[LEAPSECS] Schedule for success

Rob Seaman seaman at noao.edu
Sat Dec 20 21:16:48 EST 2008

On Dec 20, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <B00E39AF-B2CE-4828-9DFF-E6EDE16DD6B4 at noao.edu>, Rob

> Seaman writes:


>> Nobody has spent a dime on investigating possible risks involved in

>> aircraft navigation.


> That shows, if nothing else, the depth of your research.

I was obviously speaking (as I have for nine years) of the context of
the limp yet relentless proposal to eviscerate UTC. If somebody has
references to risk analyses (for ATC or any other industry) of
relayering UTC on something other than mean solar time, please share
them with the list. I'd be happy to delve deeper.

Turning the issue around, is there even a coherent such study of the
effects of leap seconds on ATC (or any other industry)? (Completely
ignoring the question, if you will, of whether or not aircraft
navigation might actually care about mean solar time.)

We're to understand that leap seconds "suck". Wouldn't the obvious
first step to motivating the need for a change be to demonstrate that
such a problem actually exists? And then to explore the scope of the
issue and any external scheduling constraints?


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list