OK, the controller in me HATES the idea of pilot's being able to see their own traffic, and make up their own minds, in an IFR environment. (I can feel the heat from the flames coming already. lol) HOWEVER, VFR pilots do this already anyway.BUT, I can also see how it would be good for the pilot to better understand what is going on.What do you all think?http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10001896-1.html?tag=mncol

Well, just like GPS for navigation this can vastly help with situational awareness.But there a very big achiles heel. Satellites are vulnerable to everything from solar activity to military action. It's bad enough our military capabilities have become so dependant on them; do we want to absolutely rely on them for Aunt Emma's safety??? It would be insane not to keep the ground based systems for backup; and they would still need staff trained to operate them. This system would improve safety; but if implemented would probably increase costs to the traveling public since the existing controllers would still need to be kept and their equipment mantained or upgraded.Donald

Well, just like GPS for navigation this can vastly help with situational awareness.But there a very big achiles heel. Satellites are vulnerable to everything from solar activity to military action. It's bad enough our military capabilities have become so dependant on them; do we want to absolutely rely on them for Aunt Emma's safety??? It would be insane not to keep the ground based systems for backup; and they would still need staff trained to operate them. This system would improve safety; but if implemented would probably increase costs to the traveling public since the existing controllers would still need to be kept and their equipment mantained or upgraded.Donald

That is an excellent point; some may say far-fetched, but I agree that threats (from whatever source) to the satellite network constitutes a valid argument. If the ground-based system is too antiquated to handle current traffic demands, it must at least still stand as a backup.I did end up voting yes, though. Our current system is simply too over-burdened and under-powered. It's nearly 2010, not 1945.

It would be insane not to keep the ground based systems for backup;

The ground-based VORs are on their way out and most likely within 20-30 years there will be none left. They are simply too expensive to maintain. At the same time GPS is not so vulnerable as many tend to believe, in fact their signals are quite difficult to jam and the latest breed of GPS satellites are even far more resistant to any jamming. VORs also depend on radio signals and there invulnerability is also limited. The only truly 100% invulnerable piece of navigation equipment are inertial systems - they will never go away.

What about pilots making poor or inaccurate decisions based on this new system, such as risking close proximity to other traffic, weather and terrain? I can foresee situations occurring because to many pilots are making independent decisions in a confined airspace instead of overall ATC control. I think what I am saying is that this new system should be linked to a ATC system for control. Situational awareness is one thing, situational freedom is another and potentially dangerous thing. Does the current system need a overhaul? Yes. But the proposal, as it stands now will get a no vote from me.Regards,Mel

The ground-based VORs are on their way out and most likely within 20-30 years there will be none left. They are simply too expensive to maintain. At the same time GPS is not so vulnerable as many tend to believe, in fact their signals are quite difficult to jam and the latest breed of GPS satellites are even far more resistant to any jamming. VORs also depend on radio signals and there invulnerability is also limited. The only truly 100% invulnerable piece of navigation equipment are inertial systems - they will never go away.

While I agree GPS in normal use is very reliable, I still believe there should be a backup. If we ever get into a conflict with a foreign power that has the capability of physically destroying satellites, it will make them vulnerable. China for example has already demonstrated their capability to do this. Since the military relies so heavily on them, they will be the number one target. If that happens, and GPS is used for ATC without backup, it will effectively bring Air Traffic to a screeching halt, as well as any other industry that chooses to solely rely on GPS. This not only effects GA and commercial traffic but military as well, making it a National Security issue. So I would be very surprised if this type of system was put in place without radar backup. So I'm a yes, but only with backup.

While I agree GPS in normal use is very reliable, I still believe there should be a backup. If we ever get into a conflict with a foreign power that has the capability of physically destroying satellites, it will make them vulnerable. China for example has already demonstrated their capability to do this. Since the military relies so heavily on them, they will be the number one target. If that happens, and GPS is used for ATC without backup, it will effectively bring Air Traffic to a screeching halt, as well as any other industry that chooses to solely rely on GPS. This not only effects GA and commercial traffic but military as well, making it a National Security issue. So I would be very surprised if this type of system was put in place without radar backup. So I'm a yes, but only with backup.

I just can't see an adversary wiping out 20+ satellites without some good retaliation from our side first. Put me down for GPS, and liquidate the rest.L.Adamson

The ground-based VORs are on their way out and most likely within 20-30 years there will be none left. They are simply too expensive to maintain. At the same time GPS is not so vulnerable as many tend to believe, in fact their signals are quite difficult to jam and the latest breed of GPS satellites are even far more resistant to any jamming. VORs also depend on radio signals and there invulnerability is also limited. The only truly 100% invulnerable piece of navigation equipment are inertial systems - they will never go away.

I did a research project on navigation warfare when I was in the AF, and I have to disagree here. The power densities at or near the earth's surface from a GPS satellite transponder 10300 nm up are very weak, and are trivially easy to jam. The encrypted military-grade signals are far more robust, but they require special equipment and crypto codes that are not available to civilian users.The demise of VORs has been "right around the corner" now for over 15 years, but we're really not much closer to that day, because there is a very significant vulnerability in putting all your eggs in the GPS basket. It might be that something like a grid of ADS-B stations (a network of ground-based GPS pseudo-satellites) might move that forward, but it involves replacing one expensive ground navigation network (VOR) with another ( ADS-B ).CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I just can't see an adversary wiping out 20+ satellites without some good retaliation from our side first. Put me down for GPS, and liquidate the rest.L.Adamson

I can, it's called a solar flare. There are several methods to take down a satellite, not all of them from earth. Examples also include micrometeroids and sheer bad luck or stupidity (nasa lost a mars probe because of wrong units being used).Furthermore, anything electronic can be taken out with an EMP. Example here:

I can, it's called a solar flare. There are several methods to take down a satellite, not all of them from earth. Examples also include micrometeroids and sheer bad luck or stupidity (nasa lost a mars probe because of wrong units being used).

I figure that I can take my chances with 24 satellites (+ backups) at around 12,500 mile orbit. In my own experience, my aviation data-base GPS's will pickup 8-12 of them at a time. I'm on my fifth Garmin (aviation) GPS, having used them since 1993. While a solar flare could cause a problem, software glitches in the nationwide ATC system have caused disruption for hours, as demonstrated last month. Not too worried about a large scale disruption of electrical devices. If so, navigation wouldn't be the only problem.L.Adamson

I figure that I can take my chances with 24 satellites (+ backups) at around 12,500 mile orbit. In my own experience, my aviation data-base GPS's will pickup 8-12 of them at a time. I'm on my fifth Garmin (aviation) GPS, having used them since 1993. While a solar flare could cause a problem, software glitches in the nationwide ATC system have caused disruption for hours, as demonstrated last month. Not too worried about a large scale disruption of electrical devices. If so, navigation wouldn't be the only problem.L.Adamson

True, however I still must say, it would be worth it to keep the VORs as backups, just in case.

True, however I still must say, it would be worth it to keep the VORs as backups, just in case.

Thing is, tuning into & flying direct to VORs in a criss cross pattern is a needless exercise. Just like the outdated ADF, aircraft of the future won't require NAV/OBS selectors as well as DME. GPS is more efficient, and accurate. A prior reply alluded to & questioned " Aunt Emma's safety" based soley on GPS. Considering the past history of flight into terrain accidents using the VOR system during cruise as well as IFR approaches.............. I'd say that Aunt Emma's chance's of survival will highly increase.... thanks to GPS combined with terrain/obstacle databases, and especially synthetic vision which is solely based on GPS. L.Adamson

Thing is, tuning into & flying direct to VORs in a criss cross pattern is a needless exercise. Just like the outdated ADF, aircraft of the future won't require NAV/OBS selectors as well as DME. GPS is more efficient, and accurate. A prior reply alluded to & questioned " Aunt Emma's safety" based soley on GPS. Considering the past history of flight into terrain accidents using the VOR system during cruise as well as IFR approaches.............. I'd say that Aunt Emma's chance's of survival will highly increase.... thanks to GPS combined with terrain/obstacle databases, and especially synthetic vision which is solely based on GPS. L.Adamson

And what I'm saying is have a back up in case of a systems crash. It's always better to be prepared, because by failing to plan ahead, you are planning to fail.I would rather spend the time keeping VORs as backups, rather than become reliant on a technology that can be taken out by a hostile group easily.

And what I'm saying is have a back up in case of a systems crash. It's always better to be prepared, because by failing to plan ahead, you are planning to fail.I would rather spend the time keeping VORs as backups, rather than become reliant on a technology that can be taken out by a hostile group easily.

Keeping the VOR system isn't planning ahead. It's a system that has been a pilot/passenger killer since it's inception. It was the best for it's day, but fails miserably in comparison to what the GPS system is capable of. When it's gone, I'll be thrilled! L.Adamson

Keeping the VOR system isn't planning ahead. It's a system that has been a pilot/passenger killer since it's inception. It was the best for it's day, but fails miserably in comparison to what the GPS system is capable of. When it's gone, I'll be thrilled! L.Adamson

Larry, the idea is to have a backup in case something happens to the GPS network. The GPS network, if it goes down, means no navigation if the VOR system is dismantled.