ASDE-X problems at Boston Logan

[Digger]

Video:http://topics.myfoxboston.com/m/2915599 ... geid=64403

Is anybody else just the least bit bothered by the FAA guy, Mr. Davies, saying that the system is operating exactly as it should?

[ocelot]

I would be more concerned if the report were factual rather than sensational. The press doesn't understand technical stuff under the best of circumstances, and when it's Fox there's a substantial chance they aren't even trying.

Any real info around?

[Digger]

I'm not sure what you'd consider "real info".

http://avstop.com/news_feb_2010/bostons ... t_risk.htm

http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/ ... -31-07.pdf

The report Linked in the opening post also says, "Video obtained by Fox Undercover from the Federal Aviation Administration shows just what those false targets look like." Regardless of what Fox may or may not understand, how did that look to you?

[3WE]

Hey Digger- you are changing your question.

Lancelot is right- the interveiw comment doesn't count for much...I guess if the system is going to have errors, it's better to see what isn't there than to NOT see what is there- and if you are being interviewed- you hope to get in one good quote that tells a positive story.

So, then you ask the question (implied) is this a serious issue.

I don't know- it sure would be frustrating to see something show up. Of course it's like everything else. The controller should be situationally aware that no snow plows are near the runway- so if one magically appears, there probably isn't an issue. But, bring on primary-backup inversion. Is there a risk that the controller will call for an abort or something and someone runs off the end?? Maybe.

Actually, I blame Microsoft. All this computer junk is not that much more reliable than in 1965, and sure- this system may not be doing the controllers any favor.

[Digger]

No, I didn't change the question, I just added another question because the false alert depicted in the video looked like "real" enough information to me.

While the first thing I thought of was the potential for a controller to shut somebody down while on takeoff, leading to a messy overrun, the second thing I thought of was, I think, even more worrisome. How long until the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome catches up, and a controller complacently fails to act when there's a real incursion that looks like a common false target? The staement by Mr. Davies leads me to believe he's not even considered that possibility.

All this computer junk is not that much more reliable than in 1965, and sure- this system may not be doing the controllers any favor.

Mrs. Digger said almost the same thing--"Why can't they ever give us equipment that works as well as what they're replacing?"

[AndyToop]

To me that looks bad, and the biggest problem I can see is not that the controller would try and abort because of a ghost return, but more that he would assume that a real return is just another ghost. You are always going to get "ghosts" in that respect the FAA guy is right, but that means you put systemic process in place. What seems now to have been taken out of the article, is that the ground equipment should be equipped with GPS transponders. This would dramatically improve the situation.
Looks like an example of trying to use new stuff too fast or on the cheap, without really appreciating the associated risks.

[3WE]

I guess a tough issue to reconcile is that even if the radar worked perfectly, there are some things it can't do.

Because taxing planes and snow plows might approach a runway from very short differences- there can easily be instances where things are on a collision course. Of course the departing pilot is usually going to stop before he enters the runway- but the computer system still sees arithmatic that doesn't know he's going to hit the brakes. Or what if a snow plow is holding 20 feet off the hold line- lets off is brakes, pulls up to the line. There's another potential conflict even if the driver and ATC know what's going on.

The controller has to know what's going on and cannot rely on the system- except as a backup- there will be "false" alarms from brief, "true" conflicts.

Given the above, "the system" should theoretically be ok throwing the totally false echos- but then again, I see where Mrs. Digger doesn't need the brief "oh shit"- even if it is harmless.

[Digger]

It really bothers her because the false targets confuse the kids...

[ocelot]

The report Linked in the opening post also says, "Video obtained by Fox Undercover from the Federal Aviation Administration shows just what those false targets look like." Regardless of what Fox may or may not understand, how did that look to you?

It looked like "video that didn't work in my browser".

On reflection, I think this issue has been hashed out before. (but probably it was on the old site...)