidders and undermine our economy. If Airbus actually built a demonstrably better product, then it might be defensible. Our capitalist system designs all this stuff, Europe's socialist system builds it, we buy it back from them to save a few bucks (for what they're still worth) while neglecting the geese who lay the golden eggs.

Myopia is a correctable condition.
 
Computer flown aircraft

Ghery said:
If I ever see a screen boot up with Windows on any plane I'm flying, I'm turning off the master switch and getting out. It would give the "Blue screen of death" a whole new meaning. No way, no how!

<snip>

Probably not Windoz, but the Boeing 777 and several Airbus models are flown by computers, albeit triply redundant ones. If the computers fail, the aircraft falls. So check your specs before you board. And there have been several computer 'malfunctions' which have resulted in crashes, notably the new Airbus being demonstrated at the Paris Air Show several year's ago which went down in the woods with some VIPs on board as I recall. Then there was the China Airlines Airbus that went into an apartment building on approach, and many more.
Click to expand...
 
Rick, that's a silly argument. Buying cheaper goods (no matter if they're foreign or not) is inherently good for _our_ economy. It might not seem that way, but if you think through it like an economist would, you'd see that you end up with nothing but economic inefficiencies that hurt our economy if you don't buy whatever is cheapest at the desired quality level.

If other countries want to subsidize their products (Airbus) to make them cheaper, let them. It's good for us since we pay less and we can focus on re-training our workers in fields that are better aligned with out competitive advantages (services, at the moment). Instead, we're subsidizing our industry in return (Boeing), which ends up hurting us in the long run.

-Felix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top