Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Yikes!!!!
Sorry, guys, sorry you fall for any "Pie-in-the-sky" patent filing that comes along....
From my quote of my own post below you actually think anything?
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Originally posted by mikelee
Actually, it already has a patent...So check it out!
*Patent
Author Year Title Country Assignee Number URL
Mcelhannon, Raymond J. (c/o Cooper, Dunham, Clark, Griffin & Moran, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY, 10020) 1980 Laser guided blind landing system
for aircraft United States 4196346 www.freepatentsonline.com...
[edit on 26-1-2010 by mikelee]
Fascinating. 
Quote from : Patent 4196346 - Laser Guided Blind Landing System
A laser guided blind landing system for aircraft comprising in combination:
a longitudinally extending runway, a plurality of laser beam generators mounted in longitudinally spaced alignment therewith at one end thereof, said
generators being positioned to direct laser beams therefrom at progressively increasing coplanar inclinations away from said runway in progressive
sequence from the nearest to the furthest therefrom, thereby to produce intersecting segments of said beams in pairs of each, of least slope adjacent
said runway and of greatest slope remotest therefrom, the so intersecting laser beam segments thereby forming a continuous laser aircraft glide path
of gradually decreasing slope from said segment remotest from said runway to that closest thereto.
Preferably all of the laser generators radiate laser beams of distinctively different wavelengths or are tone modulated at different frequencies,
except for the runway approach beam which may be of wavelength in the visible spectra.
Interesting read indeed.
All I said was fascinating, and an interesting read, nothing more, nothing less.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
WE already have the technology for "blind landings"...more correctly, it is technology that's existed for decades, using existing VHF and UHF
transmitters, and the appropriate receiving devices onboard, to operate in very liitied visibility conditions....
Yes, I do not believe anyone has disputed that, so far, but someone else thought it might be relevant to the topic discussion, and I left them the
respect of that.
Whether I believe it is a
"smoking gun" or not.
In other words, I welcome all theories, and will sort through them as this thread develops.
There are many technologies that have not been discussed on ATS before.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, every instance of the use of this technology requires a Human presence, and certain training protocols, etc, etc...
Yes, of course, if the computer system fails, there needs to be a human operator.
Policy, procedure, and protocol are something I understand fully.
So, what exactly is your point, and will you make it soon, please?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW, the future of what's known, in the industry, as "Category III" ILS landing operations (they are further defined as "CATIIIa, CatIIIb or
CATIIIc, depending on various things that are too detailed to explain, here) will likely evolve into the use of GPS, someday. THAT is being
researched.
Nothing is too detailed to explain, providing you use website links so
everyone can follow along, not just the
"tech geeks", and if it
is relevant to either defending or refuting the topic of the thread.
Everything connected to a computer will someday be able to function autonomously.
That is the way all systems have been heading since the assembly line first came out.
Nothing new here.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
In the interim, if it "ain't broke, don't fix it!!"
Of course.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
We know how to do many things, that have been proven, tested, and shown to be reliable.
Technology marches forward, of course, but it ONLY accepted (and utilized, implemented) after due process and evaluation and testing, testing,
testing....and adminiatrative "review", more testing, etc, etc.
I see you are making generalized commentary.
Care to elaborate?
You're beginning to lose my attention because you're not stating anything the majority of other people can figure out for themselves, myself
included.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Seriously, the fantasy of such advanced technologies, as proposed in this OP, are best relegated (so far) to science fiction stories.
So, what you are saying, is that you know nothing about airplanes and jets?
Because the
auto-pilot system alone is a rudimentary
"remote control", a computer
controlling the general controls of the plane while the pilot and co-pilot take a break.
Sort of a low-tech version of a robot.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Autopilot
An autopilot is a mechanical, electrical, or hydraulic system used to guide a vehicle without assistance from a human being.
Most people understand an autopilot to refer specifically to aircraft, but self-steering gear for ships, boats, space craft and missiles are sometimes
also called by this term.
The autopilot of an aircraft is sometimes referred to as "George."
Okay,
"George", you're being called out on airline technology now.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not saying that SOME ideas won't eventually become common, and routine, but there is so much misunderstanding, of this topic, it is
iincredible.
Autopilot is common in all larger commercial jets now, they control airspeed, flight path, altitude, and various other rudimentary elements of the
jet.
See, when you do not provide links, other people will begin searching for themselves.
Not to defend your position, but to pick it apart, and when people begin researching for themselves, and begin seeing the details for themselves, more
comes to be known.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Autopilot : Categories
CAT I - This category permits pilots to land with a decision height of 200 ft (61 m) and a forward visibility or Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 550 m.
Simplex autopilots are sufficient.
CAT II - This category permits pilots to land with a decision height between 200 ft and 100 ft (≈ 30 m) and a RVR of 350 m. Autopilots have a fail
passive requirement.
CAT IIIa -This category permits pilots to land with a decision height as low as 50 ft (15 m) and a RVR of 200 m. It needs a fail-passive autopilot.
There must be only a 10-6 probability of landing outside the prescribed area.
CAT IIIb - As IIIa but with the addition of automatic roll out after touchdown incorporated with the pilot taking control some distance along the
runway. This category permits pilots to land with a decision height less than 50 feet or no decision height and a forward visibility of 250 ft (76 m,
compare this to aircraft size, some of which are now over 70 m long) or 300 ft (91 m) in the United States. For a landing-without-decision aid, a
fail-operational autopilot is needed. For this category some form of runway guidance system is needed: at least fail-passive but it needs to be
fail-operational for landing without decision height or for RVR below 100 m.
CAT IIIc - As IIIb but without decision height or visibility minimums, also known as "zero-zero".
Fail-passive autopilot: in case of failure, the aircraft stays in a controllable position and the pilot can take control of it to go around or finish
landing. It is usually a dual-channel system.
Fail-operational autopilot: in case of a failure below alert height, the approach, flare and landing can still be completed automatically. It is
usually a triple-channel system or dual-dual system.
So, while we have established you know the lingo, and I am not saying you're not a pilot, we have established anyone cannot go looking for the
information to refute you.
See, I know how to do research, and while that does not necessarily mean I am an expert on airplanes, or flying for that matter, it does mean you're
going to have to step up your posts now and quit being snide to everyone, because I'm asking you nicely.
Anything contained in a book, a website link, or certain keywords can be looked up.
You have done nothing but give me a reason to prove my stance more now.
Instead of flapping about your stance as a pilot and
"authority" on airplanes, you might have considered that there are people out there who
will actually go the extra mile just to make you put up, or shut up.
I mean that with all the respect in the world too because it is not a snide comment.
Merely, a challenge, put up, or shut up, provide more of a challenge, please.
Because so far your arguments are boring me to no end because they are easy.
Anyone can name call, anyone can make snide and derisive comments, and anyone can make claims, but few people can actually speak intelligently, few
people can lead by example, and few people can post in the 9/11 Forum area without dings.
ATS has a zero tolerance for nonsense in this forum area and I love that.
It means I need to be on my best behavior and that's something I am an expert on.
Quote from : Pre-Post Window :
You are an experienced contributor to ATS.
Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.
I'm making myself an example for the newer members here on ATS and the 9/11 Forum.
I'm going to challenge you to do so too.
This means an end of your nasty commentary, if you're up to the challenge.
[edit on 26-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]
