[throwanem]

> For goodness's sake all I'm asking for is a little display with a map that shows where the plane thinks it's going.

Any commercial aircraft with a glass cockpit, which at this point is ~all of them, already has one of these.

[wfunction]

I mean including information/labels like "taxiway XYZ" that could make a stupid mistake like this obvious. Or are you saying they already do this?

[throwanem]

No, they don't already do this. As 'phdp already explained, there are no instrument landing systems installed in the US which include GPS augmentation. So, while the moving map will show the same position information as at any other time when the aircraft's GPS receiver has sufficient signal, it's going to look something like this: http://www.stratomaster.eu/lignes/mgl/photos/enscr4.jpg

Meanwhile, the ICAO approach plate for SFO's runway 28R looks like this: http://redwoodva.net/lib/skins/en/images/events/charts/ksfo_... - trivially simple to comprehend at a glance, I am sure you will agree!

As far as "stupid mistake" goes, you sure do seem quick to judge professionals in a highly technical field totally unrelated to your own, and of which you've made clear you are happy to preserve your ignorance. Were I you, I'd hope my own errors meet with a greater extent of charity than that precious little you see fit to mete out. But that's your problem, not mine. Good luck with it.

[wfunction]

> As far as "stupid mistake" goes, you sure do seem quick to judge professionals in a highly technical field totally unrelated to your own

The heck? Everyone makes stupid mistakes. Hell, I make more of them than a lot of people I know. That's why there are procedures and checklists and redundancies and automated systems -- to prevent stupid mistakes, evne by the best people. Where was I ever judging the pilot for heaven's sake?! Maybe you could be a little more charitable with how you judge people?

[throwanem]

I mean you've already said you don't know what you're talking about ("I have no idea what [Cat III] means.") but you're totally cool with taking a confidently authoritative tone on it anyway, I'm not sure what other conclusion anyone should be expected to draw.

[wfunction]

> I mean you've already said you don't know what you're talking about ("I have no idea what [Cat III] means.") but you're totally cool with taking a confidently authoritative tone on it anyway, I'm not sure what other conclusion anyone should be expected to draw.

...Did you come here just to fuel flames and burn people, or are you here to have a legitimate discussion about the subject?

You're totally cool being literally in ad-hominem territory at this point and you're lecturing me about not judging people I never even judged?

[throwanem]

Is it really ad hominem to draw uncomplimentary conclusions from your evident disinterest in addressing substantive criticisms of the argument you're advancing? I don't think it is. Perhaps I'm wrong about that - but what else are you giving me to work with?