Contrary to what you would think, if you believe McSweeny,
the FAA does know that there is a problem. They put together a blue ribbon
commission to deal with it. The minutes of a meeting
with the FAA on their (at that time) admitted transponder problem.
AEA is a "three letter group" ostensibly created to help aviation. This
is an example of their help, a report (edited to include
engineering data) in an effort to save aircraft owners something.
The FAA has a solution for all of this. It is expensive. It requires
much new government (equipment and people). It doesn't cover all aircraft.
It doesn't work everywhere. It introduces a whole new set of problems.
It's name is ADS-B
The Right Solution to the Problems (fix FAA created
problems, then add redundancy)
There is a right way to provide collision avoidance, and it is free
when included with the transponder P0 and P4 FAA caused problems fix. The
whole thing is inexpensive, at about $1000 per airplane. This whole repair
requires no new government (equipment or people). Everything fixed for
all aircraft, and it works everywhere, all of the time. This uses GNSS
or Loran-C to simply say your aircraft position and velocity. It is called
AIS-P.
We have petitioned the FAA to request of ICAO
to assign an available downlink format number so that the world can use
this technology inside the existing transponder in complete compliance
with the world transponder operations standard. After a year and a half
of no response, we finally get one. Of course,
this stops an FAA certification program, because, legally, there is no
way of operating, without the downlink format number being assigned. We
have requested a temporary DFN assignment for a duration of one year, to
allow a testing program. Nothing to report, we are being ignored by the
FAA.
Here is a letter from a former (now retired) FAA radar technical expert
This is what AIS-P looks like inside a Cessna RT-359A (left), a Narco
AT-150 (next right), a King KT-76A (last) transponders:
One 2" x 2" board, one FPGA, and a few components and wires
mounted inside any existing transponder
We have eliminated two things from these transponders:
1. The need to "tune" every two years (FAA wants, now, every
three months if you carry passengers).
The "biennial".
2. A few components
(Narco AT-150 conversion example)
(Cessna RT-359A conversion
example)
Engineering Test Results
1. The FAA won't even look at it; so says Ann Harlan, head of the William
J. Hughes Technical Center in her e-mail.
2. We take engineering measurement data.
International Reviewed Published Papers (reverse chronological
order)
Here is the latest scientifically reviewed paper on the subject before
The
58th Annual Meeting and the CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium of The
Institute of Navigation in their Conference Proceedings for Spring
2002: ION
Here is an older scientifically reviewed paper on the subject before
The
46th Annual Air Traffic Control Association in their Conference Proceedings
for Fall 2001, except it is too hot for them to handle, even though they
find no technical fault: ATApaper2
Here is an older scientifically reviewed paper on the subject before
The
7th International Symposium on GPS/GNSS Workshop: KoreanPaper
Here is an older scientifically reviewed paper on the subject before
The
45th Annual Air Traffic Control Association in their Conference Proceedings
for Fall 2000. Library of Congress Control Card Number 79-643160. ISSN
0192-8740: ATA paper.
Here is an older scientifically reviewed paper on the subject before
The
German Institute of Navigation at the International Symposium on Integration
of LORAN-C/EUROFIX and EGNOS/Galileo: GIN paper.
Here is an older scientifically reviewed paper on the subject before
The
Royal Institute of Navigation at NAV99/ILA28, session 10: RIN
paper and the overhead foils for that paper: RIN
foils.
Here is a listing of EAA
audio tapes of popular lectures delivered over a three year period.
These have been canceled by EAA executive order, so can not be offered
this year.
The Second (added almost free, redundant) Collision
Avoidance System
This is what the AIS-P TailLight receiver panel mount avionics looks
like, a box the size of a transponder:
That price is ~$5000, and the box takes up panel space, and there are
controls to fiddle with.
We eliminated the fiddling with controls, put it in a box the size of
a "blind encoder" which you can mount anywhere (preferably next to the
antenna), and reduced the price to ~$500. This produces about a 30
mile target range on a common transponder antenna.
What comes out of it depends on what display unit you use, and what
display software you want. If you weren't aware of it, all of the new fangled
~$15k glass cockpit displays are old IBM compatible PCs.
Here we have an example of free software adopted from the radio amateur
APRS
project, operating on a $250 used 600x800 laptop PC (any PC platform will
work), to, at this level of "zoom", solve the airport runway incursion
avoidance problem. This is supposed to be an FAA priority (FAA doesn't
know what to do, except to blame the little
planes for everybody's almost kills).
There is only one thing keeping you from having this technology today:
the FAA.
The aircraft is where the pressure altitude (number) block is. The triangle,
called a "Bob Collins box", in honor of a well known and respected Chicago
radio personality and aviator, who died while correctly following FAA commands
as to which direction he must fly his aircraft while in the airport traffic
pattern, sweep outward to indicate aircraft direction. It runs out to a
stop line where the aircraft will be in a minute. If two boxes touch, (the
computer catches itself painting a pixel green twice) the radar controller
is warned and has a full minute to clear the collision. This about $1500
complete "radar" (if you don't need to upgrade your cockpit display device
to run Delorme Street Atlas) provides
service even the FAA can't with their ASR radar costing $2,000,000 each.
Only this one includes runway incursion warnings (no other equipment exists
to provide this service).
This is also useful for guiding lost skudrunners into a general aviation
airport by talking over unicom. Also for a "talk down ASR" approach over
the unicom (like the military used to do for GA) for 0,0 when the FAA refuses
entry into the ILS equipped local "big" airport (better than holding until
you are out of fuel). And advisories over unicom that include traffic position.
Just doing more than ATC can and better.
Below is the about $1500 moving map version, which is the same (just
"zoom" out). If you want, it also has your pressure altitude data block
in the exact center of the screen. The map moves as you fly. If you want,
you can turn on a series of one mile range circles. This is useful for
guiding yourself in a "see yourself down" approach, flying a fire bomber
where the smoke is so thick that you can't see the target area or the other
bombers flying in formation with you to establish a fire line, and just
the normal cross country where you want a pair of electronic eyes watching
for traffic.
There is only one thing keeping you from having this technology today:
the FAA.
Maybe you or your targets in the area go faster, so you need more warning.
Just "zoom" out more.
The above two are produced at about the size of the $12,500 Garmin 530
dashboard display.
The below are produced at the 600x800 (small) size of an old IBM equivalent
$250 used laptop.
There is only one thing keeping you from having this technology today:
the FAA.
Remember, what comes out of it depends on what display unit you use,
and what display software you want. Remember, all of the new fangled ~$15k
glass cockpit displays are just old IBM compatible PCs anyway.
Since we have, obviously, solved the collision avoidance problem, we
turn our attention to CFIT. April 3rd, 1996, Secretary of Commerce
Ron Brown found out what that is, aboard a Boeing CT-42A near Dubrovnik.
1995 American Airlines 965 at Calle, 1996 Faucett 251 at Arequipa, 1997
Korean Air 801 at Guam; 40% of all aviation fatalities. Add more
to the database in the PC.
These are reduced image examples of software (this vendor wants money),
operating on a $250 used laptop PC (and any PC platform will work) that
gives you sectional type charts, along with traffic, terrain and obstruction
avoidance. Just click on an image for the full 600x800 size presentation.
There is only one thing keeping you from having this technology today:
the FAA.
The terrain avoidance window, at the lower right, just like the other
windows, can be turned on and off, and placed and sized how you want (if
you don't like this arrangement). We selected user setable color transitions
at 500 feet and 1000 feet (because here is flat), but you can set them
for the altitude differences that you like. The obstruction avoidance numbers
on the towers are clearance to the bottom of the aircraft (watch out for
small negative through positive numbers). All of this is taken from the
electronic chart.
This example of a collision display doesn't have the altitude boxes
for the other aircraft, but chose rather to use colored symbols, like green
(lower), blue (higher), or surrounded in red (near your altitude). The
airplane is at the forward pointy end of the direction pointing icon. There
are "wake up" bars at the bottom with warnings (which should probably also
include intruder). Audio stating into the headset the words "traffic" with
direction and distance and altitude difference and if climbing/descending
and time to impact (you are not bothered if impact isn't a factor) would
not be difficult.
There is only one thing keeping you from having this technology today:
the FAA.
To assure comfort for those (FAA) that insist on the accuracy of the
standard Sectional Aeronautical Chart,
please note the electronic fold in the electronic chart, right where
it should be (near the top, above, in this case); which might should be
removed.
An Invitation
To any aviation administration, worldwide that is
a member of ICAO:
We have a problem in the United States. Our only collision avoidance
system for civil and military aircraft is based on the "transponder" (transmitting
responder). A "radar" on the ground, or in the air, sends out an interrogation
signal on 1030 MHz, and the aircraft sends reply altitude data on 1090
MHz. Our regulatory agency, the FAA, has "improved" upon the concept to
the point that it no longer works reliably, doesn't work at all if built
as specified. As a result, we have the worst air traffic delays ever experienced,
coupled with the lowest level of air safety ever experienced, while we
fly limited to only the "highways in the sky" where airplanes are intentionally
crowded together, and a regulatory agency that appears to prefer to cover
up the deficiencies in both the system and equipment we have.
We need a solution, and this isn't a difficult technical problem. We
decided to use satellite navigation signals (Glonass, Galileo, GPS until
the others are completely fielded) and/or ground based navigation signals
(Loran-C) to simply allow the transponder to just say where the airplane
is. A Mode S, existing international standard, 64 microsecond message,
downlink format number 11111, which states position (latitude and longitude
and altitude) and velocity (direction and speed), is transmitted along
with the "normal" transponder reply stream, but at a much reduced rate.
Any "radar" could simply listen, and build a display from the received
positional information messages from targets. Gone is the necessity for
big expensive directional antennas, powerful expensive analysis computers,
powerful expensive transmitters, ... This new system, or existing system
augmentation, can be produced for orders of magnitude less than the FAA
ASR, TCAS, or competing proposals such as ADS-B (which don't seem to be
up to the job). And this new technology does not have the fundamental architectural
deficiencies that cannot be removed from that old and the proposed new
technology. The transponder circuitry is a simple repair to the existing
aircraft transponder.
This is not theory - it works, as you can see for yourself. There is
only one thing keeping you from having this technology today: the FAA.
Our problem is that our regulatory agency of our government is in direct
opposition to this technology, even though it wishes to publicly appear
supportive (http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh99/
click on "Meet The Boss" session with FAA Administrator Garvey and move
the slide bar to 41 minutes [these are hollow words with no follow-up behind
them]). My government has done nothing in many many many years that is
in any way helpful, they have done much which is distracting and of great
expense to anyone proposing a solution to this problem. Mostly, what we
get is, long periods of many months totally without any form of communication.
When we inquire, all we get is "working on it". Nobody knows doing what.
Your country could apply to ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization,
for inclusion into the existing international standard, called the Mode
S transponder standard, a now vacant assignment of "downlink format number
11111" to the data packet that we defined. The
request should be made to jhowell@icao.int.
Your country could simply just go ahead and implement this technology (then,
we could import it).
We can supply the equipment necessary to provide collision avoidance
for air travel in your country, and for the world, which is far superior
to what can be obtained at any cost today, and do that for about $1000
per airplane for the transponder modification, about $500 more for a complete
aircraft "radar" to see the other aircraft, and about $500 for a ground
"radar" to see the aircraft around and on an airport. We would help your
people to design, to manufacture, we would supply the technology and training
and critical
componentry,
and then import.
Your country has the standing before ICAO to make this request, something
that my country will not do, something that I am not allowed to do.
Your country has the scientific understanding to allow safer air travel
worldwide, something that my country will not do.
What my country has is a $13.6 billion/year bureaucracy built only to
service about 3,000 aircraft, of the about 220,000 aircraft operating in
my country, at the public expense for money and lower level of safety.
Additional Information about the FAA
