On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
There's a happy medium in there somewhere; it's not clear that having (to use the examples given) air traffic control computers directly on the Internet has sufficient value to outweigh the risks. However, it seems that being able to securely gateway appropriate information between the two networks should be manageable, certainly a lot more manageable than the NxM complexity involved if you try to do it by securing each and every Internet-connected ATC PC individually.
What makes you think that isn't exactly what this "Cyber Shield" project is supposed to do? Heck, what makes you think that's not the way most of these systems already work today?
Do people really think the guy in the airport control tower is really surfing Facebook while he's controlling aircraft on the same computer, or that capability is even what is under consideration?
In fact, I know he isn't. For one thing, the guys in the towers generally do not use computers at all. Yes, some towers have RADAR displays that are actually generated by computer, but, they are essentially read-only and they are not general purpose computers with web browsers, internet connectivity, or even a keyboard for that matter. However, the guys in the tower primarily use binoculars, mark 1 eyeballs, flight progress strips, and a lot of ingenuity to control aircraft within the class D/C/B airspace immediately surrounding their airport (the local controller) and the aircraft on the ground (the ground controller). In some cases, clearance delivery is using a computer, but, technically, he's not controlling aircraft, just in the tower for communication convenience. Now, if you wanted to talk about a TRACON or ARTCC, we might (MIGHT) get into a different realm. In the TRACON, mostly not. Those controllers are generally also working specialized scopes to control aircraft within the airspace around some of the busier airports below about 12,000 feet. In the ARTCC (commonly referred to as "Center") case, mostly they are using similar equipment to the TRACON, but, have wider areas of coverage with lower traffic densities and coverage up to 60,000 feet (Flight level 600). The exception would be the guys working some of the oceanic sectors who depend on email (yes, email) to receive position reports and other data from pilots via ARINC, and, to send instructions to AIRINC to relay to pilots. However, to the best of my knowledge, even that email based system is not connected to the internet and the controllers that are doing that are not doing anything else while they are doing that. I know this from being a pilot, and, also from having toured the following ATC facilities: Towers: CCR PAO SFO TRACONs: SOCAL Bay -- Now defunct, rolled into NORCAL NORCAL Monterey -- Now defunct, rolled into NORCAL Stockton -- Now defunct, rolled into NORCAL ARTCCs: ZOA (Oakland Center) Owen