Southwest Pilot Rant Locks Out Frequency

[TeePee]

Ground radar data would probably be closest to TIS. This uses the transponder to receive a radio feed from ATC. TCAS and ADS-B both use on board equipment which listens to the transponder returns from other aircraft, a much better and faster system. Airlines typically have TCAS2 which provides a resolution. (it will tell you to dive when it receives an airplane above you, etc). Airline regulations require pilots to take action in response.

[peterb]

But to get back to the OP, the point was that it was an all-informed voice network that was 'jammed'. Therefore it doesn't matter how many frequencies/channels are available, all aircraft have to be on the same one so that they have situational awareness about what is happening in that bit of controlled airspace. And if one airctaft is continually transmitting on that one frequency (or channel) it will still be unavailable for use by anyone else.

[TheAnimus]

1) why bother, current system works just fine most of the time, there are FAR bigger issues (bad pun there!) that need to be looked at.
2) an ATC operative is still required per channel, if someone fills it with crap, they still have to listen in case they say the important bit.
3) all equipment in aviation has to be of a slightly higher grade than normal, this greatly increases the costs.
4) migration, it would be impossible to migrate in the way you envision if you compare it to the TV switchover.
5) more complexity in the air will lead to more human error in the air.
6) there is already a system in place that notifies pilots when cross talk is occuring with quite high reliability.
7) all the nav aids and stuff that currently work, would you change them or just scap em and force GPS?
8) I think you have a strong failure to understand how in air radio is used in a busy airport, and how many different frequencies there already are on the spectrum, the order in which you get clarences to move.
9) international emergency standards have been met, changing these would require either every country to switch, or have a very confusing and potentially deadly mix match until migrated. (ie when bored tuning 121.5)
10) cost, aviation is damned expensive as is.

I think I missed some out too.

just saying I'm wrong is a bare assertion.

No I've also tried to break down the bits you completely don't understand, but hey! No matter.

[aidanjt]

I've already addressed your points for most of the part, but fine:

1) why bother, current system works just fine most of the time, there are FAR bigger issues (bad pun there!) that need to be looked at.

Broken is broken.

2) an ATC operative is still required per channel, if someone fills it with crap, they still have to listen in case they say the important bit.

But no one aircraft can inadvertently jam comms to the operative. Further, digital traffic is easier to log with greater fidelity, and endpoints can be fingerprinted which gives better accountability.

3) all equipment in aviation has to be of a slightly higher grade than normal, this greatly increases the costs.

As has already been established between Peter and myself, it's not the grade of equipment which drives up costs, it's the QA involved in the certification process.

4) migration, it would be impossible to migrate in the way you envision if you compare it to the TV switchover.

Bare assertion. Why?

5) more complexity in the air will lead to more human error in the air.

No, the 'air complexity' would be part of the system and automated away. Human error (like a sticky switched rant about gay aircrew jamming the whole channel) would in fact be removed.

6) there is already a system in place that notifies pilots when cross talk is occuring with quite high reliability.

Crosstalk yes, sticky switches no. Further, crosstalk induction is proof of a faulty design.

7) all the nav aids and stuff that currently work, would you change them or just scap em and force GPS?

GPS is great for showing your own position. It's not so great for other avionics. The current passive aids wouldn't be a problem, but they could just be wrapped up into an integrated avionics standards to reduce costs.

8) I think you have a strong failure to understand how in air radio is used in a busy airport, and how many different frequencies there already are on the spectrum, the order in which you get clarences to move.

I think you have a strong failure of understanding that current standards are irrelevant to systems which could depreciate them.

9) international emergency standards have been met, changing these would require either every country to switch, or have a very confusing and potentially deadly mix match until migrated. (ie when bored tuning 121.5)

Irrelevant. These kinds of international ATC policy problems are hashed out all the time.

10) cost, aviation is damned expensive as is.

So retire the buggy, and expensive technology. Even if the bureaucracy results in almost-analogue prices, a good long depreciation period means the equipment will probably end up being replaced because of wear and tear anyway. If not, well you have a decade or whatever to count your pennies.

The fact is, researchers and the US military has already done practically all of the technology work already. The only 'real' problem would be hashing out the policy to implement it as a consistent and suitable standard.

As Peter said, it may 'evolve' in that direction anyway, but a kick in the pants wouldn't hurt, either.

[TheAnimus]

I've already addressed your points for most of the part, but fine:

No, you haven't at all, so lets go through.

Broken is broken.

EVERYTHING is broken, GSM CDMA TCP its all BROKEN. It works well enough however. Is this problem frequent enough to merrit any work. No, no its not, we've not seen any near misses as a result, so there have been no increased danger to passangers and cost to airports is minimal.

But no one aircraft can inadvertently jam comms to the operative. Further, digital traffic is easier to log with greater fidelity, and endpoints can be fingerprinted which gives better accountability.

Err yes they can, the idea is to have everyone still listening on the same 'channel' so they can hear each other. As I mention ATC and in un-controlled space all other users must listen to the whole message, crap or not to see if it contains something important.

As has already been established between Peter and myself, it's not the grade of equipment which drives up costs, it's the QA involved in the certification process.

When I buy a piece of equipment, I look at the cost, I don't care if its the QA, the tracability or whatever, I just know its more expensive. Look at the difference between IFR rated GPS devices and non.

Bare assertion. Why?

One has both operating side by side with no major problems, has some people simply un-able to get digital in their town/village until the power is ramped up. Lots of people had and are having issues with this switchover. So the technique and the side-effects are un-exceptable for air use. Have you even listen to radio traffic of these guys? I really honestly thing you have no idea what your talking about to not get thats a problem.

No, the 'air complexity' would be part of the system and automated away. Human error (like a sticky switched rant about gay aircrew jamming the whole channel) would in fact be removed.

How? How does it know I want ground or departure? The fact you think that a stuck switch is a common cause of radio issues show just how little you know, whilst I have no figures (can't be bothered to look) I've heard of so many other issues, but stuck switches are more about the lols.

Crosstalk yes, sticky switches no. Further, crosstalk induction is proof of a faulty design.

No, when transmitting your headset volume level is changed, lights go on, plenty of indicators, soon as someone else tries to talk, nice wine sound. You'd know this of course if you'd ever actually used one.

GPS is great for showing your own position. It's not so great for other avionics. The current passive aids wouldn't be a problem, but they could just be wrapped up into an integrated avionics standards to reduce costs.

Whats GPS not great for? GPS ****s all over VOR so badly VOR is being decomishioned...

I think you have a strong failure of understanding that current standards are irrelevant to systems which could depreciate them.

How do you switch over, train all the pilots, the ground staff? do you switch country by country? The current system isn't broken. It has flaws, but not that create significant issues.

Irrelevant. These kinds of international ATC policy problems are hashed out all the time.

This right here. They are TERRIBLE at this. Look at the difference between the CAA LASORS and other JAR members, then compare to the FAA AIM/FAR. How come if I had a commercial UK license I could fly a G reg in the states just fine, but not an N? Same plane.
They are completely overwhelmed with their current workload, changing this would take cost and a good reason to, I refer you back to #1.

So retire the buggy, and expensive technology. Even if the bureaucracy results in almost-analogue prices, a good long depreciation period means the equipment will probably end up being replaced because of wear and tear anyway. If not, well you have a decade or whatever to count your pennies.

Well a lot of the kit is modern radio gear, in the same way the FM radio in my car is. Its not valve based you know. But its nice enough

As Peter said, it may 'evolve' in that direction anyway, but a kick in the pants wouldn't hurt, either.

But who will pay? Why does it need a kick? Why aren't the pilots and ATC lot proposing this (remember they aren't even doing that).

[peterb]

3) all equipment in aviation has to be of a slightly higher grade than normal, this greatly increases the costs.

As has already been established between Peter and myself, it's not the grade of equipment which drives up costs, it's the QA involved in the certification process.

Not quite what I said, although perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in the post.

Certification is a major part of the cost, but to get that certification the build and design quality have to be of an appropriate standard, which is significantly higher than that for consumer grade equipment of the same functionality.

So not only is there the cost of the better QA/QC process, but also increased manufacturing costs. As I said in one of my earlier posts, this may involve testinmg each component before it is incorporated into a design (rather than batch testing say one in 100) and testing each manuftured product for conformance to specification (with lower tolerances) rather than batch testing or sample testing.

The mechanical construction will be higher too. Turned dowel pins for locating in equipment bays, turned machine screws (rather than pressed) for internal screws, locking connectors (look at the cost of 'Marconi' type plug shells - and that is just the shell (and a relatively cheap component) add a couple of those to the unit, plus the cost of wiring, and then testing.

Anything that is aviation grade is expensive, simplty because of the construction and design standard required to achieve the certification to guarantee it is airworthy.

[Lucio]

You know, throughout this whole thread, there's a key missing piece of information (and the reason I came trawling through here in the first place) a link to the audio rant!

[TeePee]

It's pretty easy to find, but here's a link:

Warning! Extremely NSFW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dLS8_xM2LI

The other thing People have been afraid to point out, and not just on this forum, is that what he has to say about SW Stewardesses is actually quite accurate.

[santa claus]

A link is also in the OP.

[peterb]

If you're going to call someone an idiot, then at least get the sentence right, or try this novel idea instead, explain why you think I'm wrong. Just saying I'm wrong is a bare assertion.

I don't think he was calling you an idiot - he was saying that you undermine your own credibility by demonstrating a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding the original problem, of how air traffic control communications operate, and of the complexities of introducing new equipment and procedures in a safety critical and safety conscious environment.

And sniping at someone for a misplaced apostrophe strikes me as being the last refuge of someone who knows he has lost an argument, but is unable to acknowledge it.

Edit - I see Lucio's request has been satisfied! Warning - it is 2.41 minutes of your life you won't get back! To my mind, the best bits were the ATC interjections.

[aidanjt]

I don't think he was calling you an idiot

Try reading:

The thing is, if someone doesn't raise something as a question "how come we aren't doing x" "is it just an economic proposal", "isn't this a serious problem" or similar, if they state as fact something they demonstrably know nothing about, then they are being a bit stupid. They are just going to make themselves look like a fool.

[...]

If you don't want people to think your a complete idiot, ask questions about the stuff you don't know, debate it, don't try and represent it as a complete fact.

And sniping at someone for a misplaced apostrophe strikes me as being the last refuge of someone who knows he has lost an argument, but is unable to acknowledge it.

Misplaced apostrophe, and an e, meaning a totally different word, called an idiot. Further, I stopped arguing in this thread when this turned into a series of person attacks, which you, yourself, joined in on, rather than discussing the problem and possible solutions.

Enjoy the status quo and high fives.

[peterb]

Try reading:



Misplaced apostrophe, and an e, meaning a totally different word, called an idiot. Further, I stopped arguing in this thread when this turned into a series of person attacks, which you, yourself, joined in on, rather than discussing the problem and possible solutions.

Enjoy the status quo and high fives.

I did.

And I have not attacked you, only certain aspects of your proposals, for reasons I explained in the threads.

[aidanjt]

That is because you have little understanding of...

That's an attack on my person, which presumes to know the breadth of my knowledge, and does not address anything I've said. A 'polite' version of 'lolustoopie' is still a personal attack.

[peterb]

That's an attack on my person, which presumes to know the breadth of my knowledge, and does not address anything I've said. A 'polite' version of 'lolustoopie' is still a personal attack.

Not an attack at all, it is an assessment of your understanding of this subject, based on what you posted. And nothing you have posted since (on this topic) leads me to change my mind.

[TeePee]

I don't know much about electronic engineering. I know a little about aviation, and a lot about a Wing Ding.

The Piper Cherokee, a common training airplane, has a part which can often break. It's a struct which holds the door open. If you park with the wind behind you and open the door, it can slam open and rip this strut from the door sill. It's happened to me. A company called Lo Presti makes a door stop called a 'Wing Ding'. It's a small piece of aluminium angle which attaches to the wing using existing screws for the fuel tank attachment. You could make one in 20 minutes and attach it in 3.

But you can't.

For an airplane to be airworthy, it has to be in condition for safe operation (naturally), and conform to it's type design. That means it must match exactly the blueprints (or type certificate) for that airplane as built by the Piper factory and approved for certification by the FAA. Since Piper didn't design the Wing Ding, it isn't on the blueprints. In order to fit the wing ding, the type certificate for your specific airplane has to be changed, and this has to be approved to the FAA. The makers of the Wing Ding had to prove to the FAA that their device was safe (the fuel tank is structural) and show any changes in performance. Since it's fitted to the wing, does it change the stall speeds? Climb speeds? Tens of thousands of dollars and years later (The FAA is a government department), the wing ding could be sold. It costs $150 (to offset the testing) and comes with a 'Supplemental Type Certificate', or STC, which changes the type certificate of your airplane. Having bought this, you need a certified airplane mechanic to fit those three screws. He then has to complete an submit to the FAA a form 337 (For Major repair or alteration) notifying them that the certificate has been changed. Add $75 for an hours labour. Compared to some $80 for a replacement strut (which is needed anyway), this is an expensive fix.

What you're suggesting with a replacement radio (ignoring all the technical stuff), is that a Plastic Wing Ding could be built and would cost less because it's $1.50 of plastic instead of $2 of aluminium.

Welcome to the insanity of certified aviation. This is, of course, the US procedure. The country where people in Europe register their airplanes because the regulations are easier.

[peterb]

And I have recently been involved in a project to replace one piece of communications equipment with another in an aircraft - and even with the same form and fit, and requiring no changes to the airframe, it is phenominally expensive. Start modifying the airframe (including wiring harnesses) and costs increase by an order of magnitude.