Happy ADS-B Day! It's Begun

I don’t think you are even trying to make the comparison. You are getting into minutia instead of the basic principle. No time now. I will try again later.

You said you would wait for data before declaring that ADS-B is safer. I understand, but what if you were waiting for data before enacting the technology and in the interim it turned out that it COULD have saved a life? Can you not see how that would be similar to waiting to see if a traffic light is necessary at an intersection only to have a fatality there before it was decided to be installed?

I personally don’t think that the goal behind the technology was to directly prevent mid airs. I believe that altogether, once all complete it will be able to somehow streamline ATC, which indirectly and theoretically will make the airways safer. Unfortunately the government is in charge which means that it is not being efficiently and effectively put in place. Their implementation stinks. I also believe that statistically it will be nearly impossible to ever show lives saved or show that lives would not have been saved. Just not enough data.

All that said, being a naysayer and refusing to participate won’t gain much for anyone involved.
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
Yeah, even more hilarious than “Road May Flood” is “Bridge May Ice in Cold Weather.” Ya’ think?:eek:
Click to expand...

My favorite is "Be Prepared to Stop".

Huh? One should always be prepared to stop. You never know when an animal or another vehicle will suddenly occupy the area in front of you.

:mad:
 
Doug Reid said:
It is cheaper to install a sign that reads “Bump” than fix the problem. I see these a lot.
Click to expand...

I have seen one around here that said (ISYN) "Bump Next 10 Miles"

Yes... Singular "Bump"

o_O
 
Now whip it
Into shape
Shape it up
Get straight
Go forward
Move ahead
Try to detect it
It's not too late
To whip it
Whip it good
 
John Collins said:
What makes yall think that ADS-B was established for the purpose of pointing out traffic? It is all about improving ATC surveillance, mostly in high density traffic areas. The mandate is for ADS-B Out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought it was so they could reduce the required distance for aircraft separation at busy airports and get more flights out of the same infrastructure. I also thought I read somewhere that that turned out to not really work as hoped.
 
PPC1052 said:
Yeah, I thought it was so they could reduce the required distance for aircraft separation at busy airports and get more flights out of the same infrastructure. I also thought I read somewhere that that turned out to not really work as hoped.
Click to expand...

That’s briefly mentioned in the marketing materials for “NexGen” overall, but was never listed in the formal design documents or goals.

Telling Congress you can stuff ten pounds of **** in a five pound bag, is fairly common when asking for more money.

Nobody serious ever even “hoped” it would work. Separation is based on speed and time for visual acquisition or controller action to vector something away from something else.

A data system receiving locations no significantly faster (in terms of how soon a course change must happen) than secondary radar feeds, doesn’t change the time/speed/distance math, big picture wise.

200/250 knots in and around the hubs is still a certain number of seconds to react, in other words.

The only system truly designed as a failsafe for collisions is TCAS.
 
ADS-B is not a collision avoidance system. It is to improve separation standards. Here is a brief excerpt from 7110.771, Subject ATC Surveillance Source Use and Minima:

Background. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is a key NextGen technology in the effort to modernize the National Airspace System (NAS). The original ADS-B safety risk management documents supported the use of ADS-B Out for the existing separation minima of 5 nautical miles (NM) in en route airspace in all conditions. Currently, controllers in en route airspace can use reduced separation minima of 3 NM using secondary surveillance radar (SSR), but only when the aircraft are in relatively close proximity to the antenna. Recent changes in ERAM and changes in ADS-B data processing will allow use of 3 NM separation between most ADS-B Out targets. This notice is specific to existing 3 NM separation areas in Seattle ARTCC and Boston ARTCC, which are the key sites for Track Based Display Mode implementation.
Click to expand...
 
John Collins said:
ADS-B is not a collision avoidance system. It is to improve separation standards. Here is a brief excerpt from 7110.771, Subject ATC Surveillance Source Use and Minima:
Click to expand...

Which is really just saying it’s the same but they couldn’t be bothered to install a new site.

3 miles is 3 miles. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top