FAA elects to go CDMA Broadband for the majority
… and what are they gunna use the
dual band ground station bandwidth for? … NOTAMS and WX ….. good-o … how many GA operators want that in Oz .. and how much are they prepared to pay for it?
---instead of planning to mandate the "black telephone"---- what a decision ----
… Black Telephone ….. did that come to you from eastern Europe?
why would anybody possibly want broadband communications in this day and age
.. In GA aircraft ... good question!
--- Australia knows best ---- lets stick with the tried and true --- IFF as it was known in WWII, and tarted up to the limits of its inherent technology.
… limits …. Yeh OK … lets conveniently ignore the simplicity of single band, and the reduced cost of single band ADS-B vice RADAR heads ….. WWII … plleeeease ... the Status Quo is WWII stuff!
Seriously, as I have already said on this thread --- The ICAO intention, years ago, to have available a modern broadband multi-access transceiver for all the uses to which it could be put, ADS-B/C being only one use --- being sidetracked by ATA/IATA pressing for the equivalent of 1200 baud dial-up
… another from Eastern Europe?? ..
because it was going to be "cheap", which has proved to be anything but the case for retrofits. Now we will see a few chickens come home to roost.
… where is the proof of this Lead ... you keep saying it with no reasonable way of supporting the notion of higher costs! ... it will be very interesting to watch over the next few years!
are we going to see the frantic competition for the "mass market" --- that will drive prices down ---- as Creamy agrees with me, 7/9/11000 units (take your pick) is cottage industry, not a mass market
…. You are joking aren’t you? …. 7,000 units (give or take) + access to Europe (apart from Sweden)
and no other country has flagged any intention of making ADS-B mandatory for VFR or low level IFR.
…. Errm, care to review that statement? i.e. review ICAO documents
Scurvey—
as for TXPDR or an ADS-B ... for the purposes of the discussion the devices do essentially the same thing ... except one is far more reliable and accurate
--- I don't quite understand what you are trying to say
…. That seems obvious!
--- is it that some SSR doesn't permit 5nm separation? If so, do you really think we have so much traffic in high level airspace that no having a 5nm separation available across the country is critical?
No,
- Both emit data for positional purposes
- One has far less positional error tolerances (ADS-B)
- One has far less opportunity for air-to-air error irrespective of ground station in LoS (ADS-B)
- One has the ability to provide access low cost 3rd party surveillance services (that do not currently exist in regional RPT areas)
The list goes on
GTX330D ... what do you reckon their price will do as soon as other manufacturer's announce?
---announce what? Competing Mode S transponders ---- Bendix/King already have GA box size available, about the same price now, whether they or Garmin will produce a DO260A version remains to be seen.
… what, you think they won’t want a piece of the world market for boxes or for their glass systems being sold in OEM airframes OS …. You are kidding!
The TDR94-108 has been on the market for quite a while, I haven't noticed a rush to compete for that market.
… and what market would that be then?
Compared to the US, a few thousand extra sales prospects in Australia isn't going to excite anybody ---Garmin have already made that clear to "those who should have listened", but didn't, around the ASTRA table.
….. have they indeed … have you something tangible on this … or is this more hypothesising?
The lack of interoperability between UAT and 1090ES has never been seen as a problem by FAA,
…. Yes well the US of A would not would they, I mean god forbid having to compete with OS manufacturers for the market …. Common Lead, are you that blind!
despite the 10 to 15 times traffic numbers, compared to Australia FAA have never seen ADS-B/C as an aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance device, just air/ground position information for ATC.
.. un-be-liev-able ….. why would you bother then? To deliver WX and NOTAMS 1.8Bil US … aww sure … you guys crack me up …. Are you running a campaign for greater ATC (third party) services now?
Hence (in part -- the other is that TCAS II works fine) the total lack of interest in anything but ADS-B OUT by Boeing and Airbus.
.. that has been been proved here to be absolute rubbish ICAO would not be building the ADS-B TCAS standards if that were true .. it is horse feathers!
.
The FAA was never going to select other than dual band UAT, but IMHO it is more to do with where the work and the doe goes … as any argument that dual band is better than single from a collision mitigation point of view is rubbish!
.
‘Black Telephone’ …..bwahahah ....... bit like not carrying a ‘serviceable' VHF and/or TXPDR’! …. Dear oh dear!
