ADS-B stuff that I have found II [Archive]

Flying Binghi

1st Oct 2012, 02:28

.

via baswell ...And it would take too big a setup to effectively disrupt traffic...

Hmmm... whats it going to take to get GPS turned off ? One GPS guided terror attack... two GPS guided terror attacks.... three GPS guided terror attacks ?...... :hmm:

For those that hav'nt been following the subject. No GPS = No ADSB.

Link to previous thread - http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/381710-ads-b-stuff-i-have-found.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Via the OZBUSDRIVER link, post #1

"...researchers still believe that an ultimate solution will require on-board cameras and, possibly, radar systems. In a recently released report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited sense and avoid technology, among others, reaching the conclusion that the FAA is behind schedule on its integration of drones into the National Airspace System..."

How goes the Oz research on electronic see and aviod for drones/aircraft ? The research setup i seen on a 172 seemed fairly lightweight and structualy easy to instal on anything.

.

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Oct 2012, 12:24

Not sure if I have linked this before-

Garrecht Avionik TRX-1090 (http://www.garrecht.com/index.php/en/ads-b/trx-1090)

Bludy smartphones! Cannot link image. Device combines FLARM returns with 1090es returns. Handy around glider fraternity.

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Oct 2012, 12:38

Garmin Leads the Way to ADS-B Future (http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2012/07/garmin-leads-the-way-to-ads-b-future.html)

Interesting the difference a couple of years make. :ok:

Edit- How good is this Garmin Pilot App going to be?

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Oct 2012, 12:49

Sagetech introduces ADS-B with synthetic vision AHRS (http://www.sagetechcorp.com/news/sagetech-introduces-ads-b-receiver-with-synthetic-vision-ahrs.cfm#.UGmQEIlhjTo)

Sagetechs vision of new directions and the explosion of pilot friendly apps.

Edit- Osh must have been mind boggling this year!

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Oct 2012, 13:08

How NavCanada are looking at ADS-B coverage! (http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2012/06/harris-to-provide-aerion-adsb-receivers/)

Interesting use of Iridium satellites to carry a receiver package. Available anywhere under the coverage of this constellation.

LeadSled

1st Oct 2012, 14:19

Actually its the reverse this time Sunfish. Here we have gone down the path of 1090-ES, which is the euro standard, and the standard in the US for high level ops as well. For GA, the US have UAT (978 Mhz) and relies on the 1090-ES responses be rebroadcast via ground stations.Folks,

I do wish you would all stick to the facts.
1090ES and UAT are both ICAO standards, and, of course, there is the third standard, the first to go into real service, VDL4.

1090ES is not/was not a "Euro" system, it was dollied up by US manufacturers who didn't have "free" access to the patents for the "new" systems. The"'Euro" system is VDL-4.

All this has been covered many times, but the only reason 1090ES was ever adopted was because it was promoted to cash strapped US airlines as a "cheap" solution, using "existing" equipment ---- which in practice has proved to be anything but cheap ---- and would save the cost of new broadband equipment

The original ICAO competition was to produce a broadband datalink transceiver that could have multiple uses, with the trans-Atlantic politics , ICAO voted for two systems, VDL-4 and UAT. 1090ES came into the picture much later.

1090ES is an extremely limited narrow band datalink, it will not work in the US without UAT to carry most of the traffic.

What a dog's breakfast.

Not only has 1090ES proved to be very expensive to retrofit, both FAA and Eurocontrol have mandated broadband data links for routine ATC communications, to take over from VHF voice, so the airlines are stuck with a very inferior and expensive ADS-B system, with no development room, already suffering channel saturation in US, plus a datalink that could have saved all the costs of retrofit of 1090ES.

Sadly, with the collapse of GA flying in Australia, channel saturation will never be a problem here.

As has also been detailed on previous threads, the ground stations being used by Airservices are the same as the FAA, just missing the UAT card in its card slot.

Despite the vastly greater traffic in the US, FAA do not believe the need for a common system for collision avoidance is warranted ----- as born out by cost benefit analysis.

UAT ADS-B is getting cheaper, because of the size of the North American market, that will never happen with TSO'd 1090ES. The market for GA "mandatory" 1090ES ADS-B is so small, that manufacturer will never be more than a cottage industry, no economies of scale.

So, in Australia, we wind up with the worst of all worlds --- sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Tootle pip!!

PS: There is no doubt that the superior system is UAT, the signal is CDMA, whereas VDL-4 is TDMA ( like an old GSM phone)

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Oct 2012, 22:30

UAT was invented before ADS-B.

If I remember correctly the US was the last to come to the party. All the US studies used UAT. FedEx and Capstone were UAT. The yanks wanted UAT as the standard but ICAO went with 1090es.

Fruit is a problem with the 1090mHz frequency, there is no doubt. Mode ACS, DME, SSR and TCAS II all use the same frequency. Rationalization?

Cost to cash strapped airlines is a very old argument considering the turnover of equipment and the value of the hull as opposed to the cost of the investment in the upgrade.

For the kiddies at home...Leadsled is an avowed opponent of ADS-B because he believes it will lead to nm based useage charges. Big brother is watching!

T28D

1st Oct 2012, 22:50

For the kiddies at home as Ozbusdriver so blunlty puts it, both myself and Leadsled are reactive to user pays as our motivator, in fact we are committed to real understanding of Broadband transmission technology.

No matter how it is dressed up 1090ES is not broadband and is VERY limited.

Whereas CDMA is truly broad band and as the current mobile networks now at the 4th generation with 3 billion world wide users show, is broadband unfettered by capacity.

There is no fear of ADSB enroute charges for VFR. To build a billing system that can charge on random movements in class G airspace for a customer base of less than 10,000 aircraft simply would not make economic sense to any carrier even Air Services.

So stick to the rational technical arguments and retain your credibility.

baswell

1st Oct 2012, 22:50

Edit- How good is this Garmin Pilot App going to be?
Of course I am biased, but I did download it. (just create a US app store account, easy of you use an Amex card and fake US address)

It looks pretty, but the functionality is pretty darn poor if you ask me. Not very intuitive, not a great planner. Look at the star ratings / reviews in the App Store. There's much better apps there in the US and much better apps here.

Of course if someone comes up with a good 1090ES receiver for iPad we'll most likely support it, keeping in mind that in the US, they put mode-C targets picked up by radar into TIS broadcasts; Australia only has air-to-air, so its usefulness is very limited and may give a very false sense of security!

Like Leadie, I want my UAT. :ugh:

LeadSled

2nd Oct 2012, 03:51

The yanks wanted UAT as the standard but ICAO went with 1090es. OZ,
With all due respect, that is simply not true. US promoted UAT ( CDMA, Qualcomm hold the patents) and Europe wanted VDL-4 (TDMA and Ericsson hold the patents).

ICAO finally accepted all three, such was the politics.

There is no doubt UAT is the superior technology, but VDL-4 would have worked for aviation, and was, in fact, the first system to go into day to day use, in Scandinavia. The large scale Mediterranean trial used VDL-4.

1090ES was/is the lashup that several very large aerospace industry manufacturers promoted to the airline industry, world wide, as a cheap and easy way of avoiding fitting new equipment ----- the rest is history. Never underestimate the lobbying power of very short sighted airlines and the ATA/IATA, even as we speak, ADS-B is anything but a done deal in the US.

VDL-2 is becoming very widely used for datalinks, world wide, replacing the original ACARS. VDL-4 has been widely adopted for ground collision avoidance, including in US. The US Marines have adopted VDL-4 ( which seems odd to me) for practice range management.

Wordlwide adoption of CDMA based would have been the smartest answer, adoption of 1090ES is certainly the dumbest answer, as the US ATA has finally realised, but for the time being, they are stuck with their previous shortsightedness.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Yes, I am opposed to mandatory ADS-B in Australia, it has never been cost/benefit justified, and the Australian preoccupation with ADS-B for collision avoidance just reveals a totally unreal estimate of the risk of collision, and the ability of ADS-B to mitigate that risk.

You realise, of course, that ADS-B IN information is NOT processed by TCAS 11.

The actual collision risk in any Australia airspace is so small that it is the statistically the equivalent of zero, except in circuit areas, where the risk is already ALARP. In VFR/vmc circuit areas, your eyeballs do not have the shortcomings of ADS-B at very short ranges.

I have no idea where you get the idea of avionics equipment turnover in airlines ( as opposed to private owners with more money than sense) where equipment generally remains as it came out of the factory, unless an AD dictates otherwise, such as the various software upgrades to TCAS 11, or regulatory change dictates.

The costs of the upgrades to Qantaslink -8s is a good example of real costs, versus the nonsense promulgated by Airservices in the early days. In fact, the Qantaslink costs were very close to the costs estimates in the FAA NPRM, and several orders of magnitude greater than CASA NPRMs.

OZBUSDRIVER

2nd Oct 2012, 05:22

Leadsled, read what I wrote!

This argument has been done to death at least five years ago. I am interested in your view wrt 1090es and UAT in the US....got any links to back that up?

Datalink or transponder? That is the question!

T28D

2nd Oct 2012, 06:43

UAT is the carrier, CDMA is the operating code.

UAT can carry multiple coding methodologies, and multiple service providers.

As asimple example the Weather carraige on UAT simultaneous with ADSB, it is not rocket science to multiplex on broad band capable carriers.

Yes UAT was around before 1090ES but Australia deemed it too expensive to set up the ground stations, we will rue the day that series of decisionswas made.

OZBUSDRIVER

2nd Oct 2012, 08:00

T28D very true. I do not have an argument against as to the capabilities of the various systems.

I remember a post on these threads many years ago from a lecturer( I think?) from Charles Darwin Uni that espoused the use of the terrestrial mobile network as the datalink for a navigation app that he was working on. I think I even posted against as to the expense of such a datalink. How wrong am I? I have used a couple of PC based apps that use the mobile network and using my current subs for my smartphone... And....after attending an Avidyne demo for their satellite link off the LEO networks??? I think the mobile network wins.

baswell

3rd Oct 2012, 00:50

I have often wondered what could be achieved using Digital Radio Mondiale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Radio_Mondiale) as data link for WX and traffic, and at what cost compared to satellite (LEO or geo) or VHF/UHF systems. Just a couple of channels gives a fair amount of bandwidth.

LeadSled

3rd Oct 2012, 08:53

but Australia deemed it too expensive to set up the ground stations,Folks,
And yet the ground stations Airservices is using are virtually identical to the ones used in US, just the "Australia" ground station does not have the UAT circuit board in, leaving a/the spare slot.

I am advised that the way the setup works, the signals from the ground station to the ATC computers are common, regardless of the transmission and reception between variously equipped aircraft and the ground station.

If this is correct, it means that we could have UAT, as well as 1090ES here, with all the advantages of the much cheaper UAT equipment.

However, this would need a major psychological shift away from ADS-B IN being regarded as the "poor man's TCAS" answer to a non-existent collision risk problem, something that seems highly unlikely.

FAA completely discount ADS-B for an aircraft to aircraft collision prevention function, for them it is an ATC tool, TCAS 11 will be with us for a very long time.

Tootle pip!!

PS: For info. about how limited 1090ES is, and how easily it is swamped, go looking for FAA/Mitre Corp, Google is your friend. This problem was raised more than twenty years ago, as a serious impediment to the long term use of the present transponder standard, the problem is not ADS-B ES specific, it applies to all operations of transponder modes C/S.

OZBUSDRIVER

4th Oct 2012, 14:06

Yes, google IS your friend-

A study back in 2008 on exactly this very subject. Nice response as to possible outcomes. Still, reductions til 2015 then FRUIT increasing.

ASP report on 1030/1090 RF Development (http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/SC209_Meetings/WG1_Mtg05-2008-0211/WG49N15-M6-ASP%20RF%20Report%20and%20Acquisition%20Squitter.pdf)

Special note- INTEROPERABILITY

Acronym decode FRUIT-false replies unsynchronized to interrogator transmissions

Or- too many transponders keying over the top of each other.

Frank Arouet

5th Oct 2012, 04:51

So it's easilly swamped?

You seem to have "form" on PPRune for pushing agendas far beyond your PPL flying capabilities.

LeadSled

5th Oct 2012, 05:26

OZ,
A good description of some of the problems resulting from the adoption of an outmoded system.
None of those issues arise with a modern broadband datalink, (be it UAT/CDMA or VDL/TDMA.instead of something dating back to WWII.
Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Oct 2012, 08:27

Francis...you trying to shoot the messenger?

Who says you need an ATPL to understand the system you are flying in?

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Oct 2012, 08:40

FRUIT will only ever be a problem in the NE corridor in the US and parts of Europe. Personally? I would simply dream of a day when FRUIT becomes an issue here.

Plumbum!!!!! Why do you profer two separate systems for ATM. Incompatible unless AirServices put in low level rollout with an extraordinarily expensive broadband link to each ground station.... Unless you keep your old transponder.

INTEROPERABILITY! As much as I would appreciate the datalink there are far more cost effective means of supplying the data to the cockpit. UAT is the US version of VAN X works great but only in one state.

This is an old argument! Do you guys really want to go around again?

LeadSled

5th Oct 2012, 08:52

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=93601&ra=true

Folks,
Pity we don't have UAT.

Even if it is nice to have and not must have.

Incompatible unless AirServices put in low level rollout with an extraordinarily expensive broadband link to each ground station

Who says the system requires an "extraordinarily expensive broadband datalink".

Maybe you should bone up on the FAA system. For the ADS-B part of the operation, the communications between the ground station and ATC computers is agnostic as to whether the aircraft/ground/aircraft part is 1090es OR UAT --- the bandwidth required is nothing special.

Don't confuse this part of the system with the bandwidth other service might use, everything from routine ATC traffic in lieu of VHF voice, through commercial non-ATC usage.

What I don't know about is how limited the bandwidth available is if a satellite has to be used in the loop, most of the FAA link between ADS-B ground stations and centers is terrestrial --- mostly the telephone network.

Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER

6th Oct 2012, 01:46

Unless I am very wrong. Whilst the boxes have spare racks in AirServices 1090es ground stations, the connection back to mummy is one way only. There is no facility to transmit FROM an ADS-B site. Purely passive system!

baswell

7th Oct 2012, 06:29

Incompatible unless AirServices put in low level rollout with an extraordinarily expensive broadband link to each ground station....
Extraordinarily expensive when they started talking about this maybe, but we're in 2012 now, the two NBN birds are about to go up and the complete bandwidth for nationwide comms, TIS and WX feeds is nothing but a rounding error in the available bandwidth on these satellites.

Heck, even without the NBN birds, putting that capacity (and WAAS packages while we're at it*) on the Optus satellites that went up over the past decade would not have been "extraordinarily expensive".

That argument should be dead an buried.

* WAAS too was "extraordinarily expensive" because of the ground stations. Now we have the ground stations anyway (for ADS-B) and we still don't have WAAS. What a monumental cock-up. :ugh:

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Oct 2012, 10:10

Baswell, love the way you think. :ok:(great minds:8)

However, I think we all forget why AirServices went with 1090es in the first place....Radar replacement.... Imagine how much it would have cost to get 100% coverage ABV FL300 if they put in SSR heads. In effect, The cost of equipage has been transferred to the aircraft owner! The choice has been made for us by AirServices. The largest charged user, the airlines, would baulk at the idea of paying for a network that even smelt like a subsidy to GA....remember THAT argument? So, and enough of the politicking by myself for the first time on these two threads, 1090es is the equipment of choice in Australia and most all of the known world. UAT is site specific US and small parts of China around training facilities. We ain't going to be able to turn back that clock. UAT here is a waste without somebody else paying for the broadband content. Because! User pays on this puppy? Francis would have conniptions for the next century!

LeadSled

7th Oct 2012, 14:46

WAAS too was "extraordinarily expensive" because of the ground stations

Bas,
The reason Airservices wasn't interested in WAAS, but LAAS, was that they couldn't charge for WAAS.
Tootle pip!!

Oz,
The FAA long since discounted ADS-B as other than a passive system, as far as collision avoidance is concerned and transponders must stay where TCAS is the go ---- but I am certain you know that they rebroadcast traffic information, UAT is always in and out. ADS-B as a component of TCAS is not going to happen any time soon.

Bas knows what he is talking about with available satellite bandwidth, we have come a long way since the original Inmarsat birds.

Even the cost of satellite based phone systems is dropping sharply, it is now about the same call cost as the original mobile phone of 20 years ago.

We are not going to see the benefits of modern technology re. ATS-B any time soon in Australia, thanks to the (as now very obvious) adoption of 1090ES as the high level system world wide.

Thanks a bunch, IATA/ATA and some N. American avionics manufacturers ---- as has all been detailed before.

Tootle pip!!

T28D

7th Oct 2012, 22:51

, 1090es is the equipment of choice in Australia and most all of the known world. UAT is site specific US and small parts of China around training facilities.

Equipment of whose choice, I don't recall being asked for a vote on choice.

And arguably the 2 most trafficed nations on Earth U.S. and China have chosen UAT, now why might that be ???????

1090ES the VAN 5 of modern aviation data communication.

China is emerging as a major player in Aviation as its population would suggest it should.

On a different note the capacity of the transponders on the new NBN satellites wil be adequate to carry the data traffic for UAT, without any compromise to their primary function providing Broadband for remote communities.

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Oct 2012, 23:18

Gotta love these circular arguments....

T28D read what I wrote, cherry picking an argument? It's so you!

No matter which way you cut the cake, Plumbum, you still have the system chosen for you. When I first looked at this argument I was also hoping for UAT and WAAS for very selfish reasons. What "I" could get out of it. However, this is not the political argument.

Bas is quite correct. Affordable broadband is all around us now, both satellite and wireless terrestrial. If we want the goodies we have to put them in ourselves.

If there was one cabability that aviation was screaming out for, it was WAAS!
To think we have launched TWO geosynchronous birds since and rolled out no less than 28 stations linked....for a few cents more... And for national benefit? That does suck the big one!

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Oct 2012, 13:31

Bas, you'll enjoy this-
FIS-B for 1090es (http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/WG3_Meetings/Meeting8/FIS-B.pdf)

T28D

8th Oct 2012, 22:29

I really don't think this isbroadband !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

•

FIS-B principally intended for GA aircraft

•

FIS-B for advisory use only (no guarantee of delivery)

–

not “real time”

–

not a substitute for airborne sensors, other alerting mechanisms

•

Key parameters:

–

update rate - 300 seconds

–

range limited to 40 to 80 nmi to ensure low altitude coverage

–

product mix (based on information available now):

1- (512 pixel x 512 pixel) graphical images

720 x 720 NM, 2 km resolution 50,000 bits

ATIS 2000

Windshear alerts

2000

PIREPS/Special Use Airspace (SUA) 1000

Total: 55,000 bits

(About 200 BPS delivered)

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Oct 2012, 23:37

T28D...if you want broadband? Get an IPad!

T28D

8th Oct 2012, 23:44

Just want functional data transfer, not micky mouse piggy back on a stressed and bandwidth limited system with NO upgrade path.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Oct 2012, 00:21

Remember this thread from two years ago?

ADS-B Costs (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/416512-adsb-costs.html)

T28D, you now want broadband in your cockpit but you want AirServices to give it to you for nix? Is this the new thrust of your argument?

Re-post for FIS-B above. I was mearly pointing out what can be done within a limited bandwidth. The best programmers can write code that uses the minimum resource possible. Bloat ware is what makes a joke of broadband and high performance PCs.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Oct 2012, 08:53

Press release from Trig Avionics

Trig Avionics - Ready today for Australian Airspace changes. (http://www.trig-avionics.com/press120911.html)
Edinburgh, 11 September 2012

Many pilots are excited by the surveillance benefits that Australia’s ADS-B network offers. Trig Avionics Limited, the UK transponder manufacturer has released new ADS-B compatible software across their TT31, TT22 and TT21 transponder range. This software provides pilots with a simple upgrade path to ADS-B featuring enhanced compatibility with associated aircraft avionics.*

A comprehensive flight test programme has proven Trig’s compatibility with popular Garmin GPS units. This means GA pilots now have a clear route to install a complete ADS-B Out capability, at a competitive cost and with the minimum of inconvenience.
Brad Granger, Head of Engineering at Pacific Avionics in New South Wales ran these recent flight trials. “We used a Trig TT31 transponder with the latest Trig 3.4 software. This equipment formed the hub of our ADS-B install and easily integrated with our GNS 530W Garmin avionics. The results were great; there had been some compatibility issues with earlier software versions which Trig quickly addressed with this latest release. We’ve shown that Trig technology works in our own airspace, providing the visibility and accuracy of surveillance that pilots want to have. Trig equipment complies with the latest ADS-B certification standards, using Mode S 1090 ES (Extended Squitter). Air traffic controllers used the 1090 ES ADS-B transmissions and the latest Trig 3.4 software delivered faultless performance.”*

Greg Dunstone, ADS-B Program Manager at Airservices Australia, confirmed that Airservices monitored the air traffic during the trial. “Airservices is now delivering ADS-B services to a number of aircraft with Trig transponders. The installation of ADS-B into general aviation aircraft will allow our air traffic controllers to provide separation and safety services across vast areas of the country where no conventional radar services exist. Airservices encourages GA pilots to consider the fitment of ADS-B Out to further enhance the safe operation of all aircraft in Australian airspace.”

Brad Granger said “All Trig transponders are ADS-B Out capable; the TT31 is an ideal retro-fit for an existing transponder. The TT21 and TT22 transponders are highly compact lightweight units, ideal where panel space is tight. Trig transponders can utilise an existing transponder antenna and with the addition of a suitable WAAS GPS an aircraft can become ADS-B compliant.”

Aircraft owners who wish to consider a Trig ADS-B solution should contact their Approved Trig Dealer who can advise them on upgrading their specific aircraft. There are currently nine Approved Trig Dealers in Australia. Pacific Avionics are an Approved Trig Dealer and Trig Service Centre. Hawker Pacific - Australian Avionics have recently been appointed too, becoming an Approved Trig Service Centre and Approved Trig Dealer.* Jeff Gribble Avionics Sales Manager at Hawker Pacific - Australian Avionics said, “We’re delighted to have become a Trig dealer and we anticipate a lot of interest in Trig products. We’ve been really impressed with Trig’s compact and retro-fit transponder solutions that are smart, affordable and future proof.”

T28D

9th Oct 2012, 09:29

Mr BusDriver

T28D, you now want broadband in your cockpit NO I DON"T READ PROPERLY.

You are obsessed

baswell

10th Oct 2012, 03:46

Bas, you'll enjoy this-
FIS-B for 1090es
I did enjoy this, it's a great laugh! They are clutching at straws. A few low-res radar images is the equivalent of 10 aircraft in the air space. How many aircraft-equivalent would be a full NOTAM and WX feed be?

Besides, we're not going to get any of that anyway.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Oct 2012, 03:57

Garmin ADS-B academy (http://www.garmin.com/us/intheair/ads-b)

Resources available from Garmin.

But Bas, Lincoln labs looked at it. Matters not that you would even want data this way. Look at it this way...if I was in the states I would seriously not even bother with UAT. 1090es fulfills my legal requirement. I would be far better served with an XM subscription.

baswell

10th Oct 2012, 07:24

if I was in the states I would seriously not even bother with UAT. 1090es fulfills my legal requirement. I would be far better served with an XM subscription.
I listen to a lot of US podcasts and read enough blogs and news and have come to the conclusion that is not how people there look at it.

Nobody cares about ADS-B OUT; there is no legal obligation to cover for them yet.

They are going absolutely gaga over buying $1000 receivers for their iPads, or $2500 NavWorx transceivers hooked up to their existing GPS/EFIS/MFD that gets them traffic! (and ADS-B out to boot if they have a c145 source)

They *love* the fact they see all mode-C traffic around them in areas with radar coverage. (I have seen this myself, flying around Chicago. It rocks.)

Not to mention not having to pay a minimum $35/month for the XM subscriptions they seem to be cancelling en-masse.

UAT with TIS and FIS gives them a reason to buy ABS-B now and most people seem to be very enthusiastic about it. It's good value.

Now if we had that technology and buying incentive here ... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Oct 2012, 11:22

Bas, interesting point re-XM and free UAT. I will have to do some more reading on the matter.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Oct 2012, 12:01

It would appear after a quick google. Some like, some don't. It would appear the game changer is the GDL39 receiver. Gets FIS but relies on other transmitters to receive TIS from the ground station. One poster put the line 1090es for the legal bit and the 39 for the freebies. Some posters like the NEXRAD depictions others prefer XM. Gotta be airborne to get info and in the mountains pretty high up where XM still works on the ground. However, I have never come across anyone complain about how long it takes for XM to load and/or refresh as much as just recently....interesting!

LeadSled

10th Oct 2012, 12:22

All,
A very interesting article in the latest US AOPA magazine about the time delays for XM weather to refresh, upwards of nine (9) minutes. The articles is all about a fatal as a result of a pilot using XM near a line of CBs, and not taking the advice of ATC.
XM ain't weather radar, and this was weather that you should not go anywhere near, in any kind of aircraft, even with weather radar.
Tootle pip!!

T28D

10th Oct 2012, 12:34

Seems to me we are all heading into a techo void that has well meaning intention but no real backing from any form of genuine regulation.

It is not all about ADSB, in fact the alphabet soup of acronyms confuses the real virtue of any or inded all of the ground based applications one might purchaseat the lowest price / month as asubscription service.

Personally having had some reasonable experience with the delivery of broadband services and the false expectations that consumers develop I am really personally wedded to my stance of 5 years ago, nothing has really changed, ADSB below 5000 is still a dream and subscription services such as the various weather uplinks in the U.S. just won't occur here, (a) the weather in general is too benign and (b) the market ( consumers) is too small for commercial viability.

So folks play with the dream, I just hope it isn't wet at the end !!!!!

baswell

10th Oct 2012, 21:01

subscription services such as the various weather uplinks in the U.S. just won't occur here,
Satellite weather is here; all you need is the $15K data link option in your $600K Cirrus and pay $60/month for the privilege!

the market ( consumers) is too small for commercial viability.
People once said that about that market for iPad EFB apps in Australia. Now look what we have and how well the developers are doing with it. :)

Anyway, where the bad weather occurs in Australia and NOTAMs matter, you are generally never too far away from a Telstra tower, so get your weather and NOTAMs that way.

Traffic I guess will never happen here. The majority of flying is VFR in G and without a requirement, nobody is going to spend quite that much money on equipment that only has value if everybody else buys it too.

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Oct 2012, 02:42

OK, we will ignore the other two nutters for a bit. Who said anything about weather radar?

Bas, how true! Avidyne had a demo a number of years ago on satellite wx for Aus. Pretty exi when you look at what is available for smart devices with a broadband connection.

As far as traffic, it will always depend on widespread fitment. However, as an aid to mark1a eyeball, any little help is good. That GDL39 is looking good for that application.

baswell

11th Oct 2012, 04:10

As far as traffic, it will always depend on widespread fitment.
Not it is not, that's the point! If ATC broadcasts what they pick up on mode C, and all I do install is a (low-cost, non-certified) receiver, I get instant value out of it. Literally nobody else needs to have it installed for it to be 100% useful to me in airspace with radar coverage.

And to get back to T28D: it ain't over till the fat lady sings. There are still those powers who *really* want us to have ADS-B. (although it is debatable whether this is because they actually want us to have it for safety reasons or they just want there to be a *requirement* for ADS-B and if we can't afford it and stop flying, that's an even better outcome for them.)

If 2020 rolls around and in the US every GA aircraft has UAT ADS-B because it is affordable and useful to them (free WX, traffic) they may just think: "hey, maybe we should put those UAT cards in the racks and provide FIS and TIS, people might buy this stuff then".

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Oct 2012, 06:14

My bad. Was referring to Aus airspace in that last post.

I take it you are in Vic, Bas? Go talk to Hans at Enigma over at Moorabbin( if he is still there?) and ask him how difficult it is to get access to AirService's feed. He had a TIS setup that would work a treat if he could only get access.

ollie_a

6th Nov 2012, 08:17

This new Airservices document provides a brief overview of the Australian ADS-B setup and reasons for going that way. Addresses several recurring arguments in this thread from Airservices point of view.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/FAQ-ADS-B-Final-1-0-01NOV12_AIRSERVICES.pdf

OZBUSDRIVER

15th Nov 2012, 01:56

Latest news from Trig Avionics (http://www.trig-avionics.com/)

Hmmmm....this equipment is getting pretty well widely available. I am noting some of my links are starting to look like advertising. Anyway, TA60 1090Rx looks like being available Q2 2013. And that will be my last product plug.

Can I say that given the CAAP as linked above and product availability for just about any level of aviation. Methinks this issue is no longer an issue:ok:

Now if we can convince certain members of parliament to look at the idea of joining up with the Japanese government. Gets some ground stations set up with the ADS-B sites and uplink to the MTSAT we may get WAAS and FINALLY get some approach aids out in the bush that WILL save lives.

AC21-45(1) (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c45.pdf)

Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. 1) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L01739/Download)
Download Instrument and Explanatory Statement

Andrew Anderson (http://aopa.com.au/information-centre/aopa-news/2012/08/24/aopa-welcomes-new-rules-for-ads-b-mode-s-transponders-and-gnss-navigation/) has valid point for delaying mandatory fitment for VFR till affordable equipment availability...just a question on what is cheap enough:ok:

baswell

15th Nov 2012, 05:25

Still waiting for those sub-$1000 c145 GPS units, though. Those have always been the most expensive part of the equation by far.

A transceiver would be nice too, why have two boxes duplicating lots of components?

baswell

15th Nov 2012, 05:30

Target for VFR should be a transceiver and GPS all in one box for less than $2500 installed.

And even that is too much, really.

T28D

15th Nov 2012, 09:33

Baswell, we keep tripping over those nasty TSO specs/requirements , there is way more technology in a modern touch screen phone ( digital transciever ) than is needed for ADSB.

Problem is we just can't let go of the conservative past and allow new thinking to evolve new user friendly kit.

In the 1960's Aviation led the technology, now it is a very lost second or third cousin.

OZBUSDRIVER

15th Nov 2012, 09:53

Accord Technology AEA2012
Accord Technology - AEA's 2012 New Product Introductions - YouTube

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Apr 2015, 03:36

I guess this is the slam dunk nothing but net moment-
http://http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html[/
This type of player in the market is an industry short circuit change.
With new ADS-B products emerging about every other month, a surprise entrant into the dependent surveillance market may be search giant Google. According to a report in FlightGlobal, at an ICAO meeting last month, Google exec Dave Vos, who heads the company’s Project Wing internet effort, said the company is considering flooding the market with inexpensive ADS-B equipment in order to pave the path for the fleet of UAS delivery drones it envisions for the not-that-long-term future.

FlightGlobal quoted Vos as saying, “We think that – and we are going to do this – we will head-down the trajectory of putting into the marketplace really, really low-cost ADS-B solutions,” Vos told the ICAO audience. What’s low-cost? “We have to answer the question: What does the market find palatable in order to really transform? And that’s where we’re going,” Vos replied.

Currently, as revealed at the Aircraft Electronics Association convention in Dallas this week, the lowest cost ADS-B hardware is UAT Out-only options retailing for about $1995. Adding installation to that brings the total to about $4000 and the cheapest conceivable solution—slide-in 1090ES transponders—may still cost more than $3000. While ADS-B installation activity is picking up, shops report buyers are reluctant to make the purchase, evidently because they don’t see much value in doing so.

Vos told the ICAO audience that Google sees the lack of wide ADS-B equipage as hindrance to its plan for a fleet of delivery UAS, most of which will operate at 500 feet or below. Google is also partnering with Rockwell Collins to develop anti-collision technology, but it’s not known if this is optically based or electronically based, or both. At the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Intel and a German company called Ascending Technologies demonstrated an optically based sense-and-avoid system using multiple drones.

From Avweb....essentially, Google are intending on pushing the price point down on ads-b equipment to enable their entry into uav platforms for remote delivery services.

bankrunner

11th Apr 2015, 06:17

Still beats me why they didn't go for a civilian variant of Link 16, or something similar.

Variable rate but runs at up to 238Kbps (about 12x the channel capacity of VDL4), has very robust anti jam/anti spoofing features, 2 channels of digital voice, supports everything that UAT, 1090ES etc support and much more, as such as building a consolidated wx radar picture from all of the aircraft in a particular area, bidirectional traffic info, vectors and multi leg flight paths, airfield serviceability, all of the services that currently use ACARS, and just about anything else you could dream up over the next 20 years.

Expensive at military prices, but no reason at all from an engineering perspective as to why it couldn't be quite economical if you could get commercial economies of scale. Blind Freddie could have seen that the cost argument for 1090ES was always going to be BS. Too late now, ICAO has well and truly screwed the pooch.

LeadSled

14th Apr 2015, 09:14

Too late now, ICAO has well and truly screwed the pooch.

A bit unfair on ICAO, who originally nominated three (3) systems as potential candidates. 1090ES was soon eliminated in early trade-off studies.

It was lobbying by transponder manufacturers, who did not have control of patents for modern broadband data links,(UAT/CDMA or VDL/TDMA) who (along with major, mostly US, airlines, who swallowed the argument that 1090ES would be cheap and easy) were successful in promoting the present financial and operational mess --- channel saturation is already a major issue in the US, as clearly predicted by Mitre Corp. research, so many years ago.

We all know about the cost issues --- at least the FAA cost estimates were realistic, unlike CASA.

If UAT (or VDL-4) had been adopted, we would not be in the present situation.

Tootle pip!!