ADS-B, Stuff that I have found.
--.my opinion is that the AEA and others will beat up on the FAA until they see the error of their ways....my opinion is also the the FAA is now feeling the pain of having a unique American only system that is internally incompatable (sic) with each other...the transponder requirment (sic) is for UAT because it is NOT a transponder, where ES is!
There is a very good reason for the FAA doing what they decided to do years ago. Research shows that 4096 codes is a limitation with 1090ES, despite what our local "experts" claim. ( See FAA/Mitre Corp. research, public documents)
US is the only place where there are enough people "committing aviation" at any one time for the critical limit of 4096 codes to be a real problem.
As far as ATC is concerned, from the ground receiver to the ATC centre, handling the duel system is no problem, ask Thales about their box, common to FAA and Airservices.
The really dumb decision is the use of 1090ES at all, a very limited narrow band, when we could have had broadband, either UAT or VDL-4.
As anybody who is serious knows, the "cheap and easy" 1090ES route is neither cheap nor easy, and the FAA NPRM costs were far more realistic than the nonsense trotted out here.
All this has been said, time and again, but the zealots for ADS-B in Australia treat it like a religious conversion, a sure way to miss the main point ---- ADS-B is a great ATC tool, where there is a traffic density based and cost/benefit justified need.
In Australia, as has been shown in every study, the risk base and cost/benefit justified need of the CASA DP proposals simply does not exist.
Assertions don't meet the ASNZ 4360 risk definitions, as required by the Airspace Act 2007 and the AAPS, forming an enforceable part of the Act.
This has all been said time and again, but a bit like creationists, scientific logic just bounces off the believers' backs.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re. the AEA comments, needless to say, Australia has gone one better ($$$$$wise) and AWIs are refusing to accept STCs, demanding CAR 35 approvals, and a separate CAR 35 electrical load analysis for each installation.
I have only seen two so far, in each case, the CAR 35's bills totaled around $6000, give or take a few $$.
The ripper was for a little jet, less than two years old, the quote $108,000 USD plus CAR 35 fees and any additional installation costs.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a snake oil salesmans speil jaba. But then again 20% of the hull value as quoted by LeadSled seems like a pretty good deal compared to the $million US airlines are concerned about. Logarithmatically speaking.
I like the bit about airlines using 60 year old technology for "navigation".
Even the PBFPAP (poor bloody fare paying airline passenger) or his cab driver has a Garmin to get him to the airport.
I like the bit about airlines using 60 year old technology for "navigation".
Even the PBFPAP (poor bloody fare paying airline passenger) or his cab driver has a Garmin to get him to the airport.
Jaba,
I guess you noted the disagreement between the ATA and the FAA Administrator about the costs versus the savings.
But, hey!!! What would the airlines know about costs, the public servants have all the answers???
Tootle pip!!
PS: The "radar airways", I must have been dreaming about all the direct tracking I have had, often half way across the US, going right back to B707 days. One SID, two direct to's, and one STAR, KJFK to KSFO or KLAX.
I guess you noted the disagreement between the ATA and the FAA Administrator about the costs versus the savings.
But, hey!!! What would the airlines know about costs, the public servants have all the answers???
Tootle pip!!
PS: The "radar airways", I must have been dreaming about all the direct tracking I have had, often half way across the US, going right back to B707 days. One SID, two direct to's, and one STAR, KJFK to KSFO or KLAX.
Thread Starter
However, Plumbum. The IATA are ALL for it..so go figure.
It really amazes me how the argument changes from 1090ES being horrendously expensive and then suggest an even more expensive UAT or a white elephant VDL4 as a better option...would an AWI cast a more sympathetic eye as to the cost of such ubber-exotic equipment?
Do we really have to go back over the modeAC codes as opposed to the modeS unique identifier in each 1090ES unit...what was it, 24bit..the same number of codes as a three letter, three digit number plate system. Then you should be argueing about fruit , ol' fruit
East Coast US will hit it as well as Europe if there is no rationalisation of the DME frequency band.
Code saturation is a red herring!
UAT is a datalink, 1090ES is a transponder. In the US GA on UAT will also have to carry an operating mode AC transponder not as a back up but to make the
plane visible to the rest of the poor sods flying in the same airspace with TCAS...1090ES does not suffer from that issue.
On top of all this we have little Francois who just doesn't want it..and you guys want him to expend even more money to access airspace?
Now...the cable that connects airservices and the content providor with your UAT system, Plumbum....who pays for that? and...IP or dedicated Airservices secured? Ask Enigma how hard it is to get access to the Airservices TAAATS feed and then ask yourself how big a can of worms you intend to open. The box may be the same but the infrastructure that connects to it is where the real cost is.....1090ES is one way traffic back to TAAATS...UAT requires a dedicated individual SECURE connection for each individual transmitter that transmits ONLY the data that would be in range of the receiver/transmitter....all this on a twice a second update???? why is it that the yanks are happy with the once every 12 or 20 seconds update...bandwidth? or the delay to get the UAT transmissions and combine it with the raw radar/ssr feed and then reroute and transmit....How many TRACONS spread out over the US and how many in Oz? BN and ML? and you want data transmitted along secure cable to each individual transmitter????
Have a think about what you ask for, plumbum?
It really amazes me how the argument changes from 1090ES being horrendously expensive and then suggest an even more expensive UAT or a white elephant VDL4 as a better option...would an AWI cast a more sympathetic eye as to the cost of such ubber-exotic equipment?
Do we really have to go back over the modeAC codes as opposed to the modeS unique identifier in each 1090ES unit...what was it, 24bit..the same number of codes as a three letter, three digit number plate system. Then you should be argueing about fruit , ol' fruit
East Coast US will hit it as well as Europe if there is no rationalisation of the DME frequency band.Code saturation is a red herring!
UAT is a datalink, 1090ES is a transponder. In the US GA on UAT will also have to carry an operating mode AC transponder not as a back up but to make the
plane visible to the rest of the poor sods flying in the same airspace with TCAS...1090ES does not suffer from that issue. On top of all this we have little Francois who just doesn't want it..and you guys want him to expend even more money to access airspace?
Now...the cable that connects airservices and the content providor with your UAT system, Plumbum....who pays for that? and...IP or dedicated Airservices secured? Ask Enigma how hard it is to get access to the Airservices TAAATS feed and then ask yourself how big a can of worms you intend to open. The box may be the same but the infrastructure that connects to it is where the real cost is.....1090ES is one way traffic back to TAAATS...UAT requires a dedicated individual SECURE connection for each individual transmitter that transmits ONLY the data that would be in range of the receiver/transmitter....all this on a twice a second update???? why is it that the yanks are happy with the once every 12 or 20 seconds update...bandwidth? or the delay to get the UAT transmissions and combine it with the raw radar/ssr feed and then reroute and transmit....How many TRACONS spread out over the US and how many in Oz? BN and ML? and you want data transmitted along secure cable to each individual transmitter????
Have a think about what you ask for, plumbum?
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 28th Dec 2010 at 08:02.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Even the PBFPAP (poor bloody fare paying airline passenger) or his cab driver has a Garmin to get him to the airport.
sssssshhhhhhhh dont tell Binghy that...he will be in decine
Leadsled.....yes I know what you mean, that was very true on just those "FEW" routes in the USA you flew.......and do not BS me on that, I have the inside gossip too mate, from some of your close colleagues......yes close
....really so.So those couple of well worn paths equal the rest of the tracks accross he USA or the rest of the world?????????????
You measure the entire world by just this????
One SID, two direct to's, and one STAR, KJFK to KSFO or KLAX.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled.....yes I know what you mean, that was very true on just those "FEW" routes in the USA you flew.......and do not BS me on that, I have the inside gossip too mate, from some of your close colleagues......yes close 
....really so.
....really so.
What Bull**** mate... at 2130Z in he morning if I remember I will ask about exactly what you speak from one of the B707/747 colleaues of yours about that and how it applies today..........I bet I get a different slant on it.
You're next conquest?
OZ, etc,
Who am I (or you) to argue with Mitre Corp analysis. I accept the concerns expressed, obviously you do not.
As the expert, you can probably also tell us why the potential for ADS-B In (if it ever happens) is to offload the 1090 spectrum, a completely different issue to code saturation. We are all ( well, most of us) know that the 24bit Mode S identifier give far more identifiers than 4096 (to say the very least) but that does not seem to answer the FAA/Mitre/Lincoln Labs. concerns.
Well, stone me, what a revelation, who'd a' thunk it!!
For "ADS-B Out" ---- izzatso?? UAT ADS-B Out can be one way traffic?? Seeing that the output of the Thales boxes as a receiver, back to the center (however far that might be) carries both the 1090ES and UAT data, are you trying to say that the FAA setup requires two separate "cables" from the one ground station to the center computers, one to carry the 1909ES data, and a completely separate datalink to carry the UAT data. And none of this UAT data can be carried from the Thales (essentially the same box as Airservices) ground station over a satcom link??
Prove it, and I will believe you !!
Ah!! The problems of "separated by a common language".
Strange how the FAA don't regard the "aircraft to aircraft" case as particularly critical, and yet, here in Australia, you would think we had a massive safety problem with mid airs, and ADS-B was the answer to this maiden's prayer.
I rather think FAA and Eurocontrol know what they are doing, the fact remains that neither are proposing the "mandate" that is proposed here in Australia, with it's highly likely outcome of seriously limiting the activities of a large proportion of sports and recreational aviation ---- for no good reason.
Tootle pip!!.
Re. direct tracking, let me quote a few more ( where QF has not been for a long, long time, if ever) ---- direct tracking examples --- that are the norm, not the exception ---- along the east of the US (Miami, Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, as well as KJFK to the North Atlantic MNPS gateways. Maybe the new generation QF don't ask, ask and ye shall receive ---- most of the time.
Strange as it may seem to some of you, my aviation activities in N. America have not been limited to QF routes or aircraft.
I must say that, in the G.O.Ds, before inertial, I ( as were most of us) was always impressed by ATC's ability to give us vectors that were as good as direct tracking, sometime the same vector good for an hour or more ----- to save zigzagging along VOR airways.
Code saturation is a red herring!
As the expert, you can probably also tell us why the potential for ADS-B In (if it ever happens) is to offload the 1090 spectrum, a completely different issue to code saturation. We are all ( well, most of us) know that the 24bit Mode S identifier give far more identifiers than 4096 (to say the very least) but that does not seem to answer the FAA/Mitre/Lincoln Labs. concerns.
UAT is a datalink
1090ES is one way traffic back to TAAATS...UAT requires a dedicated ----
Prove it, and I will believe you !!
In the US GA on UAT will also have to carry an operating mode AC transponder not as a back up but to make the 
plane visible to the rest of the poor sods flying in the same airspace with TCAS...1090ES does not suffer from that issue.
plane visible to the rest of the poor sods flying in the same airspace with TCAS...1090ES does not suffer from that issue.
Strange how the FAA don't regard the "aircraft to aircraft" case as particularly critical, and yet, here in Australia, you would think we had a massive safety problem with mid airs, and ADS-B was the answer to this maiden's prayer.
I rather think FAA and Eurocontrol know what they are doing, the fact remains that neither are proposing the "mandate" that is proposed here in Australia, with it's highly likely outcome of seriously limiting the activities of a large proportion of sports and recreational aviation ---- for no good reason.
Tootle pip!!.
Re. direct tracking, let me quote a few more ( where QF has not been for a long, long time, if ever) ---- direct tracking examples --- that are the norm, not the exception ---- along the east of the US (Miami, Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, as well as KJFK to the North Atlantic MNPS gateways. Maybe the new generation QF don't ask, ask and ye shall receive ---- most of the time.
Strange as it may seem to some of you, my aviation activities in N. America have not been limited to QF routes or aircraft.
I must say that, in the G.O.Ds, before inertial, I ( as were most of us) was always impressed by ATC's ability to give us vectors that were as good as direct tracking, sometime the same vector good for an hour or more ----- to save zigzagging along VOR airways.
Thread Starter
Back peddle a minute..Plumbum, are you suggesting to just fit a UAT with Tx capability only?
Otherwise, you do understand how the information gets from the ground network TO the UAT unit. That bit isn't a simple box.
Anyway, I am not the one that requires a transponder to be carried separate to a UAT datalink.....why
Otherwise, you do understand how the information gets from the ground network TO the UAT unit. That bit isn't a simple box.
Anyway, I am not the one that requires a transponder to be carried separate to a UAT datalink.....why
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitre Corp analysis
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Ol’ Fruit 
Then there is the small matter of the masive US ITT ground stations (ADS-R) having to ‘load’ the 1090 Band with UAT rebroadcast traffic data.
Which system do you think is less bandwidth (1090) intensive?
1. (US Dual band) = Rebroadcast UAT as 1090 TIS-B + ACAS + Airborne A/C transponders + SSR returns; or
2. (Europe, Aus single band) = ACAS + Airborne scheduled mode S/ES + Mode S scheduled radar returns
Mode A (4096) is only a problem ... IN the USA!!!!
Back to ADS-B, you also say:-
Jaba’s link proves it - http://rms.ion.org/wp-content/upload...g-20091210.pdf
A box does not make the whole does it ol’ fruit. From the ITT link
Equipment requirements for each FAA Dual band ADS-B Ground station (300 nationwide):-
Check out the size of the dam’d things (page 31 of Jaba’s link) ….. are you aware of the three data processing centres being built in the US just to manage the data fusion of there dual band behemoth? … no wonder you are so shy with providing links 
This all in stark contrast to the single band passive 1090 shoe box sized ground stations used here in Australia … Do you REALLY think dual band is better?
You also reckon:-
From the ITT link:-
Seems the US authorities think it is pretty critical, and to bridge their dual band divide reliably, each and every ground station in the US requires:-
- Enclosure with two racks of fully redundant equipment
- batteries for short-term blackouts, and
- engine generators for long term power outages
Yep, complex, and critical!!!
Don’t need any of that in Oz as it is passive, and air-to-air is completely independent of any ground stations. So even if an ATS ground station in Australia goes tits up, traffic can still see each other no matter Boeing, Airbus, or Jabiru430. Sounds like a good idea eh!
BTW, What do you suppose a US ground station set-up will cost …. Each?
All this to facilitate UAT for US GA, must be cheaper than GA 1090ES then surely?! …. Not according to one manufacturer:- ADS-B explained
And lastly, you say;-
Biting that tail again …… either way, better to address the problem before the mid-airs occur is it not?
Poodle Dip!!
Then there is the small matter of the masive US ITT ground stations (ADS-R) having to ‘load’ the 1090 Band with UAT rebroadcast traffic data.
Which system do you think is less bandwidth (1090) intensive?
1. (US Dual band) = Rebroadcast UAT as 1090 TIS-B + ACAS + Airborne A/C transponders + SSR returns; or
2. (Europe, Aus single band) = ACAS + Airborne scheduled mode S/ES + Mode S scheduled radar returns
Mode A (4096) is only a problem ... IN the USA!!!!
Back to ADS-B, you also say:-
Seeing that the output of the Thales boxes as a receiver, back to the center (however far that might be) carries both the 1090ES and UAT data, are you trying to say that the FAA setup requires two separate "cables" from the one ground station to the center computers, one to carry the 1909ES data, and a completely separate datalink to carry the UAT data. And none of this UAT data can be carried from the Thales (essentially the same box as Airservices) ground station over a satcom link??
Prove it, and I will believe you !!
Prove it, and I will believe you !!
A box does not make the whole does it ol’ fruit. From the ITT link
Equipment requirements for each FAA Dual band ADS-B Ground station (300 nationwide):-
• 60’ tower
• 4 directional 1090 antennae
• 1 omni-antenna for UAT
• Enclosure with two racks of fully redundant equipment including:
• radios,
• data comm. equipment,
• batteries for short-term blackouts, and
• engine generators for long term power outages
• 4 directional 1090 antennae
• 1 omni-antenna for UAT
• Enclosure with two racks of fully redundant equipment including:
• radios,
• data comm. equipment,
• batteries for short-term blackouts, and
• engine generators for long term power outages
This all in stark contrast to the single band passive 1090 shoe box sized ground stations used here in Australia … Do you REALLY think dual band is better?
You also reckon:-
Strange how the FAA don't regard the "aircraft to aircraft" case as particularly critical
What are “critical” ADS-B services?
• ADS-B: Aircraft broadcasts ADS-B messages, other ADS-B equipped aircraft receive these messages as well as the ground radio infrastructure for data delivery to ATC facilities
• ADS-R (Automatic Dependant Surveillance-Rebroadcast): translates for both ADS-B broadcast links
• 1090 MHz for air transport, military & high-end GA aircraft
• 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) for lower cost airborne avionics on aircraft flying below 24,000 feet
• ADS-B: Aircraft broadcasts ADS-B messages, other ADS-B equipped aircraft receive these messages as well as the ground radio infrastructure for data delivery to ATC facilities
• ADS-R (Automatic Dependant Surveillance-Rebroadcast): translates for both ADS-B broadcast links
• 1090 MHz for air transport, military & high-end GA aircraft
• 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) for lower cost airborne avionics on aircraft flying below 24,000 feet
- Enclosure with two racks of fully redundant equipment
- batteries for short-term blackouts, and
- engine generators for long term power outages
Yep, complex, and critical!!!
Don’t need any of that in Oz as it is passive, and air-to-air is completely independent of any ground stations. So even if an ATS ground station in Australia goes tits up, traffic can still see each other no matter Boeing, Airbus, or Jabiru430. Sounds like a good idea eh!
BTW, What do you suppose a US ground station set-up will cost …. Each?
All this to facilitate UAT for US GA, must be cheaper than GA 1090ES then surely?! …. Not according to one manufacturer:- ADS-B explained
A UAT solution will almost certainly be more expensive than a Mode S based solution, because the Mode S ADS-B solution is built into many existing ATC transponders, whereas the UAT solution is a separate datalink radio. Although there is some hot debate on the subject, you also still need a transponder if you install UAT.
and yet, here in Australia, you would think we had a massive safety problem with mid airs, and ADS-B was the answer to this maiden's prayer.
…… either way, better to address the problem before the mid-airs occur is it not?Poodle Dip!!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadfruit
Re: air-to-air TCAS alerting, if it is not so important, as you suggest, then perhaps you can explain why the FAA rule says:-
Federal Register Page 30176
Re: air-to-air TCAS alerting, if it is not so important, as you suggest, then perhaps you can explain why the FAA rule says:-
Transponders will still be required when the backup surveillance strategy using SSR is necessary and to interact with TCAS- and ACAS-equipped aircraft.
Thread Starter
I should check my links more often- IATA have submitted a new edition for user requirments for ATS...a year ago(slack me!)
Good read on what facility the airline industry is willing to pay for.
my italics
Good read on what facility the airline industry is willing to pay for.
In general, IATA views ADS-B IN based on the 1090 Extended Squitter (ES) data link as the most desirable next-generation form of surveillance, while acknowledging that equipage requirements are
still being defined.
still being defined.
ICAO has formalized standards for three broadcast mode data links for ADS-B: 1090 MHz Mode S Extended Squitter (1090 ES), VDL Mode 4, and Universal Access Transceiver (UAT).
Although there are three standards, there is general global consensus, including IATA, CANSO, EUROCONTROL, FAA, Airbus and Boeing, to use 1090 ES as the supporting data link for
international ADS-B applications, as it is available and mature, enabling early implementation.
The majority of stakeholders do not support VDL Mode 4 after consideration of the risks and investments associated to its implementation versus the added value.
UAT carriage is of no interest to commercial air carriers.
Although there are three standards, there is general global consensus, including IATA, CANSO, EUROCONTROL, FAA, Airbus and Boeing, to use 1090 ES as the supporting data link for
international ADS-B applications, as it is available and mature, enabling early implementation.
The majority of stakeholders do not support VDL Mode 4 after consideration of the risks and investments associated to its implementation versus the added value.
UAT carriage is of no interest to commercial air carriers.
Thread Starter
I really have to keep up to date....
A view of ADS-B by Mr Bill Hamilton on Plane Crazy Down Under Have a listen to the podcast.
?????
A view of ADS-B by Mr Bill Hamilton on Plane Crazy Down Under Have a listen to the podcast.
?????
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I did. What's your critique? You obviously don't approve.
Bill Hamilton Tags Plane Crazy Down Under
Bill Hamilton Tags Plane Crazy Down Under
Thread Starter
Asking for other views, Francis.
I have my opinion of the information given. Most all of it contrary but, what can you say...everyone has a prism that they slant their views through.
I have my opinion of the information given. Most all of it contrary but, what can you say...everyone has a prism that they slant their views through.
Thread Starter
What a US Glider fraternity think of transponders
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From same publication re: ADSB
If you aren’t happy about getting a transponder, you are going to hate getting ADS-B! The minimum equipment required for general aviation aircraft is a Universal Access Transceiver, currently available only from Garmin (the GDL 90). It’s a 4" x 8" x 12" box that weighs 6 pounds, requires 1.5 amps, and costs ~$7000 (Oct. 2007 price) uninstalled! If you want a display so you can see surrounding traffic, get weather updates, etc., you’ll need something between the $1000 PDA/software solution and a Multi-function Display (MFD) like the $7000 Garmin GMX 200.
ADS-B has a lot of promise, and eventually the equipment will be smaller, cheaper, lighter and use less power, but it’s unlikely to be a solution for glider pilots for many years. Fortunately, transponders will be part of the ATC system for many years (12-15 years for airplanes, probably longer for gliders), providing most of the safety benefits that ADS-B can provide.
If you aren’t happy about getting a transponder, you are going to hate getting ADS-B! The minimum equipment required for general aviation aircraft is a Universal Access Transceiver, currently available only from Garmin (the GDL 90). It’s a 4" x 8" x 12" box that weighs 6 pounds, requires 1.5 amps, and costs ~$7000 (Oct. 2007 price) uninstalled! If you want a display so you can see surrounding traffic, get weather updates, etc., you’ll need something between the $1000 PDA/software solution and a Multi-function Display (MFD) like the $7000 Garmin GMX 200.
ADS-B has a lot of promise, and eventually the equipment will be smaller, cheaper, lighter and use less power, but it’s unlikely to be a solution for glider pilots for many years. Fortunately, transponders will be part of the ATC system for many years (12-15 years for airplanes, probably longer for gliders), providing most of the safety benefits that ADS-B can provide.