AVSIG: FAA Reauthorization Bill wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> FAA Topics

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Tom Tyson [SUW]
Glider Guider


Reged: 05/27/04
Posts: 4691
Loc: KSUW
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Tom Tyson [SUW]]
      #285440 - 03/28/10 10:30 AM

It will be interesting if this comes to pass. A very limited check shows about 5500 J-3s registered in the US. I wonder what form an ADS-B installation would take for them.

- TT

--------------------
Tom Tyson-A&P

Pilots without Mechanics are just Pedestrians with fancy watches.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Budge (W29)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 7423
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Tom Tyson [SUW]]
      #285449 - 03/28/10 01:05 PM

Quote:

It will be interesting if this comes to pass. A very limited check shows about 5500 J-3s registered in the US. I wonder what form an ADS-B installation would take for them.





I don't know. You might want to contact any glider groups you belong to and have them lean on your elected representatives. I wouldn't just leave it up to the critters on the Hill to figure this out on their own.

Regards,
Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Joe Budge (W29)]
      #285456 - 03/28/10 02:41 PM

The two ADS-B boxes are either Mode S through a transponder, or the 900mHz band Universal Access Transceiver. UAT is a FAR better datalink unit than mode S will ever be, but the airlines didn't want to have to get UATs since they already bought mode S transponders for TCAS. The bonus with ADS-B In is the ability to exchange data with the aircraft in reasonable quantity (at least for GA types with UATs), which I expect will turn into "if you build it, they will come" from an industry standpoint. It starts making improved situational awareness fairly easy to achieve, interactive weather and flight information services have a nice path for data exchange, etc. It also provides a connection for safety warnings to crews, especially in situations like runway incursions at airports that don't have expensive tower systems like ASDE-X and a controller in the middle to relay the alerts.

I dunno - I think robust two-way data communications to aircraft will be just as popular and useful as it is to homes and businesses. From a data standpoint, sticking with mode S is just lame. FAA is talking about getting away from radars, so aircraft need something aboard to avoid becoming invisible to ATC. That would be ADS-B Out... but if you want to get anything substantial back to the aircraft (that is, if you'd like the crew to be able to tell something has improved...), you need ADS-B In, too. In the long run, it seems clear to me that it might as well be done right if we're going to go to all the trouble of a big change in the system. However, I expect that no-electrical and other limited users will be accommodated somehow, just as they generally are now.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #285462 - 03/28/10 03:09 PM

Scott -- The problem with "IN" is that the various weather services and all
that can't be received on the ground reliably, unless within line of sight of
a ground station. I remember all the Collins articles from 10-15 years
ago, with his King ground-based weather display, launching out of HGR or
wherever and realizing, only when climbing through 4,000' or so, that the wx
picture was really crappier than when he last got his brief in the FBO. This
is where the XM product is far superior and the ADS-B In adds nothing of
much interest to me. With Mode S already, the upgrade to ADS-B Out isn't too
high a price, and price will detemrine if I go with the UAT or an active
traffic system.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Budge (W29)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 7423
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #285467 - 03/28/10 03:50 PM

Quote:

FAA is talking about getting away from radars, so aircraft need something aboard to avoid becoming invisible to ATC.




I've been trying to do that for years... <g>

I'm in the other Scott's camp. The active traffic detection and XM weather already in my plane give me better service than ADS-B In ever will. If the gov't. wants to replace its secondary beacons with ADS-B, fine. I'll throw 1040 ES onto my transponder and be done with it. I don't need the FAA to spend billions of my dollars building out ADS-B transmitters to provide me ADS-B In.

Further, I don't think anyone else really does either. There is no theoretical reason the electronics gurus can't build a black box which receives both 1040ES and the UAT signal from other planes. If you want awareness of other aircraft around you, you can pick up their signals yourself - you don't need the FAA to do it for you.

FIS-B, the weather service, is just a marketing add-on to ADS-B's traffic function. All the FAA is doing is buying and rebroadcasting WSI's weather service. If the collective "we" decide that in-cockpit weather service should be mandatory, I *know* it would be a lot more cost effective to just mandate that we all have XM or WSI in the cockpit. Again, nobody needs the FAA to do this for us.

As for "Build a datalink and they will come": put something useful on the datalink and they will come. No need for anyone to spend money on it until that time.

No, it's not a hot button of mine or anything. <g> And, yes, I said all this in my response to the NPRM.

Regards,
Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #285488 - 03/28/10 10:58 PM

>> line of sight of a ground station...

Well, yeah - but 15 years ago there weren't a lot of ground stations. Since they will be part of the surveillance system and a lot cheaper than a radar site, I expect that there will be better coverage than before out of ATC necessity, if nothing else. The rest of the data comm is gravy. Unless you just have mode S, in which case it's au jus.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Joe Budge (W29)]
      #285490 - 03/28/10 11:10 PM

>> put something useful on the datalink and they will come...

Well, sort of - every time they do something like this, there's always the chicken and egg argument. Nobody's going to front the service cost unless there are customers, and the customers don't want to spend the money until there is service available. Hence my preference for a generalized decent datalink that can start out supporting the basic surveillance, collision avoidance, and weather services, but still have capacity left to carry other services as they're developed. Mode S is already breathing pretty hard, so I don't think that's a good long-term approach. Of course, it does have the advantage of stability... what you see is pretty much all you're ever going to get.

While you're right in thinking that a dual UAT/Mode S box is technically possible, I dunno - it seems kind of silly to build half a UAT (a UAR?) when doing the whole thing wouldn't be a whole lot more trouble and would be a lot more robust than mode S. But then I don't have an airplane, either.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #285492 - 03/29/10 07:23 AM

Scott -- Yes, there will be more towers, but there won't be *that* many more
to provide coverage to the ground at all the outlying non-towered fields in
Maine, upstate NY, NC, TN, Newfoundland, let alone in the western mountain
states. These little fields often don't allow good internet connectivity (or
the office has limited hours) which makes the availability of wx on the
ground of even greater importance than at HPN, BED, IAD or places like that.
I have no interest in being an early (or mid-term) adopter of the new federal
service that isn't as good as what I have now.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Budge (W29)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 7423
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #285497 - 03/29/10 08:38 AM

Quote:

Well, sort of - every time they do something like this, there's always the chicken and egg argument. Nobody's going to front the service cost unless there are customers, and the customers don't want to spend the money until there is service available. Hence my preference for a generalized decent datalink that can start out supporting the basic surveillance, collision avoidance, and weather services, but still have capacity left to carry other services as they're developed.




This is where we have a philosophical difference. If *you* want to front the cost of a system with potential but no defined benefit, I'm happy to watch you spend your money to do so. But I'm not happy when you're spending my money (both as a taxpayer and as an aircraft owner) on your cause.

Quote:

While you're right in thinking that a dual UAT/Mode S box is technically possible, I dunno - it seems kind of silly to build half a UAT (a UAR?) when doing the whole thing wouldn't be a whole lot more trouble and would be a lot more robust than mode S. But then I don't have an airplane, either.




There are two issues embedded in here: The first is technical. Building a transmitter is *always* a lot more trouble than building a receiver. It's considerably more expensive, too. Since I'm required to carry a transponder anyway, I can piggyback my Mode S ADS-B Out signal onto that transmitter relatively economically. (There is no difference in the data transmitted from the aircraft on Mode S ES than on UAT.) Then, if so inclined, I'd only have to equip myself with a 1040ES receiver and a 930MHz UAT receiver to hear other planes for myself. The UAT receiver could be upgraded to receive any other useful data the FAA wants to throw at me, after the FAA figures out what that is. Any new applications will require an upgrade anyway - under all scenarios.

The second issue is this ridiculous standard for 2 frequency bands for ADS-B. Yeah, I understand the Mode S frequencies are already saturated. Then I don't understand why we support ADS-B Out on Mode S at all. If the frequencies are saturated in the major terminal areas, as a number of experts have told me, 1040 ES ADS-B isn't going to work there. Period. Seems kind of silly.

I think the core concept of ADS-B is brilliant. The FAA's implementation is a complete mess. Gee, there's a surprise.

Regards,
Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #285555 - 03/29/10 05:09 PM

XM can go away any time they decide they don't want to provide the service any more. It's great stuff, but not something that can be adopted as a reliable standard. When FAA looks at service levels, that matters - and may well lead them to implement something that appears somewhat redundant but is under their control. Else, minimum available services become commercial pot luck, which isn't really how they want to operate. And perhaps the need to improve the coverage level of said FAA-obligated service will lead to innovations that do just that. Or you could end up with nothing when XM decides that weather's just not their bag anymore and the FAA hasn't done anything to provide similar services.

Remember, FAA's trying to design something that works to a specified standard that they can keep there. Dependence on non-contractual commercial services won't necessarily achieve that.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7283

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum