ADSB 'Goes Live' in States - Philadelphia

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From today's AvWeb, Thurs 18th Mar.

" ADS-B Goes Live In Philadelphia

Pilots of properly equipped aircraft flying through the Philadelphia area can get a glimpse of the future of flight now that ADS-B service has been switched on there. The FAA activated the system on Feb. 26 but didn't announce it until Tuesday. Aircraft with a universal access transceiver can display weather and aeronautical information on their cockpit displays, as well as traffic advisories. Those with a 1090 MHz Extended Squitter (1090 ES) can only get the traffic. The FAA is warning that the information available is advisory only and not a substitute for official sources of weather and NOTAMs or looking out the window.

Like any new and complex system, there are bound to be bugs and the FAA is hoping pilots will pay special attention to the functionality of the system and report any problems. ADS-B is the foundation technology of the NextGen airspace modernization program."

So that is coverage in the Gulf of Mexico and Philadephia.

Just for info....
Cheers

[Frank Arouet]

FAA defends big budget hike for new air traffic control system - Nextgov (http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100318_4899.php?oref=topstory)

"It's hard to see what the cumulative result of [NextGen] is yet because it is so complex and comprehensive," said Committee Chairman John Olver, D-Mass. "Early implementation efforts have been hampered by unclear roles. . . . Has there been any progress in defining [that]?"
Hank Krakowski, chief operating officer at FAA's Air Traffic Organization, said ERAM is fundamental to NextGen, which means it needs to be deployed correctly. The technology, currently operating in Salt Lake City, recently was taken offline to correct numerous software and interface problems. While following the program's rollout schedule is important, it won't drive the agency to deploy the system before it is deemed safe, he said.
Lawmakers also expressed concern that FAA hasn't provided estimates for how much it will cost to equip aircraft with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), a new data-based position-monitoring system designed to improve communications between pilots and air traffic controllers. Without the projections, panel members said they are unsure how much money will be needed to complete the project.

Babbitt said the equipment for the ADS-B can be inexpensively installed in aircraft, particularly when compared to the ground equipment needed for the current system. "Everybody equipped is everybody best served," he said. "If more aircraft are equipped, our entire system runs better.
He was reluctant to provide how much it would cost on a per-aircraft basis, but said the upgrade would be a multibillion-dollar effort.
Krakowski said the agency wants to avoid spending money updating systems only to have to replace them when NextGen technologies are ready.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

FAA defends big budget hike for new air traffic control system
By Emily Long 03/18/2010


031810faaNGins
(Mar. 18) - Comstock

Federal Aviation Administration officials faced tough questions from lawmakers on Thursday when they asked for a steep increase in the agency's budget to replace the nation's air traffic control system with more advanced technology, a project that has fallen behind schedule.

FAA has requested $1.14 billion for the NextGen program in fiscal 2011, a 32 percent increase from fiscal 2010. NextGen is an ambitious plan to replace the existing radar-based air traffic control system with a satellite-based network by 2020. The agency says the new system will help save lives and reduce air congestion. It estimates the cost of the program will be about $20 billion, which it began deploying in 2008.

"It takes a complex series of programs, a series of inter-related initiatives, not unlike a symphony, to make a full, robust NextGen," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development subcommittee. "Some of the complexities have proven to be bigger obstacles than forecasted."

Citing a lack of leadership and NextGen's complexity, subcommittee members said they were disappointed in FAA's progress in deploying numerous NextGen programs, including a system that provides flight information to terminal control facilities and traffic management systems. The En-Route Automation Modernization system is slated for completion in December, six months behind schedule.

"It's hard to see what the cumulative result of [NextGen] is yet because it is so complex and comprehensive," said Committee Chairman John Olver, D-Mass. "Early implementation efforts have been hampered by unclear roles. . . . Has there been any progress in defining [that]?"

Hank Krakowski, chief operating officer at FAA's Air Traffic Organization, said ERAM is fundamental to NextGen, which means it needs to be deployed correctly. The technology, currently operating in Salt Lake City, recently was taken offline to correct numerous software and interface problems. While following the program's rollout schedule is important, it won't drive the agency to deploy the system before it is deemed safe, he said.

Lawmakers also expressed concern that FAA hasn't provided estimates for how much it will cost to equip aircraft with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), a new data-based position-monitoring system designed to improve communications between pilots and air traffic controllers. Without the projections, panel members said they are unsure how much money will be needed to complete the project.

Babbitt said the equipment for the ADS-B can be inexpensively installed in aircraft, particularly when compared to the ground equipment needed for the current system. "Everybody equipped is everybody best served," he said. "If more aircraft are equipped, our entire system runs better.

He was reluctant to provide how much it would cost on a per-aircraft basis, but said the upgrade would be a multibillion-dollar effort.

Krakowski said the agency wants to avoid spending money updating systems only to have to replace them when NextGen technologies are ready.

FAA also has included cybersecurity provisions for NextGen programs in its budget request, said Victoria Cox, vice president for operations planning at FAA's ATO. She added ADS-B carries its own security architecture. In addition, the agency is working with the Defense and Homeland Security departments to coordinate security measures when common programs interface.

"I look at ADS-B and NextGen technologies as enablers to do things we can't do with the current system," Krakowski said. He added the agency doesn't know what the outcome will be for NextGen.

The House voted on Wednesday to extend the agency's funding until July 3, 2010. The Senate continued debate on its version of the FAA reauthorization bill on Thursday.

"It is difficult to make long-term decisions on short-term information," Babbitt said, adding a multiyear authorization would help the agency clarify its spending priorities.



It looks so much better when you post the entire article, Francis.

[Frank Arouet]

Geeezus! I posted the link.- Bloody pedants!:*

"It is difficult to make long-term decisions on short-term information

Does that sum up the points I've been making to date?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes Francis..but to cherry pick the article is not very scientific.

You can make your point as will the Binghi bomber regarding "cybersecurity".

[Frank Arouet]

Thank's for granting me that permission.:*

I suppose this is acceptable;

FAA has requested $1.14 billion for the NextGen program in fiscal 2011, a 32 percent increase from fiscal 2010.

Movements aside, how does this compare geographically with Australia? Without WAAS will it cost our fiscally challenged government anywhere near this for coverage where it would replace existing radar? Will they fork out whatever this cash amount comes to, or spend it foolishly on the health system, hospitals, broken down infrastructure etc. or amend the dreaded dirgy global climate change/ mind boiling, tax?

Will Batman get a new job to administer this?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, that is an easy one. I lived under the belief that WAAS was essential to the implimentation of ADS-B here in Oz...how wrong I was. ALL that is required is the FDE part of WAAS capable GPS, the TSO145a/146a versions. (There are avenues open to other specced GPS, provided they can demonstrate the same or similar integrity..if I am still correct in that regard)

Whilst WAAS would be simply fantastic to provide for CAT1 approaches to ANY aerodrome in Australia it is not required to impliment ADS-B. Upper airspace ADS-B is already "live". What happens next is anyones guess until the final NPRM comes out showing how the CASA and AirServices are going to direct their attention...my guess is voluntary fitment until critical mass and then mandate and restrictions to airspace for those not equipped to force as close as possible to 100% as per the original docmented proposals.

Since this argument started, the costs and availability of GA level equipment has "met the market" The cost to the feds is going to be minimal for the next bit...the cost is going to be "burdened", if you wish, on the owners. Luckily, it is going to be nowhere near what Leadsled T28(and his other guises) and Smith and another identity from your way, predicted.:ok:

My personal wish was for something like the US UAT receivers AND WAAS. Pipe dreams, I am afraid. However, my studies of how the Transport Departemnt in Japan put their capabilities into the MTSAT...there is still a real possibility of WAAS capability becoming available in Australia...the question returns to the bean counters and "User Pays" who the user is is the question...present Australian bureaucracy cannot understand common good as does the US DoD...the owners of said system.

[Frank Arouet]

OK;

As an ATC tool we are in agreement that it is the next logical thing to replace existing radar.

The answer to who pays is also as logical. (who pays for today's radar?).

Can we leave the MAC, SAR, and agoraphobiac arguments in the GAFA lie dormant. For aside from placating some who should just really stay in bed, those are simply, and possibly side benefits that do not feature to any great degree in any of these costs that are starting to emerge overseas.

My question to the "beancounters" and "researchers" is simply do we genuinely need it, on a cost benefit proven study, in class G airspace at Oodnadatta, Goodooga, or Terabaginhalf?

BTW you have converted me to glass. I just purchased a garmin AERA for my new aeroplane. I also have a Microair radio an ASI, ALT, compass, engine clocks and a functioning non digital timepiece. I'm saving up for a transponder. (in case anyone is concerned at this obvious danger to VFR flight in class G, donations will be greatfully accepted). :)

[LeadSled]

Luckily, it is going to be nowhere near what Leadsled T28(and his other guises) and Smith and another identity from your way, predicted.

Oz, old mate,

For a start, I am not T28, in the whole history of pprune, I have had one, and one only, identity.

As to prices for COMPLIANT ADS-B in Australia, the Garmin 330 Mode S transponder is the only "low price" one available (so far) that meets the standards (and not temporary concessions that apply to most AU present equipment) you can look up the price (make certain you use the correct 330, not the base model price), plus the price of a compatible C145 or C146 GPS, plus the cost of installation.

It is considerably cheaper in the US, because a top of the line Mode S transponder is not required, just a UAT set connected to (if one isn't already on board) C145/146 GPS source.

A number of apparently dirt cheap European sourced 1090ES transponders have been promoted on pprune, last time I noticed, another one has already gone broke.

A price check for the Garmin 330, of the model required for ADS-B, plus the GDL 90 as a GPS source is around US $10-12,000 just for the boxes,(US price, there are some hefty margins added here, plus GST) plus however long to fit at about AUD$150 per hour, and this just for ADS-B Out ---- about AUD $19,000+ , this includes no displays of any kind in the cockpit.

All this for a simple GA installation, if you have any of the newer "glass cockpit" aeroplanes, it's model specific, and not cheap.

Of course, FAA aren't into "mandatory for all" mode, that we seem to be so good at here, GA has the choice of UAT, which is cheap.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadslead...I know..Guess who you sold your T28 to:E:E:ok:

You have been trying to poke holes in availability, cost and compliance for years, Leadsled. Why not wait a little bit and see who is correct. ModeS is not the big ARINC system that you remember from your classic days, ol' fella.

There have been billions of electrons, ones and noughts crucified on this subject already so will not go over old ground. Suffice to say, with combination of Aussie tested WAMLAT and ADS-B and Primary radar around the major cities, AirService's side of the deal is coming together quite nicely. Upper airspace ABV FL300 and a huge swath of the continent covered at A010(where there was absolutely ZIP before)...it doesn't take rocket science to work out which classD towered aerodrome is also going to get a receiver

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, and there lies the issue. Should it be where transponder fitment is required? Or, where radio fitment is required? You tell me.:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

If you want to fly where a transponder or radio is required now and if ADSB becomes the evolutionary replacement of radar where it is now, then that is what I imagine would be required in lieu thereof.

Latest ERSA says Oodnadatta is UNCR so no radio required unless you want a burger from the Pink Roadhouse. But I think the phone works OK there these days.

[Flying Binghi]

You can make your point as will the Binghi bomber regarding "cybersecurity"

Hmmm... how soon we foreget the World Traade Centa. (yep, bad spelling)

Dunno about cybersec ?... Oz air security is a concern tho.

I'm told the Prime Ministers personal home is a bit hard to find on google earth ? ...suppose that makes it a bit harder to hit...:hmm:





.