ADS-B, Stuff that I have found.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hopefully, people may find this information useful. This stuff is worts and all, including sites that are against fitment, including alternative equipment and what other countries are up to. Enjoy, and above all.

MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS ON ADS-B

[OZBUSDRIVER]

.

.

.

.
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q5Q7UR1brJc&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q5Q7UR1brJc&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

AVweb Avidyne at AEA

:8it works

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AERO TV TRIG TT21 and TT31 (http://www.aero-tv.net/?videoid=576b2e99-88e7-4574-8b6e-898962c9aca6)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CAO 20.18 (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao20/2018.pdf)
Compliments of CASA...thanks to Francis:ok:

Particularly section 9.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The Trig site (http://www.trig-avionics.com/index.html)

No Bull! convert the dollars for yourselves.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ADS-B Terrorist's dream, Security's nightmare (http://www.airsport-corp.com/adsb2.htm)!

One of the few sites that actually says a bit and profers alternatives.

PS- it hasn't been updated since 2000.

To date I have yet to find any physical proof that an ADS-B signal can be ACTUALLY spoofed. I am still looking for hard evidence.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Aussie made stuff that is getting noticed in the US.

ENIGMA AVIONICS (http://enigmaavionics.com.au/main/?page_id=9)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

These guys are knocking on the door for compliant ADS-B Rx equipment for GA/RAA/GFA types.

SELEX 1090ES LARX (http://www.selex-comms.com/internet/media/docs/1090_Light_EN_LR1.pdf)

FUNKWERK TRT800A OLED (http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms/upload/Downloads/Flyer-TRT800A_OLED.pdf) ADS-B transponder

FUNKWERK TM250 traffic monitor (http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms/upload/Downloads/Flyer-TM250.pdf)

[The Chaser]

Some other applications that may be of interest to flying schools, charter etc

Flight Tracker | Real Time Airline Flight Tracking Software (http://www.airnavsystems.com/)

In particular this device

AirNav RadarBox - The world's best selling and most advanced Real Time Virtual Radar (http://www.airnavsystems.com/RadarBox/index.html) and;

SBS-1 - - Kinetic Avionic Products (http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/sbs-1.php)

The above units are idea for aout generation of Xcel type spreadsheets to cross check the accuracy of those sometimes perplexing bills :ok:.


Also along the same lines, but for more serious/enterprise type applications

ADS-B Multilateration Sensors | Quadrant ADS-B Ground Station (http://www.comsoft.de/html/atc/products/adsb/index.htm) and;

http://www.selex-si.com/IT/Common/files/SelexSI/brochure_datasheet/CNS_ATM_SCHEDE/atc_2008/mxc.pdf


Just a taste of the applications available to aviation businesses that ADS-B brings.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Gimmeee a break, I gotta buy a plane first:}

[RadioSaigon]

... I gotta buy a plane first...

Try Bunnings, they have a huge selection.

:ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Try Bunnings, they have a huge selection.


Ohhh, how droll,:hmm:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And if you think this stuff* is only for aviation use-

Automatic Identification System (http://www.yachtinsure.com/pdf/AIS_Booklet.pdf)

*the principle of surveillance by use of information derived from a GPS and a tranponder to transmit a velocity vector.:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Granted, this is for UAT. The system would be a cracker for airshow tower ops outside radar coverage.

Portable ADS-B Airspace Management System Announced


ADS-B Technologies has successfully tested its new ADS-B Mobile Control Unit (AMCU) under actual field conditions in Alaska. The rugged air-transportable unit is designed for remote and tactical applications where temporary airspace management, dispatch, or flight following may be required.
"AMCU is capable of monitoring and coordinating the operations of any number of 978 MHz UAT equipped aircraft from unimproved field sites," said Dave Palmer, ADS-B Tech's ATC Technical Director. "This system is going to be ideal for controlling the air picture over forest fires, disaster sites and in tactical applications where a highly accurate and reliable real-time surveillance system needs to be deployed fast."

http://www.ads-b.com/picts/MCU_Pic-sm.jpg

The basic AMCU package weighs 62kg and can be expanded to include a wide range of power, communications and display options. Set-up time is usually less than 30 minutes.

from ADS-B.COM (http://www.ads-b.com/news.htm)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

TC, your link to that AIRNAV, the CAnucks are trialing a satellite based ADS-B receiver??? The mind boggles!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ADS-B is a very scaleable system. This system has been derived to obtain accurate data for aircraft vortex development. the device is just rolled up to the aerodrome and turned on to start collecting data useful for all manner of aviation research. However, could it be used for other means. All we have is assurances from the Feds.

IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOW-COST SSR/ADS-B AIRCRAFT RECEIVER
DECODER (http://www.erabeyondradar.com/documents/white-papers/CNS/IMPLEMENTATION%20OF%20A%20LOW-COST%20SSR%20ADS-B%20AIRCRAFT%20RECEIVER.pdf)

On the last page
The receiver decoder technology
can be used by airport operators for noise
monitoring, and landing fee collection :ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

How to Modernize Airline Avionics Affordably (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/docs/Aviation_Week_ADS-B_v2.1.pdf)

Nice little powerpoint by FreeFlight that has some interesting insight on ADS-B worldwide

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hot off the press....

AINOnline Garmin Launches Slew of New Avionics (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/garmin-launches-slew-of-new-avionics/?no_cache=1)

AOPA(US)ONLINE Garmin unleashes blizzard of products (http://www.aopa.org/oshkosh/oshkosh09/articles/090727garmin_prods.html?WT.mc_id=090728epilotspecialeast&WT.mc_sect=aa)

Garmin ready for satellite-based ATC system
Three new Garmin Traffic Systems (GTS) are meant to fit seamlessly into the future satellite-based air traffic control system.

The GTS 800 (40 watts) has an interrogation range of 12 nm; the GTS 820 (250 watts) reaches 40 nm, and the GTS 850 (also 250 watts) meets the FAA’s TCAS certification criteria.

The GTS series includes a 1090 MHz receiver for ADS-B “in” signals and a Garmin GTX 330/33 “extended squitter” for “out” signals.

Garmin also is offering a wide array of antennae designed to avoid blind spots in coverage.

The GTS 800 has a retail price of $9,995; the GTS 820 will sell for $19,995, and the GTS 850 will cost $23,445. The GTS units are expected to be available later this year.

Only a matter of time....competition rules!

So, there you go! TCAS AND ADS-B 1090ES Rx:E

[Joker 10]

The cost is interesting, could double the value of a C152 or Auster

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker10 and so what! You want to put a full suite of ProLine or Honeywell in your ol' warbird....I would say NO so I would also say NO for fitting the GTS860 in an Auster. SO how does price enter into fitting a TCAS or ADS-B Rx unit in a small lighty when an ADS-B Tx transponder and a non-TSO Rx unit will do just fine for a VFR pilot, all for under $5000.00AU.

Price is no longer an argument for fitment.

enough of the politics!:=

Keeping an eye on OSH for more announcments:ok:

[Joker 10]

This would send most flying schools to the wall, politics aside it is a dumb decision for aircraft that mostly fly in defined training areas and as I have often said before the croppies will rightfully be up in arms.

A very bloody silly outcome being influenced by crazy do gooders with a strange agenda that is unjustified on any rational measure.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The shopping list just gets more and more interesting every quarter. Garmin with the 500 gear. Aspen certainly had the early march for what I thought was solid gear...problems?

I reckon garmin could see they were getting outflanked in the lower end of the market. lot of potential sales:ok:

There will be more announcments over the next week...you can bet on it:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Oh dear me..this is what the industry association thinks about ADS-B-

IATA User Requirments forAir Traffic Services (http://www.iata.org/nr/rdonlyres/fa99ae8e-29a8-4dce-8b10-ecaf44034cdd/0/infra_planning_booklet_1stedition1.pdf) note=IATA have updated to edition 2 (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety_security/newsletter/may-2010/Documents/URATS%202nd%20Edition%20Jan%202010_To-Printer.pdf)
Nice little read.:ok: EDIT- as of 31/05/2012 links dead :{


Dear Reader,

There are times when airlines are taken by surprise from announcements of new equipment for air traffic control being purchased that, as far as airlines are concerned, holds little promise of benefit. In most of these cases, airlines and other airspace users were not consulted during the planning process and the technology was bound to disappoint.

Such misadventures are costly to everyone and are a waste of scarce funding. Regrettably, such undesirable situations continue to occur today, when waste can be ill afforded by the air transport industry.On the other hand, successful procurement projects are invariably associated with a planning and consultation process that draws upon input from representatives of the airspace users, as well as equipment manufacturers and neighbouring States. Such planning also helps airlines schedule their own investments in aircraft technology to work in synch with new air navigation services equipment, leading to clear operational benefits. Based on a thorough understanding of airspace user requirements and capabilities, these projects are far more successful in providing much-needed benefits to airspace users in terms of increased safety, on-schedule operations and cost efficiency.

We have prepared this report to offer a better understanding of international airlines’ requirements and capabilities for communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management.

Best regards,

[werbil]

Interesting to see IATAs position on ADSB.


Surveillance based primarily on Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) and when required supplemented with Multilateration (MLAT) as the next generation replacement to radar. Additionally, Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contract (ADS-C) should be the common means of surveillance in oceanic airspace.

Basically IATA sees ADS-B ES as the future surveilance system of choice, with widespread fitment ADS-B IN in aircraft. They do not support the introduction of VDL or UAT.

Any comments LeadSled? Dick Smith?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Visual Acquisition of Traffic (http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/cami/0109.pdf)

I think this has been posted before somewhere. It is worth noting the fitment of a Cockpit display of Taffic Information enhances the interaction between pilot and ATC, reduces frequency congestion and enhances visual acquisition of targets.

As airspace congestion increases, controllers and pilots will continue to share precise and detailed traffic information to ensure safety. To accommodate this process, new technologies such as CDTI are being introduced to aid pilots in the detection, and visual acquisition of other aircraft. As these technologies are certified and made operational, the roles and responsibilities of pilots and controllers who use them will inevitably change.

Rather topical when considering the beating we are coping over IRP and undetected traffic resulting in mid-air collisions

[Frank Arouet]

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/hours20flown202006e.gif

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis....this is a FAA study.:ugh: IRP getting more congested around BK and PF? Earth to Francis?

Are we now going to say that studies conducted in the US have no bearing on Australian issues?.....all ears buddy:E

[Frank Arouet]

Rather topical when considering the beating we are coping over IRP and undetected traffic resulting in mid-air collisions

Yes, whatever you say.:(

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis. Your team want to bring in random entry into a US FAA style class D aerodrome...I am (In essence:}) suggesting a means and a study to back up the technology to enable your dream and you knock it??????

Horse to water:hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

What was the thread title again?

You bring up the idea that airspace is congested in some study, and this somehow relates to Australia, which it obviously doesn't, and in particular the concept of ADSB should be mentioned to highlight IRP's vs random entry into a US FAA style class D aerodrome and I am exactly "knocking" what?:rolleyes:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis...just read the study:hmm: Work it out from there.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ADS-B up and running in the Gulf (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ADSBUpAndRunningInTheGulf_201842-1.html)
From Avweb Today.

ADS-B Up And Running In The Gulf

By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

Houston air traffic controllers now are beginning to use the satellite-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system to more efficiently and safely separate and manage aircraft flying over the Gulf of Mexico, where radar can't reach, the FAA said on Tuesday. "This is a significant, early step toward NextGen," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, in a press conference at the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center. "We're delivering, on time, a system that's not only more accurate than radar but comes with significant safety and efficiency benefits. This will save time and money for aircraft operators and passengers and reduce our carbon footprint." Previously, controllers had to rely on an aircraft's estimated or reported -- not actual -- position. About 5,000 to 9,000 helicopter operations to and from oil platforms take place every day in the Gulf. Under IFR at low altitudes the helicopters were isolated within 20-mile-square boxes to ensure safe separation from other aircraft. Commercial aircraft in the non-radar airspace were separated by as much as 120 miles.

Aircraft equipped with ADS-B in the region will now know where they are in relation to bad weather and will receive en route flight information including Notams and TFRs, the FAA said. Controllers now can safely reduce the separation between ADS-B-equipped aircraft to 5 nautical miles. The new technology will also allow the FAA to provide new, more direct routes over the Gulf of Mexico, improving the efficiency of aircraft operations while using less fuel. A network of ground stations was deployed on oil platforms and the surrounding shoreline, bringing satellite-based surveillance to an area with almost as much daily air traffic as the northeast corridor. Controllers in Philadelphia will begin using ADS-B in February and the system will become operational in Juneau in April. ADS-B is expected to be available nationwide by 2013.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

My February issue of Kitplanes has ran an article on ADS-B for kit builders. The US pilots have similar opinions to what we have here "So pilots would have an opportunity to choose whether to subject themselves to government surveillance" Sounds familiar.

Quote for GA operators as to equipping their aircraft for the UAT flavour as well as 1090ES ADS-B for a G900X using GTS800 (800/820/850) series TAS receiver and GTX330 ES transpnder. Three levels of patpending CLEAR CAS technology from lower end traffic advisory up to full blown TCAS I qualified. Kitplanes lists these upgrades at $9995 , $19995 and $23495 for upgrading the G900X suite. (Ironicly, Kitplanes used a photo of a portable Garmin GPS495 screen depicting information from an Aussie built Enigma unit yet didn't even mention the guys in their article.)****

GARMIN GTS (https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/assets/pdfs/specs/GTS_Series_spec_sheet.pdf)

Kitplanes is recommending kit builders of EFIS equipped aircraft to at least make provision of a transciever. They believe costs will be cheaper than a modeS transponder.

UPS have made savings of 30% in fuel cost alone with being able to organise merge and self space their aircraft into the UPS Lousville hub. The throttles come back once from top of descent all the way to final with little ATC handling.

****Note..how much were some here quoting for a full blown dual antenna TCAS I system,,JOKER10???

[Flying Binghi]

.


All good stuff...though what happens when the terrorists start to 'miss-use' the GPS system.............. ?



















.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Binghi..was hoping you would show up here one day:E

Tell me...please...this isn't a religious site like the Global Warming nutters. you will get fair treatment here...provided you actual further your argument rather than espouse...the terrorists the terrorists!!!

[Super Cecil]

It's all going swimmingly but who is going to pay for it? 90% of the GA fleet can't afford $6,000 to $10,000 dollars for the gear and installation? Say what you like about prices coming down but this has been said since ADSB was first espoused, they haven't come down much.
Binghi sproutedAll good stuff...though what happens when the terrorists start to 'miss-use' the GPS system.............. ?
They can buy off the shelf software now for flight following.

RAA Aircraft going to get it too? That'd near double the Government outlay, yer's are all dreamin boys.:ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Super Cecil...that is a Garmin price. However, it shows the market is maturing. Not that long ago the only TSOd gear was from Europe. Case in point the GTX330 is twice the price of the similarly optioned Trig TT31.

Only reporting what I find, you guys can make up your own minds:ok:

[eocvictim]

I do prefer having ADS-B but feel kind of alone knowing that few others are using the system. That said it does make flying out in the center feel a lot safer knowing someones watching me.

I've had other systems mentioned and I think its a great idea for trend monitoring etc but does feel a lot like big brother :P since its only ops who are watching not ATC. I'd prefer it to nothing and if it makes my job safer I'm happy. Also having an Emergency button on it is great.

[Frank Arouet]

That said it does make flying out in the center feel a lot safer knowing someones watching me.

God spare me. Here we go again.

Who other than King Billy Cokebottle is watching you fly through his 7.5 million square kilometers of sacred airspace, and how will this make your flight so much safer? You know he'll probably charge you money don't you?

Struth, some of you blokes are thick!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis...there you go again. The upper airspace rollout is complete. 100% coverage at FL290..so how much coverage A100? and A050? There is nil, zip, nadda, none out there before.

[Flying Binghi]

...you will get fair treatment here...provided you actual further your argument rather than espouse...the terrorists the terrorists!!!

Hmmm... OZBUSDRIVER, i see no need to "further" what's been covered before in other threads. I'm just reminding you not to get to attached to any GPS based system.



They can buy off the shelf software now for flight following

Super Cecil, thats not a subject i've covered.






.

[Frank Arouet]

100% coverage at FL290

I guess now you own an aeroplane. I hope the 182-Oh my god! thingo gizmo turbo has oxygen, but your reply is somehow relevant to ecovictim's comments exactly like... well...how?

Is ecovictim a reject from the chronically challenged global warming proponents thread? Does he fly also above FL290 punching holes in the "aerozone" layer?

Remember now, you are judged by the company you keep. (I can't leave without giving some credit though, for perseverence by the little Aussie aviation expert still blaming past events to justify his position. I thought he would have fallen on his sword by now).

Do them's operating above FL 290 pay anything to King Billy, by the way?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahhh yes, the aeroplane owner gambit argument...play the man, Francis?

[eocvictim]

Ummm frank, yes I do fly above FL290. I'm sorry I forgot your PPrune post count is directly related to the performance of your aircraft... :rolleyes:

I dont know what my company pays, but they pay and being ADS-B identified has helped me out more than once.

To please the average owner I cant see it helping with typical private flying situations. I have no idea on the on going costs but I'm assuming its not cheap. Until it does become affordable and every bug smasher is fitted its kind of pointless. A basic TCAS unit would be better value.

[Super Cecil]

Until it does become affordable and every bug smasher is fitted its kind of pointless. A basic TCAS unit would be better value.
That's if everybody had a transponder AND turned it on.:8

[eocvictim]

haha this is true. Kinda like radios and making calls. I guess the responsible ones arnt the ones to worry about... :ugh:

[Joker 10]

So is the primary data via SITA or ADSB ????? above Fl 290

[le Pingouin]

Joker, it's ADS-B. Nothing to do with SITA.

Australia in world first for nationwide ADS-B coverage (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/23/336523/australia-in-world-first-for-nationwide-ads-b-coverage.html)

[Frank Arouet]

Roll out the barrel, the gang's all here.

Oowen. You won't get an arguement out of me regarding the future generation of radar replacement. Thing is nobody wants to talk to me if I'm not in "the system" now where there is radar, so why would they suddenly put me into the "system" while I'm flying B050 100 miles west of Oodnadatta. Unless of course Airservices can make money out of it by mandating us poor bloody aircraft owners fit it at our expense and put us "in the system"? Yes King Billy will make money some how, even if he gets his minions to call people names on public forums.

Could have been subsidised but killed off by luddites, tightarses and fools

People like myself had a right to be skeptical of freebies and said so. Proved we were right and the whole "subsidy" thing was a big confidence trick. I am on record, as are many others, in saying we actually supported the ADSB concept as an evolutionary and technological advance on existing radar.

Who killed it? (if anybody actually did something to something that never existed in the first place). Well, it was people putting the cart before the horse in calling for it to be mandated before the subsidy was actually in hand. Ring any bells?

BTW, I'm writing an ATCO's dictionary to help people when they fly into CTR, and I'm confused about a few words that all seem to mean the same thing. Perhaps you can help me?

Luddites:
Tightarses:
Fools:
Tools- this one is very popular.

They all seem to mean "I don't agree with your right to an opinion and I hope you all get the mange" because I'm an important ATCO with a monastical agenda and I get paid to yell at people.

ecovictim;

A basic TCAS unit would be better value

Crikey. That would be an expensive fit for my 258 kt Pissner super super Cub super zot!

[Super Cecil]

Ya'all can whinge and bitch an' moan all ya like about the cost, but it is the future and will one day be mandated for AALLLLLLL aircraft.

Could have been subsidised but killed off by luddites, tightarses and fools
So your crediting a few questioning people for putting paid to Government sponsered ADSB? Power to the people eh? What we need is for ATC to put an effort in, do longer hours, less RDO's, maybe even knock back their wages a bit and then the Government could afford to give us all IFR GPS's, ADSB set ups and pay for somebody to put it in.

Back to you Mr Stanley :}

What about getting the thousands of pilots wanting to be Captains and willing to pay for work for years to get expirence to head toward ATC? They can pay for training (How hard can it be, they let wimmin do it?). Then when they do quailifiey they can start on reduced wages, say only $1500 week and only about 2 months paid holiday. ATC is a lot more secure and you would earn more than regional or even cut price airline captains. Admittedly you would'nt have a uniform, that's a big drawback but you'll be able to order captains around so that would nearly make up for that. I'm on a winner here folks, think about it. Plenty of ATC willing to work for less and less people wanting to become captains, win win situation. :8

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Subsidy? forget about it!

The manufacturers are meeting the market a lot cheaper than when the subsidy was discussed. I believe the subsidy was meant more for manufacturers to have a critical mass of orders to warrent a production run...remembering at the time, we would have been the first outfit to have 1090ES up and running anywhere in the world as a means of en-route surveillence. AirServices was talking of an order of a couple of thousand basic units to kick start manufacture.

Now that a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Hypothesis has turned into either garbage or fact...the hypothesis put forward by those against has turned into garbage. Cost, Availablity, Australia Only, UAT/VDL instaed of ES, No TSO, "The Spoof"....and the binghi bomb thingo:} The last two..if there ever was a risk that could not be mitigated then this rollout would stop in its tracks.

Fact? The equipment I have linked on this thread. Real and available for TSOd fitment...more joining the list every month. If there wasn't a need then this stuff would not be built.....Hold back the tide Francis Methusela...you are about to be drowned out:}

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVINGMECRAZY;

You obviously haven't taken anything on board concerning my "SUPPORT" for ADSB "WHERE" it is needed. It is "THE" evolutionary next step for ATC surveillance "WHERE" surveillance is needed.

Get it? I "SUPPORT" it! :ugh:

However if I choose to fly OCTA /class G where there is no current need for ATC surveillance, in my own little aeroplane, and never set foot in CTA, exactly, what will it do that my mode C transponder viz the TCAS in the RPT doesn't already do to keep the poor bloody travelling public feeling safe from nasty people in little aeroplanes who dare to fly on the same day they want to.

When (if), you finally get to own an aeroplane with ADSB IN/OUT don't expect me and everyone else to fit in with your perceived concerns about MAC's and force me to install something to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Look out the bloody window if you are VFR.

If it's IFR I won't be flying anyway.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

:}you wind up so well Francis....

I would have hoped by now that you would have picked up that I am pro-choice. Just the same as carriage of transponders, this will be replaced with carriage of transponder with ES....there is a choice now if you choose not to carry and the choice that leaves you wrt airspace you wish to access. Just as there will be a choice wrt ES fitment.

The time is coming...the equipment is available. All that will be required is a choice.

My bet is the tech will make such an improvment to traffic alerting equipment, pilots will wonder why they didn't get access to it earlier. Guaranteed!

Anyway, enough of the commentary. Off to find more equipment options:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, it's a funny old world eh?:ooh:

[gupta]

Definitely not specifically aimed at Frank, but he posted:

However if I choose to fly OCTA /class G where there is no current need for ATC surveillance, in my own little aeroplane, and never set foot in CTA, exactly, what will it do that my mode C transponder viz the TCAS in the RPT doesn't already do to keep the poor bloody travelling public feeling safe from nasty people in little aeroplanes who dare to fly on the same day they want to.


I'm trying to only gently put a spanner in the works here, so please be open to my post.

The world is constantly changing...the freedoms we had a generation ago were not set in holy writ. Where is it in the Bill of Rights (that we don't have - yet) that there is any freedom to fly around in the air - B050 or not - above land that we don't personally own. Airspace rights do still exist for property owners. Binghi the flying lawyer should be able to confirm the concept.

You can't jump in your E49 Charger/Porsche 911/Lamborghini and roar around anywhere on other people's land, nor can you drive on the road without complying with ever-increasing regulations. I don't necessarily concur with all this "nanny state" stuff, but what super-privilege does owning an aircraft give you?

BTW I am not ATC, I do hold a PPL, but right now I do not own an aircraft. But I do own a rather nice, powerful loud car (worth more that the old Piper Cub) - why can't I drive it anywhere I want?

Because there are other people in the world that may be affected by my actions, that's why. Same with your B050, boring holes in the sky, or wandering around wherever the fancy takes you. You don't know to whom or how you may be of interest.

Just a thought.

[Frank Arouet]

Now you really have me "spooked" :eek:

[gupta]

As long as there aren't any black windowless vans around, or strange ultraquiet helos, you "should" be OK Frank:cool:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

TRIG TT22 (http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt22.html)

Trig have announced a Class1 version of their light aircraft ModeS ES capable transponder.
http://www.trig-avionics.com/img/tt22combo%20smaller.jpg

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AVBUYER article ADS-B Update (http://www.avbuyer.com/articles/detail.asp?Id=1584&pt=true)

ADS-B UPDATEJanuary 2010Category: Upgrading Business Aircraft Author: Dave HigdonNextgen:

Infrastructure progress is accelerating, final decision is not...

The aviation world got some excellent, long-awaited and somewhat unexpected news in early December - the kind of news that should quicken the heartbeat of many a technology junky. Later that same month, more news followed related to the same topic, fueling a feeling of actual progress in the often-moribund feeling realm of the nation’s next-generation air-traffic control system.

These milestones followed an earlier report from an industry group on implementing the switch from the radar-based environment to one based on satellite position information and the underlying technologies. Steaming full speed ahead into the New Year with these bullet points firmly established also portends well for avionics manufacturers and the people involved in updating aircraft systems. After all, equipment mandates come along infrequently and even less frequently apply to the entirety of the aviation fleet – from piston singles to commercial airliners. But the movement forward of Automatic Dependent Surveillance- Broadcast (ADS-B) does all of those things.

Indeed, over the coming couple of years, that movement should continue to the point that paying the costs of equipping early with ADS-B could pay operational dividends in the short term, and provide operators with a cushion against rushing to comply with some future deadline to retain access to the airspace most used by business turbine and commercial aircraft.

MOPS: NOT JUST FOR HOUSEHOLD CLEANING
For years the organization known as RTCA has been working with players from all levels of aviation to define equipment-performance standards for the hardware needed to enjoy ADS-B. RTCA Special Committee 186 worked steadily, methodically, toward finalizing the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) that equipment must meet in a standardized ADS-B supported Air Traffic Control network.

With several internal working groups involved, the committee tackled issues ranging from standards for display of traffic information, on resolving traffic conflicts, and for the standards needed by the two links the FAA wants to use, the so-called 1090-ES (Extended Squitter) hardware as well as the Universal Access Transceiver meant for smaller, non-turbine aircraft.

The committee’s working groups also included one focused on implementation. Those efforts came to fruition on December 4, when the RTCA announced completion of MOPS covering the entirety of the airborne equipment; the ground equipment received its standards some years earlier, allowing the FAA to begin ordering and buying equipment for a ground-based network of some 300 ADS-B stations that will tie together the entire country and relay airborne data to controllers’ screens.

SAME DAY, DIFFERENT BODY: TSOs
The RTCA reports, long anticipated by the FAA, had barely had time for the ink to dry when they arrived at the agency – which, in turn, issued the Technical Standards Orders (TSOs) for the airborne hardware aircraft will need to work with the NextGen system.

The FAA issued those TSOs to an eager avionics industry that had been awaiting the standards so that companies can complete their own hardware certification efforts.

With these TSOs in effect, the avionics industry now has the roadmap it needs to move ahead with the final design and approval work needed to offer its products to the aircraft owners and operators who will need to install new gear to use NextGen services dependent on ADS-B technologies. It’s a big step forward.

GROUND PROGRESS ACCELERATES
Deploying NextGen depends on the completion of a network of ADS-B ground stations, and the FAA hasn’t been idle here (to say the least). In Southern Florida an initial network of ADS-B ground stations became operational in August of 2008, according to the FAA’s Surveillance and Broadcast Services Office; initial operational capability was achieved the following month allowing controllers in Miami Center to track aircraft already equipped with ADS-B Out technology – the equipment that broadcasts the GPS position of an aircraft as well as its altitude, speed and direction.

The FAA has long operated ADS-B stations and used them for traffic control in Alaska under the Capstone Project, in the Ohio River Valley in conjunction with UPS, and in the Philadelphia area, which poses special issues due to a high level of radio interference sources.

The Ohio River Valley system was declared operational in October. Expected imminently is a declaration of initial operating capability for the largest ADS-B network yet, covering the Gulf of Mexico. IOC is expected for the Gulf imminently.

ADS-B BENEFITS TO GULF
For as long as aircraft have served oil and natural-gas producing platforms in the nearly 600,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico, operations there have struggled to continue anytime the weather goes down.

According to the Helicopter Association International and other sources, a normal day-in-the-life of the Gulf traffic is immense. The Gulf is home to almost 3,800 platforms which daily pump ashore more than 1.5 million barrels of crude oil and almost 8 million cubic feet of natural gas. Some 2,000 helicopters make about 7,500 flights a day moving supplies, equipment, fresh water, food and 10,000 workers needed to keep the platforms working 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.

Working in cooperation with the HAI, the energy industry and equipment suppliers, the FAA has arranged to install a network of ADS-B ground stations on the producers’ platforms, along with Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) stations and communications relays. A total of 23 ADS-B stations, 35 AWOS sites and a similar number of communications-relay stations have been going in over the past 18 months, with many of the offshore helicopter operators participating by providing lift to technicians and for the hardware they had to install.

Similarly, the producers who operate the platforms have not only provided space for the ground stations, but bandwidth on the underwater communications and computer lines connecting the platforms to shore. These network links will provide the lines between the ADS-B stations and the controllers’ screens at Houston Center, which oversees the Gulf airspace. The potential to improve the efficiency of the Gulf of Mexico energy-company traffic is immense.

Under the old system, operators like to say, you go VFR when the weather is good, IFR when the weather gets bad – and back to VFR when the weather persists. That’s a dangerous approach that typically results in flights being grounded. Under IFR rules, in an environment with no radar coverage beyond about 50 miles, the FAA’s ATC system employed an inefficient way of traffic management.

Under the non-radar system, the Gulf is divided into hundreds of 10-mile-square grids. Aircraft are required to report their position so that the FAA can make sure that only one aircraft at a time is in any given square, as well as assuring no adjoining grid squares have traffic. And, finally, the traffic route needs to have a contiguous line of those 10-mile grids connected one after another between the flight’s point of origin and its final destination.

With the IOC in place, controllers can begin to handle ADS-B equipped helicopters similarly to the way traffic is managed in the radar environment over the Lower 48 states.

But as the FAA and operators gain experience and confidence in the system, the agency and operators anticipate that separation standards common to the on-shore radar environment can be shrunken to as little as five miles from the typical 50 for en trail separation, and as little as three miles in airport traffic areas. Achieving these lower levels of separation will essentially serve to increase capacity.

Additionally, since aircraft equipped with both ADS-B Out and ADS-B In capability can see other ADS-B Out aircraft, pilots will be better equipped to maintain their own separation, even when not under positive control of the FAA’s ATC system. That means benefits on good days, marginal days and bad days, day and night.

MORE TO COME: NATIONWIDE ROLLOUT
Meanwhile, the FAA reports that it is currently at more than 50 ADS-B ground stations installed, with more going on line each month. By the end of 2010, the FAA expects to have the entire nationwide network of 320 ADS-B ground stations installed, connected and functional.

The next significant deadline on the radar scopes of the industry, however, comes in April 2010. That’s when the FAA expects to publish a NextGen implementation final rule for industry comment. And the next milestone is expected in September when the agency makes an in-service decision for the network.

The agency would like to have the system change-over to the NextGen ATC network completed by 2018 and is expected to hold to its deadline of 2020 for users to equip with ADS-B Out, in order to retain access to Class A, Class B and Class C airspace.

For those who may have let their airspace classification knowledge slip, Class A is IFRrequired airspace between 18,000 feet msl and 60,000 feet msl; Class B is over the nation’s busiest airports, with a major airport at the center – think Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago O’Hare and other similarly high-traffic areas; Class C is a smaller space over airports down a notch in traffic – like Wichita Mid-Continent, which holds its designation in large part because of the traffic from aircraft factories adjacent to the airport.

Currently, the well-known, widely available Mode A/Mode C transponder meets the FAA’s requirements for access to Class A, Class B and Class C airspace. Come final implementation of NextGen and ADS-B Out will be the key that unlocks access to those airspace designations, as well as for operators who wish to file to fly under IFR rules in Class E airspace, which, in short, is the airspace below Class A, and outside Class B and Class C.

All aircraft must transit at least some Class E to travel any distance, and when the weather goes down, the instrument rules allow any properly equipped and approved aircraft to transit Class E flying under an IFR flight plan.

WHAT OPERATORS WILL NEED
The FAA is apparently going to stick with its proposed requirement of ADS-B Out hardware only, leaving the decision on whether to equip with ADS-B In to the aircraft owners and operators. Fortunately, equipping with ADS-B Out sets up the aircraft well to also install the receiver that enables it to receive ADS-B signals from other aircraft and from ground stations.

The ADS-B In link offers operators a number of benefits, including weather and traffic links, with traffic visible at distances far outside the capabilities of any current on-board traffic-avoidance gear.

ADS-B In should also allow the aircraft to receive nationwide weather images, text messaging and other services still being debated. And the weather input, now available through a number of subscriptionbased services, will require neither a subscription nor the proprietary receivers these services use.

In the end, equipping for ADS-B In could be a money saver and performance enhancer. But at the moment, it’s the ADS-B Out hardware that will be a must to sustain the kind of access available today with a Mode C transponder. ■

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thales Awarded ADS-B/WAM System Contract (http://www.asdnews.com/news/25715/Thales_Awarded_ADS-B/WAM_System_Contract.htm)
Print this page Send to friendPublished on ASDNews: Jan 26, 2010

click to enlarge
(January 25, 2010) -- Thales UK today announces that it has been awarded a contract to supply a Wide-Area Multilateration (WAM) system to National Air Traffic Services (NATS). This is to be a trial system to allow NATS Research & Development to investigate the operational capabilities of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and WAM to support their future en-route surveillance strategy. This is a project that NATS will run in partnership with the Eurocontrol CASCADE programme through its CRISTAL UK 3 project.

The project will consist of a six-sensor active WAM/ADS-B system located around London and covering the airports of Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted. This will be used to validate the new technology against a proven radar surveillance picture. The system will utilise existing NATS sites and infrastructure to allow data to be collected and processed at the central processing station based at NATS Corporate Technical Centre (CTC) at Southampton.

A key outcome of the CRISTAL UK 3 will be to validate the safety of ADS-B/WAM in meeting the current 3nm separation standard, which is essential to operations in busy terminal areas like London.

The ADS-B/WAM solution is based on the latest generation of single-board equipments supplied by Thales. This is one of several key installations in Europe where Thales has been selected following a call for tenders against stiff competition, ensuring that Thales products and system solutions lead the surveillance market.

The Thales MAGS system is part of a surveillance product family that includes ADS-B, TIS-B, FIS-B, ADS-R, local-area multilateration and wide-area multilateration capabilities. The modular product family includes options for redundancy, multiple data links, multiple transmit output power levels and omni-directional or sectored antennas to enable tailored, cost effective solutions for nearly any surveillance application.

Victor Chavez, Deputy CEO of Thales UK, says: "This requirement is another key step in demonstrating that Thales is the supplier of choice in the civil/military surveillance market. The system that Thales is supplying to NATS uses the same technology that Thales is supplying to the USA for the FAA's nationwide surveillance and broadcast services project."

Mark Watson, NATS' Head of CNS/ATM Research, says: "NATS is continually evaluating whether the latest technologies can support or improve its air traffic operations. Therefore, we are particularly interested in determining whether ADS-B and WAM can be used for surveillance to deliver the demanding 3nm separation standard in high-density airspace. We look forward to working with Thales to build the safety case for these technologies in some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the world."

[Frank Arouet]

The agency would like to have the system change-over to the NextGen ATC network completed by 2018 and is expected to hold to its deadline of 2020 for users to equip with ADS-B Out, in order to retain access to Class A, Class B and Class C airspace.

For those who may have let their airspace classification knowledge slip, Class A is IFRrequired airspace between 18,000 feet msl and 60,000 feet msl; Class B is over the nation’s busiest airports, with a major airport at the center – think Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago O’Hare and other similarly high-traffic areas; Class C is a smaller space over airports down a notch in traffic – like Wichita Mid-Continent, which holds its designation in large part because of the traffic from aircraft factories adjacent to the airport.

Crikey!

Now as an Australian VFR owner/ pilot the relevance is?:8

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis....do I reeeeealllly need to spell it out? TEEEEESSSSSSOOOOO

With these TSOs in effect, the avionics industry now has the roadmap it needs to move ahead with the final design and approval work needed to offer its products to the aircraft owners and operators who will need to install new gear to use NextGen services dependent on ADS-B technologies. It’s a big step forward.

Like our own manufacturers....does economy of scale mean anything to you?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis...the way I operate, I put the ENTIRE article up. That way you can see I am trying to be as unbiased as possible with this stuff. Other articles show the US FAA is quite happy with themselves, they have instigated Terminal Separation standards with their ADS-B in a hybrid delivery with radar services..thats 3nm separation as opposed to our 5nm separation in en-route ADS-B airspace.

EDIT to add- If you find any articles...not opinions.. showing any problems with ADS-B then by all means put a link in. I haven't seen anything bad about either ES or UAT since the vested interests dropped VDL as a competitor for the Euro rollout.

Make no mistake problems still exist in Europe by the shear number of aircraft flying in that airspace. There is a lot of saturation issues with 1090 that will manifest if there is not some rationalisation of frequency spectrum.

[Flying Binghi]

....If you find any articles...not opinions.. showing any problems with ADS-B then by all means put a link in.

As ADS-B needs GPS to work....

The Egyptian government is firmly entrenched in the opinion that GPS (Global-Positioning Systems) should return to its roots: become a ‘military-only’ system. The Canoe Dossier - GPS as a terrorism tool: In phones (http://blog.canoe.ca/canoedossier/2009/01/02/gps_as_a_terrorism_tool_in_phones)

[Flying Binghi]

Hints of a GPS guided rocket attack, now thats a new one on me...:hmm:

...terrorists using Google Earth to plot a rocket attack on a fuel depot inside Israel last April that killed two men. We're not the bad guys: Google Earth boss - BizTech - Technology - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/were-not-the-bad-guys-google-earth-boss/2009/01/31/1232818742377.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Geez Binghi, that story is nearly two years old. They also used to ban Satellite TV.

[Frank Arouet]

Is this still relevant?


The following approved ATSOs are now available on the CASA website:
ATSO-C1004a (mhtml:{8F76497F-F4A6-4DD5-93DC-7C0933EEC8C0}mid://00000007/!x-usc:http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/atso/atsoc1004a.pdf) - Airborne mode A/C transponder equipment with extended squitter automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast (ADS-B) transmission capability
ATSO-C1005a (mhtml:{8F76497F-F4A6-4DD5-93DC-7C0933EEC8C0}mid://00000007/!x-usc:http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/atso/atsoc1005a.pdf) - Airborne Stand-Alone Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) Transmit Only Equipment
For these and other approved ATSOs, visit the CASA website at http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90502 (mhtml:{8F76497F-F4A6-4DD5-93DC-7C0933EEC8C0}mid://00000007/!x-usc:http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90502)

[Biggles_in_Oz]

F Binghi.
Quite apart from the inter-governmental discussions about interoperability between the Russian, Chinese, European and USA GNSS systems (but the time required to build and test new satellites means that it will take take a few years to achieve that goal), there are quite a few manufacturers now, who make GNSS receivers that can process the civilian-use GPS and GLONASS signals, and once details are firmed-up, the Galileo and Compass signals. (i've omitted specialised systems such as Japan and India).

Now would the governments even consider interopability if they thought that there was a really serious threat of misuse ?
Sure..., it won't stop someone from trying to use GNSS for bad purposes, but FFS, more people die on the USA roads each month than ever did in the spectacular 11/9 event.
So I don't intent to crawl under a rock and not use GNSS just because there is a minute chance that someone might do something bad with it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ATSO-C1004a (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/atso/atsoc1004a.pdf)
ATSO-C1005a (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/atso/atsoc1005a.pdf)

Your paste job was a bit ambiguous for the link there, Francis. Fixed it for you.

[Frank Arouet]

Thanks. I'm a failure as a Nerd.:(

I pasted it as is from the CASA mailing lists 17DEC09.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The mind boggles-
Collision Avoidance using ADS-B RADAR (http://www.eng.morgan.edu/~cibac/events/Day2/IIFD/4-ADS-B%20Enhancements%20(Lin).pdf)

"We can modify the standard ADS-B transceiver to function as an airbourne radar for obsticle detection and tracking"

"Uses reflected ADS-B signals to detect and track non-cooperative targets (geospatial and traffic)"

Absolutely amazing:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

India still thinks aircraft spotters are spies-From Avweb Today

Plane-Spotters Avoid Jail Time in India



Two British men who were found with a scanner, laptop, binoculars and cameras, and who admitted to "illegally monitoring aircraft" near Indira Gandhi International Airport, India, have been fined by an Indian court, but were released Friday without jail time. Stephen Hampton, 46, and Steven Ayres, 56, had faced up to 10 years under spying charges, but pled to a lesser offense that could have led to three years in jail. The two were arrested in India, Feb. 15, two days after a bomb blast in the Indian city of Pune initiated a security crackdown in the country. In the UK, authorities have approached plane-spotters differently. In 2004, a UK plan sought to recruit them to report suspicious potentially terrorist-related activities near airports. That program does not exist in India. There the men were arrested for recording the conversation between pilots and air traffic control, which (as performed) was against sections of India's Telegraph Act. The men pled guilty to a breach under the act.



Hampton and Ayres originally drew suspicion when, prior to their arrival, they requested a Radisson Hotel room overlooking an airport runway. Upon their arrival, their equipment was apparently enough to spark security's concern. Ultimately, the courts fined the men roughly $550 and left them free to return to the UK after stop notices were removed from their passports. Reports said that the equipment the men used could acquire information from the aircraft that identified each aircraft's make, tail number, and the airline that operated it. They could then use that information to track the aircraft around the world, according to a spokesman for the men. Hampton's mother told reporters her son travels the world to take pictures of aircraft, as a hobby.

My italics and bolds....some countries still take issue to the abilities of ADS-B receivers...Over to you Mr Binghi...warts and all:}

[ARFOR]

OZBUSDRIVER

I hear GARMIN TXPDR's and GNSS units [most recent and current included] are now approved [by CASA] for ADS-B use in Australia.

Presumably other 'qualifying equipment' applications will be made ;)

06/7402-03 :E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks to our Bush Philosopher-

FAA's ADS-B Rule Will Cost You (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/faa_adsb_final_rule_cost_benefit_general_aviation_pilot_2026 33-1.html)

(Or...How a system can cost if the rest of the world doesn't fall into line and think you are fantastic!...actually, not quite correct...How a system can bite those who think it is fantastic if someone else pays for it...or...A lesson in implimenting two systems that are totally incompatable without ground station infrastructure...or...I am soooo glad our guys didn't follow the yanks!)

Thanks to AVWEB for the reporting:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

By the way, this thread appears on the first page of any Google searches using the term ADS-B. Way to Go:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AND INTRODUCING.....

A 1090ES mode S RECEIVER fully TSOd from FUNKWERK

The RTH-60 (http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms/upload/Downloads/Flyer_RTH60_2010.pdf)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Solar Storms vs Your GPS (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/JosephKunches_NOAA_202790-1.html?kw=AVwebAudio)

FRom AVWEB audio-
Space scientists tell us that solar storms are on the rise and affect satellite-dependent technologies like GPS and ADS-B — there is something to worry about. AVweb's Glenn Pew spoke with Joseph Kunches, a scientist at NOAA's space weather prediction center, to determine the nature of the threat, our current defenses, and what the you can do about it.



Something that must be considered.

[Frank Arouet]

More considerations.

GNSS Vulnerability and Alternative PNT | GPS World (http://www.gpsworld.com/transportation/aviation/gnss-vulnerability-and-alternative-pnt-10137)

[Super Cecil]

Never going to happen people, nobody is going to pay for the introduction of ADSB. Just something for the hobbist flyer who has everything else to further weigh down his Bonanza. More important things to spend Government money on like security fences, asic cards and more airport security.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I think you will be mistaken, SC....keep a close eye on the happenings at Broome and Karratha...designed perfectly for the first terminal ADS-B rollout in Australia....it may take time, but it will happen:ok:

[Super Cecil]

It may happen to all you booing drivers but nobody else is going to pay up to $8,000 (Say what you will it will cost at least that) just so Captains can see them coming. Look at transponders, how many aircraft don't have them? How many "Close calls" are only TCAS alarms and not seen out the window? If it was up to some of you blokes nobody would have access to airfields because they would all be controlled airspace and we would have to have tens of thousands dollars of lectronicks ruling out everybody but booings.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

No SC..it isn't so Captains can see them coming but ATC sitting over 3000km away who can see them coming.

$8000 you say...I should start a business selling the stuff to guys like you....nice little mark-up:E

[Super Cecil]

Ozbusdriver, you done anything to your own aircraft lately? Try just getting the EO for mounting extra avionics, looking at $1,500+. What would be your estimate of supply and fitment (Including paperwork) of transponder, adsb and certified GPS?

[peuce]

Unfortunately Cecil, it's the cost of doing aviation ...

Even a gogomobile has to have headlights, indicators and brake lamps if it wants to travel on our roads.

As the airways get more crowded, with faster and more sophisticated machinery, even the gogomobiles of the sky, sharing the same airways ... will need to equip up.

It's in all our interests to make that exercise as inexpensive and painless as reasonably possible.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SC...does it make any difference if I own an aeroplane or not?

I am only putting information up for you to make your own decision. It's your choice:}

I do have an opinion that the technology is going to happen...I was a seismic surveyor and I can tell you using technology is a lot easier and a lot more boring than having to do even first order tacheometry...in fact...my old job hardly exists because of GPS. Because of my pilot experience I knew GPS was coming in 1984...not one of my colleagues would believe that we would be superceeded by a puck mounted on the top of a dogbox and puck mounted on the top of a vibe machine. The recorder operator understood completely...just another line of data on his recordings.

Today, a survey with modern total stations compared to my old T1(state of the art for my work at the time)...I feel I was working on the slipway for the ark by comparison.

[Frank Arouet]

peuce;

As the airways get more crowded, with faster and more sophisticated machinery, even the gogomobiles of the sky, sharing the same airways ... will need to equip up

If by "airways" you mean controlled airspace, I am not in a position to say whether or not they are busier or more crowded.

However I believe GA has been so decimated so as to NOT represent a "crowd" and to this extent that it is no longer feasable for your average private pilot to access this airspace. The growth of recreational aviation gives credibility to this statement. These particular "gogomobiles" in the main operate OCTA in the more than 7.5 million sq kilometers of Australian airspace with a cubic capacity that could probably be worked out by any surveyor.

OCTA aircraft simply don't need it.

Super Cecil;

ADSB is an ATC tool.

The main proponents of it want aircraft owners to pay for it. The only beneficiaries of ADSB are ATC. It does not replace TCAS. It does not replace mode C transponder. It does nothing to enhance SAR. However as peuce mentions, it is an evolutionary replacement for what we now have WHERE RADAR IS REQUIRED. Therefor you will have to equip up if you want to fly there when it is mandated.

The main problem is a concerted "push" by some to have it mandated for everybody and this is the catalyst for much heated debate on the subject.

[Flying Binghi]

....it may take time, but it will happen

Yep, them terror!st fellows are fairly smart. Once they realise just how useful that GPS system can be, well....




.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It does not replace mode C transponder. Well...ummm..technically, you are correct, Francis. 1090ES ADS-B is also Mode ACS as well as ES so...an ADS-B transponder doesn't replace because it is.

So, TCAS still sees the new transponder...whats the beef?

However I believe GA has been so decimated so as to NOT represent a "crowd" and to this extent that it is no longer feasable for your average private pilot to access this airspace. The growth of recreational aviation gives credibility to this statement. These particular "gogomobiles" in the main operate OCTA in the more than 7.5 million sq kilometers of Australian airspace with a cubic capacity that could probably be worked out by any surveyor.

Nice try, Francis. Maybe, you should start your own thread on the destruction of GA and see what the other plebs think of you forgotten heroes and what you did for aviation in the eighties!

This thread is about information!:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Apologies, I forgot you "owned" this thread.

And what did you and your zealots ever do for aviation in any decade that has succeeded.

The ADSB "subsidy" that never existed was your war cry and it was a "fizzer". But I told you that in the beginning didn't I?

This thread is about your mis-information.:ok:

[Super Cecil]

Ozbusdriver saidSC...does it make any difference if I own an aeroplane or not?
If you did you might know just how much things cost :8

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK, SC. Money where mouth is..a straight swap of a transponder(different brand) into the same mounts and power source under an EASA type approval..how much above the cost of equipment? Do you have a C145a or 146a GPS already fitted? I see you enjoy the virtue of the benefits of a GPS295 Garmin...did you enjoy spending that amount of AU$ on a non-certified piece of equipment?

Francis...I have been warned about allowing this thread to degenerate into a slanging match ala ADS-B subsidy...I can say heaps on the subject but refuse to. Yes, I can delete the entire thread as can the moderators...so far not required and I will honour the deal.

Show one post of mine that can be construed as mis-information, Francis. Everything is linked and verifiable. Just like your recent link...bet you didn't read the entire link that you put...I bet Mr Binghi started salivating on the headlines only to have the report put forward the need for backups...very prudent. However, even my link says errors are in the order of 20m...Not good for WAAS enabled approaches but still good enough for ATC. All electrical systems are affected to some extent by solar radiation..how you deal with it is the robustness of the design.

Mis-information indeed...by the way, I think my team is batting pretty good compared to you lot!

[Super Cecil]

So how much then? For fully equiping a VFR aircraft that only has a VHF, supply, installation and paperwork included please.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Trig TT22 (http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt22.html)

another addition to the Trig modeS ADS-B 1090ES Tx family

[OZBUSDRIVER]

For fully equiping a VFR aircraft that only has a VHF

SC, let's see...no transponder? That's easy...nothing! Obviously you are happy already flying around in non-controlled airspace and not into registered aerodromes ..so why the expense?:E

[Super Cecil]

By not answering the question you are admitting it will be very expensive. If you have no idea about even how much the paperwork will cost shows you don't have much idea of real world non airline costs. I am happy working out of both non and controlled airspace.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AS I do not "own' an aeroplane I do not have the need. However, I do know a good tech on my local field. I will ask the question for replacing a transponder...as for your question...what type of aircraft you talking about?

You after a TSO GPS as well? Another radio? how new is your radio..might be able to trade on a Garmin type navigator. How about just a TSO C145a with no nothing except a GPS output? Specify, if you can..and I will ask the questions:E Aircraft type? STC? or are we talking about a homebuilt with the need for a complete certification process.

[Super Cecil]

Righto then, we're talking fitout for most VFR aircraft. For ASDB you would have to have a TSO GPS, transponder with C .
So for an aircraft to have a TSO'd GPS, ADSB and transponder fitted paperwork and out the door you wouldn't have any change from $10,000? TSO'd GPS 3, ADSB 3, transponder 2 and paperwork/fitting/EO 2. Remember most aircraft the gear will have to be mounted not just slid in, EO/fittment/wiring diagram/electrical load/W+B for such then data entry for the mods. Real world.
Back to you

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SC....you do not need another transponder....this isn't the United States.

Actually, curiosity has tweaked my mind. I know the TT31 will fit into any KT76 pad as it was designed as a straight copy...as well as having European approval which also makes it legal here..so that must save on installation costs as approved wiring and W&B issues...so just need the C145a GPS. Will ask the question.:ok:

[Super Cecil]

You do need one transponder with mode C?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dearodearodear...read the information...Every transponder I have linked to is Mode A/C and S with ES...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Your not off the hook, SC. I want to see your price first:E I will ask but I want to see your quote first.

[Super Cecil]

If you read a couple of posts above you will see what I estimate putting that stuff in a VFR aircraft will cost.

You will need
TSO'd GPS
ADSB unit
Transponder
fitment
drawings/EO/electrical load and wiring diagrams
data entry for mods and W+B

Simple, how much?

[FokkerInYour12]

As a point of comparison:

Fitment of GPS (suitable for IFR enroute - NOT for approach), GPS antenna and second COM radio, 2nd COM antenna, all up including racking, EO, W&B etc. including antennas but excluding the actual devices cost: $5500 5 years ago. Estimate another $2K for GPS

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

ADS-B subsidy...I can say heaps on the subject but refuse to.

So much for the misinformation debate.

SC....you do not need another transponder....this isn't the United States.

If ADSB is an evolutionary development of the transponder as a tool for ATC but it can't be interrogated by TCAS, you will need a mode C transponder as well as the ADSB gadgetry for TCAS to work won't you?

[peuce]

Frank, you bring up an interesting point actually.

Say we went for 100% ADS-B OUT fitment.

Could/would CASA still insist on a Transponder out ... to feed TCAS only ... seeing that TCAS 'cannot' be used in the airspace management mitigation equation?

[Jabawocky]

peuce

The ADSB out transponder units all had (as far as I remember ) Mode C as well.

I could be wrong but that was all part of the one unit.

J:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis...I...will...print ...this....sloooowly....so...you ....may...understand...what...I...am....trying....to...show. ..you.

ADS-B UAT is not seen by TCAS hence the need to retain a tranponder...1090ES is ALREADY a mode ACS transponder, although some are now coming out in Europe as modeS ES...made S can still be seen by TCAS...YOU ONLY NEED THE ONE UNIT!

[Super Cecil]

Sorry if I haven't read all the pages up to this one , I have tried but I can't make it past the first page without nodding off.

So you are saying the ADSB unit includes a transponder?

If that's the case I recon it'll still cost close to $10,000 for a certified TSO'd GPS, ADSB unit, modification/fittment and the associated paperwork.

[Jabawocky]

Now ya getting the hang of it :ok:

You can spend a lot more for fancy Nav/Coms if you like too! :)

[Frank Arouet]

SC:

No he's being cute saying some do and some don't, depending in what part of the World you fly. If you prod him enough he will explain it all, but be prepared for some technophobe spin that still doesn't explain why the "great unwashed" who fly in class G airspace "need" such a device. If he owned an aeroplane he would have a better appreciation of what it costs in the "real world".

[peuce]

Frank,

Perhaps you should be looking at this from another angle. A bit of lateral thinking perhaps.

Now, we are looking a bit down the track here, but this is the way I look at it ...the greater the percentage of GA/RA aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B Out, the greater the chances that CASA will be less inclined to create more restrictive airspace.

Say there was 100% take up of ADS-B ... and say that low level ADS-B surveillance became a reality ... what real basis has CASA for creating anything more restrictive than Class E airspace ( in most locations) as virtually all aircraft are known to ATC.

The only reason for implementing a higher classification would be so that ATC can obtain VFR positions from procedural information ... which they would no longer need... in the main.

The reverse is also true ... the less low level surveillance we have ... the greater the need for Class D and Class C.

BRM/KTA/AV are proof of that.

So, you can be free in E (and I'm talking about the real E) or continue to be lumbered with position reports and clearances in D & C.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

You have lost me, Francis. Where does it do and where does it don't?:ooh:

Honestly, Francis...the way the CASA has stuffed around with airspace? I cannot see how any airspace will be managed in the future or what will be required equipment for VFR GA.:ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Peuce, exactly!

I had a post back on another thread how I thought it would have panned out with ADS-B and FSUs still in operation. Bugger all calls and everyone visible to those who needed to provide a service:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Accord Technology NexNav mini (http://accord-technology.com/nexnav_mini.html)

C145a certification "Imminent" These guys are dealing through Enigma Avionics. Have to wait...lots of promise. however, until that piece of paper its a promise. Keep an eye on these guys.:ok:

I met these guys at the last AV show. Switched on:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Frank
If he owned an aeroplane he would have a better appreciation of what it costs in the "real world".

Those of us who have and a few are not all against it either :=

Peuce.....you did it again http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/nail2.gif :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

Now, we are looking a bit down the track here, but this is the way I look at it ...the greater the percentage of GA/RA aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B Out, the greater the chances that CASA will be less inclined to create more restrictive airspace.

Say there was 100% take up of ADS-B ... and say that low level ADS-B surveillance became a reality ... what real basis has CASA for creating anything more restrictive than Class E airspace ( in most locations) as virtually all aircraft are known to ATC.

The only reason for implementing a higher classification would be so that ATC can obtain VFR positions from procedural information ... which they would no longer need... in the main.

The reverse is also true ... the less low level surveillance we have ... the greater the need for Class D and Class C.


peuce, what yer gunna do when the terrorists start using GPS as a targeting system ? No more civvy GPS will create havok if airspace has been reworked to rely on ADS-B/GPS... :hmm:





.

[Joker 10]

Given the recent published Avgas use figures ( actuals delivered) for past 12 months, there won't be any G/A around to use ADSB, the Actual Avgas used is down 50% nearly year on year.

And don't say G/A Jet A1 is up , because it is also way down.

We all need to be very careful in any thinking that places further cost imposts on General Aviation.

[peuce]

Ah, Flying Binghi, I'm one step ahead of you ...

peuce, what yer gunna do when the terrorists start using GPS as a targeting system ? No more civvy GPS will create havok if airspace has been reworked to rely on ADS-B/GPS...

After much negotiation with CASA and OAR, I have convinced them to ban the use of GPS-guided buzz bombs by terrorists ... unless ... they broadcast their intentions to ATC first ... and receive appropriate tracking instructions. OAR have also assurred me that they will enforce compliance with CAR 100, without fear or favour, with the terrorists as well ...

Next ...

[Flying Binghi]

After much negotiation with CASA and OAR, I have convinced them to ban the use of GPS-guided buzz bombs by terrorists ... unless ... they broadcast their intentions to ATC first ... and receive appropriate tracking instructions. OAR have also assurred me that they will enforce compliance with CAR 100, without fear or favour, with the terrorists as well ...


Yeah, peuce, ah can see that will work...:)




.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Down 50% year on year....?......halving every year? Thats a pretty broad statement, Joker10.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ABARE Avgas consumption From Energy in Australia 2010 (http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/energy/energy_10/energyAUS2010.pdf) (page 18)

90 Ml 2003/04
91 Ml 04/05
86 Ml 05/06
90 Ml 06/07
88 Ml 07/08
96 Ml 08/09

Yes, I can see the trend there, Joker10......NOT!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/hours%20flown%202006e.gif

As much as I hate linking to this site-

Something doesn't add up:=

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Australian Energy Consumption and Production (http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/energy/archive/nrg_consproduction.pdf) (page118)
PJ
2.1 73/74 32.3Ml
1.9 76/77 29.2 Ml
3.2 79/80 49.2 Ml
5.2 82/83 80.0 Ml
6.5 85/86 100.0 Ml
7.0 87/88 107.7 Ml
7.5 89/90 115.4 Ml
5.9 90/91 90.8 Ml
4.7 91/92 72.3 Ml
5.8 92/93 89.2 Ml
5.1 93/94 78.5Ml
5.4 94/95 83.1 Ml

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK someone is fibbing...How can AVGAS consumption not match the hours flown...AVGAS only is used in GA.

[kalavo]

Less C152 hours, more C404 hours :)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Big sidetrack...but care to elaborate Mr Joker?

I should start another thread on this!

[Frank Arouet]

AVGAS only is used in GA.

Conclusive proof! AVGAS is NOT used by RPT.

[Jabawocky]

Sorry ....its all my fault...I used most of it!:sad:

I wonder if GA hours have actually gone up, just the beurau of stats does not get the truth any more...surely not! :ooh:

And a lot use PULP now too in the lighter end.....

So how can you really be sure of any stats at all.

What was the question...........:confused:

[LeadSled]

http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/avtursales.aspx
<http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/avgassales.aspx>

Oz,
See the above, Joker 10 obviously already had these figures, so how about you
check your fact.

A significant reason (according to the budget papers) for increasing the fuel levy was the drop on tax receipts due to the drop in sales.

Isn't it wonderful what Governments can do, the market isn't tax profitable enough, so just whack up the tax.

Tootle pip!!

[peuce]

Leadsled,

Long time, no hear ...

I know, wrong thread, but would be interested in your take on the Avalon Procedures (as it pertains to Airspace Management Principles) ... over on this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/419223-nas-e-av-4.html

[Joker 10]

The bus driver doesn't use facts

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker..follow the links:=

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Sidetracking something terrible on this....ABARE says 96Megalitres and BITRE says 28Megalitres....thats a huge difference in figures.

Back on track...Talking to the guys at Enigma...They are weeks away from having a certified C145a NexNav Mini GPS.

Hey Jaba, ya gasguzzlin capitalist:ok:

[Joker 10]

Yup followed the reputable links, got reliable data not circumstantial crud

[Jabawocky]

Joker...you have recently cast doubt over the government, as you should, so how can you trust that data?

In any case lets say you can....with only a 10 second glance at that graph the average seems to have gone from around 26-26 down to around 19.....in 10 years

You said this.....the Actual Avgas used is down 50% nearly year on year.

Talk about facts Joker.....do you tell lies like this in everything you do...or just on pprune?

Leadie.....by default supporting the Jokers lies, you are not much better. At least I can see you are onto something resembling the truth here....well done!A significant reason (according to the budget papers) for increasing the fuel levy was the drop on tax receipts due to the drop in sales.

Isn't it wonderful what Governments can do, the market isn't tax profitable enough, so just whack up the tax.


I am not sure how this has anything to do with the thread topic......but come on fella's keep it real would you!

J:mad:

[Frank Arouet]

I am not sure how this has anything to do with the thread topic

I just put a 2.5 tonne rock in my wife's garden as a feature. Kept me busy all day. Rock cost 1x carton and the Franna crane cost $140.

And my Porsche engine rocket uses 15 litres per hour, so I didn't have anything to do with anything today.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. What do you expect when the two statistics are not contemporary.

[Jabawocky]

I would say thats good value for the rock....thats a good cubic metre of rock or more more like 1.5 ....all for a carton!

Well done! :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ah well....back to the boring stuff...A Nov09 study from EuroControl..

ADS-B Monitoring Project (http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/public/standard_page/Monitoring.html)

Interesting that in Oct 09, there was between 65 and 70% equippage of 1090ES in modeS equipped airlines.

In particular, I draw your attention to the monitoring results and airbourne issues at the bottom of this page.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

For those following the American system-

Sandia Aerospace (http://www.sandia.aero/?q=node/65) are working with ITT to bring a low cost UAT solution. A panel mounted UAT with both In and Out with a target price of US$3500.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
And just think --- Airservices could drop a UAT card into the vacant slot in their ground stations and Hey!! Presto!! ---- (relatively) cheap ADS-B.

And you airline folks---- don't forget ----- an aircraft with 1090ES ADS-B Out will only produce the same ACAS/TCAS response as a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft, ---- 'cause you ain't got ADS-B IN to your ACAS/TCAS 11, and are not likely to have it any time soon ---- and even when you do, the results will not be any different.

OZ, if you look around, I think you will find some UAT IN displays of traffic under the price on your post ---- but as far as I know, the GPS component is C-129A, not C-145/146.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Plumbum, And you airline folks---- don't forget ----- an aircraft with 1090ES ADS-B Out will only produce the same ACAS/TCAS response as a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft, ---- 'cause you ain't got ADS-B IN to your ACAS/TCAS 11, and are not likely to have it any time soon ---- and even when you do, the results will not be any different.


Thats why UAT and transponder. 1090ES IS a transponder. UAT is just a broadcast of GPS vector...what makes UAT different is the bandwidth available for transmission of FIS-B and TIS-B.........thats the expensive ground station bit...not so much the ground station but what is connected to it to enable the those transmissions. Plus the fact that TIS-B is a position every 12 seconds or more...after all it is from a radar feed. UAT is ground station dependent..ES is not.

And just think --- Airservices could drop a UAT card into the vacant slot in their ground stations and Hey!! Presto!! ---- (relatively) cheap ADS-B.


Does that mean you advocate low level roll-out, Leadsled?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Newsflash-

Accord Technology has just received TSOc145c approval for the NexNav Mini (http://accord-technology.com/nexnav_mini.html)

My view? This will finally enable the affordable installation of ADS-B 1090ES Tx equipment.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And from Avweb Podcasts (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/EAAAirVenture2010_TrigAvionics_AndyDavis_ADSBEquipage_203039-1.html?kw=self)

ADS-B options from Trig Avionics. Including comments and costs. Very pertinent point at 4:50..one snag..the cost of the TSOd GPS engine to drive these transponders..

Installation cost for Rx and Tx unit TT22 (http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt22.html) and TA60 (http://www.trig-avionics.com/ta60.html) including hardware will be less than US$5000.00 (...provided you have the GPS source...see post above:ok:)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

From Dynon Avionics (http://www.dynonavionics.com/downloads/Brochures/SV-XPNDR-ARINC_WebBrochure.pdf)

Skyview Mode S transponders. ADS-B 1090ES out and supporting TIS-B/FIS-B in the US.

Couldn't find a price but supposedly US$1300 cheaper than the Garmin GTX330

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Honeywell Summary (http://dissrr.com/ADSB/) across five sites in the US. 1090ES increasing by about 70 to 90 frames a month.

[LeadSled]

(...provided you have the GPS source...see post abovehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif)

Oz,
And the GPS receiver must be C145/146 compliant. I listened to the podcast, interesting that the spokesman ( or should that be spokesperson) for Trig said that the addition cost of the GPS input for the cheapest ADS-B Out solution was "not cost effective", his words, not mine.

Do I support a low level roll-out, if it was UAT ---- of course not, for the same reason as always, cost benefit. The cost might be cheaper, but still unjustified by any demonstrated safety problem, to which ADS-B is the answer.

Just to remind everybody, the "official" cost/benefit completed and made public before the JCP was published was quite clear: The broad mandate could not be justified on cost/benefits --- their words, not mine ---- the "safety" benefits continue to be extremely elusive.

Even the idea that Airservices is going to increase the number of ADS-B ground stations to provide nationwide coverage to 10,000' seems most unlikely, to provide "low level" coverage just in the J-Curve is a large capital investment, and what is Airservices going to do with it then ---- have a enough additional manned consoles to do what ???? Sit there and watch Class G airspace ???

I wonder what the airline beancounters think of some of the latest "musings" from OAR.

For the FAA, ADS-B is seen as an ATC tool, not as the answer to some widespread safety problem. With the relatively minuscule low level aviation activity in Australia ( and high level, for that matter) compared to US, what is the problem, to which mandatory ADS-B is the ( very expensive) answer.

Tootle pip!!

[VK2TVK]

Sydney Area Tx/Rx sites for 1090MHz bases:-

Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=420369) Airservices Australia site MT BOYCE
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=420468) Airservices Australia Valley Rd KATOOMBA
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1916340) Cecil Park
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1916296) Cecil Park
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1569667) Gate 9 Light Pole Domestic Terminal T3 SYDNEY AIRPORT
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1569666) Gate 31 Light Pole Domestic Terminal T2 SYDNEY AIRPORT
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1569580) Sydney Terminal Control Tower SYDNEY AIRPORT
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1569579) Airservices Australia Building 237 KYEEMAGH
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1203345) CMTS/Airservices Site 164-174 Liverpool Rd ASHFIELD
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1202285) Parallel Approach Runway Monitor SYDNEY AIRPORT
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1182965) Runway 34L Glide Path Hut SYDNEY AIRPORT SYDNEY
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1923776) Terrey Hills
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924432) Bondi Junction
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924523) Calga
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924524) Calga
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924525) Camden Tower - YSCN
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924538) Centrepoint Tower Sydney
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924539) Centrepoint Tower Sydney
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924542) Wentworth Falls
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924544) Cronulla
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924546) Knights Hill
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924586) Knights Hill
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924621) Kurnell
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924643) Pennant Hills
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924648) Razorback
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924649) Kurrajong Heights
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924650) Hurstville
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924651) Richmond
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924657) Sydney Airport Control Tower
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924658) Kyeemagh
Australian Communications and Media Authority: Register of Radiocommunication Licences (http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/licence_search.licence_lookup?pLICENCE_NO=1924659) Woronora

[VK2TVK]

Interesting that some of those licenses have expired - maybe ASA are having cash flow problems :}

[peuce]

Leadsled,

You are showing your naivety here ...
Even the idea that Airservices is going to increase the number of ADS-B ground stations to provide nationwide coverage to 10,000' seems most unlikely, to provide "low level" coverage just in the J-Curve is a large capital investment, and what is Airservices going to do with it then ---- have a enough additional manned consoles to do what ???? Sit there and watch Class G airspace ???

I wonder what the airline beancounters think of some of the latest "musings" from OAR.

For the FAA, ADS-B is seen as an ATC tool, not as the answer to some widespread safety problem. With the relatively minuscule low level aviation activity in Australia ( and high level, for that matter) compared to US, what is the problem, to which mandatory ADS-B is the ( very expensive) answer.

I don't think CBAs or rational research are relevant to Australian aviation management policy anymore.

Aviation Policy is now dictated by public opinion, fueled by alarmism.

So, your rhetoric is wasted here. Your time might be better spent trying to get the manipulators of public opinion onside.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The Trig guy is quite correct...thanks for listening, Leadsled.

Will not ry and goad an argument. IF the NexNav mini comes in at a reasonable price point then it stands to reason that ADS-B Tx fitment is affordable.

[LeadSled]

OZ,
It will be interesting to see if the NextNav Mini is the goods, all the way along the patents held for C145/146 receivers has been a very major issue, not just price, but getting a license to use them. Just ask the guys in Bundaberg.

Aviation Policy is now dictated by public opinion, fueled by alarmism.

Peuce,
Too true, but when Ken Henry ( or his successor) and the airlines see the bill, other forces will come into play.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Certified by FAA for TSO-C145c Class Beta-1 operation

Don't you just love the way that sounds...certified:ok:

See your point, Leadsled..Garmin bought out AT Apollo just to get their hands on just such an engine...however, there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Interesting article in the Boeing Aero magazine (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/2/).

To quote-
The benefits of ADS-B to airlines

With appropriate ground and airborne equipage updates and operational procedure readiness, ADS-B may provide airlines with several benefits, including:

Safety. ADS-B gives the aviation industry the ability to maintain or improve existing safety standards while increasing system efficiency and capacity.

ADS-B significantly improves flight crews’ situational awareness because they know where they are in relation to other airplanes.

It gives a real-time, common surveillance picture to share information quickly if participating airplanes deviate from their assigned flight paths.

It offers more precise and commonly shared traffic information. All participants have a common operational picture.

It provides more accurate and timely surveillance information than radar. ADS-B provides more frequent updates than radar, which rotates once every 6 or 12 seconds for terminal and en route surveillance, respectively.

It displays both airborne and ground traffic.

It allows for a much greater margin in which to implement conflict detection and resolution than is available with any other system by providing an effective range of more than 100 nmi with high accuracy.

It clearly and immediately indicates changes as the conflicting traffic turns, accelerates, climbs, or descends.

ADS-B In applications can provide automatic traffic call-outs or warnings of imminent runway incursion

A picture is worth a thousand words-
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/2/img/A2_fig2.jpg

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

A bit more - from todays AVWEB site; (Mon27th.9.10)


"ADS-B Full Deployment By 2013

ADS-B will be fully operational in the U.S. by 2013; the FAA announced Friday that it had approved full deployment of the satellite and ground-based system. In a statement, the agency said it approved full deployment after successful testing of full systems at Philadelphia, Louisville, over the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska proved it could work in the full range of operating conditions. "This approach ensured that ADS-B was tested in the most extreme environments, allowing the agency to uncover and resolve any anomalies before the commissioning," the statement said.

The FAA has already installed 300 of the 800 systems that will be required to ensure ADS-B provides all the coverage that radar does now. In mountainous areas, a system of ground sensors called Wide Area Multilateration will provide coverage for the nooks and crannies that the ADS-B sensors can't see. WAM will also serve as a backup for GPS in high-traffic areas. By 2020, aircraft operating in controlled airspace will have to have ADS-B out capability to announce their position and identification. If they have the optional ADS-B in they'll get cockpit displays of traffic and weather."

Just for info and interest.....

[Flying Binghi]

Just for info and interest.....

gonna be interesting to see what happens when the civvy GPS signal gets turned off...:hmm:




.

[ppragman]

I used ADS-B in Alaska. Loved it. It is by far one of the best systems available for spotting traffic VFR, and very very helpful in sequencing yourself during SVFR conditions. ADS-B is the bomb diggety.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Binghi.... sigh....
which civvy signal are you talking about ?

Yes I know that most of the world is still using the US GPS, but that's only because they were the first and have had more time to build up 'market share'.

There are 2 civilian+military systems flying now (GPS & GLONASS) and at least another 2 that have test birds up. (COMPASS & GALILEO)
There are at least 5 nations who have satellites flying for local augmentation systems (USA, Europe, India, Russia, Japan)

[Jabawocky]

ADS-B is the bomb diggety.

Don't go saying things like that.....Binghi gets all excited at the mention of Buzzing B:oh:s.

[Flying Binghi]

Don't go saying things like that.....Binghi gets all excited at the mention of Buzzing B:oh:s.

Heh, so do Osama and Co....;)





.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From today's AVWEB Site..........

Very I N T E R E S T I N G ......


"PLANE-TRACKING PHONE APP RAISES SECURITY WORRIES
Even the early critics of ADS-B, who warned that broadcasting the position, type and altitude of individual aircraft might help terrorists target specific aircraft, probably didn't envision pointing a cellphone at an aircraft in flight and getting all those details.

But a British software company has released an iPhone/iPad and Android application called Plane Finder AR that matches the real-time ADS-B signals of passing aircraft with a database built by ADS-B-equipped planespotters and displays the ID of the plane, altitude and destination. The "AR" stands for "Augmented Reality" and it's the feature that has furrowed the brows of British lawmakers. Pointing the phone's camera at the aircraft will superimpose the aircraft's bearing and range on the screen."

The android is said to cost $3 !!!
There's more.....whole item avbl on AvWeb...

Fly Safe Boys and Girls....:ok:

[Jabawocky]

So what..........................

Pre ADSB it could be done if you wanted to anyway......... bit of a non event really.

[Frank Arouet]

Pre ADSB it could be done

In the very recent past perhaps, not in 1965 for example.

I guess it shows that for every technological advance there is someone who can, and will use it incorrectly or for a different reason if given the right tools.

It's bad enough "big brother" watching you in the booneys , but plane spotters, crikey that bothers me. Over to you Binghi........

[Jabawocky]

In the very recent past perhaps, not in 1965 for example.

Frank, you are not thinking laterally enough old chap!

How do you think ATC keep track of aircraft even today over the GAFA (those without sat data links or ADSB) ?? Let me see.....radio? HF even?, Airways, Time and speed?

Be real Frank, if they wanted to they could have back then too. Stop using the past as some holy grail of security.

Knowing a schedule, the weather and having a hand held VHF I can sit at home and tell you within 30 seconds what the next a/c to fly past my house will be.

J:ok:

[peuce]

I reckon that I could point my finger at an airborne aircraft and work out what it was, how fast it's going and in what direction ... without the need of an iphone!

[Frank Arouet]

Be real Frank, if they wanted to they could have back then too.

You couldn't cancel SAR below 5000ft at Monto in 1995 and you had to ring, (if the phone worked), if your HF went tits up, which it did when you tore the plastic cup off on the fence at Goodooga in 1976.

I flew Pt Augusta to Coolangatta in a no radio Auster in 1989 and did the SAR thing all by telephone. Remember you only had full reporting above 5000ft.

No, they only knew where I was according to where I reckoned I was.

No holy grail or veil of security, but I must be doing something right if I'm still here to annoy you blokes with your new fangled gadgetry.

By the way, an aeroplane flew over my place the other day. Thats two in the one month. Things are really getting busy.:D

[Jabawocky]

Frank......... for someone who would seem to be quite intelligent you really do argue along very dumb lines.

Your point about being able to track and identify an aircraft by some terrorist types to make some nasty outcome clearly is directed at things a bit larger than your Auster old chap! heck I doubt they are targeting my Retard Vehicle either :rolleyes:

So lets get back to the supposed threat you propose.....A B737/A320 or larger!

No go back to the times when you could not cancel SAR at Monto below 5000.........how many B727/DC9's were there without VHF or HF coverage.....and were below 5000 at Monto too! :hmm:

Frank.........just forget it, you are on a hiding to nothing with this current argument. Be realistic for just this once hey :ok:

Digital Terror threat cancelled folks....back to normal viewing! :)

J

[Frank Arouet]

No argument, simply stated;

I guess it shows that for every technological advance there is someone who can, and will use it incorrectly or for a different reason if given the right tools.

What was it that Dick said?

[peuce]

Frank,

guess it shows that for every technological advance there is someone who can, and will use it incorrectly or for a different reason if given the right tools.

That's a pretty reasonable statement.

However, in assessing that risk ... taking into account likelihood, consequences etc ... most people appear to have accepted that particular risk as a normal cost of doing life on this planet.

[Jabawocky]

What was it that Dick said?

So I am having a debate with Dick....via you? :=

In future let me know when I am debating with the master of debating illogically!:ugh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"JEESZ" Guys,

I only thought it was 'interesting'......no need to get ya knickers in a knot over it...!!

The article did go on to say that some dude in the UK was also 'suitably unimpressed' and wants the technology banned.....

Read on..

"Conservative member of Parliament (MP) Patrick Mercer, a former chairman of the government's counter-terrorism committee, told the Daily Mail that the app and any like it should be banned. "Anything that makes it easier for our enemies to find targets is madness," he said. "The Government must look at outlawing the marketing of such equipment." The software developers, Pinkfroot, said the non-hobby applications were considered and they dumbed the system down a little. "It is only real-time to an extent - it is about 30 seconds behind. If someone really wants to do that [shoot down a jet] they could buy their own ADS-B or radar," said Pinkfroot director Lee Armstrong."

Now, as a free thinking sort of bloke, I know, and we all know, that there is more than one way to identify / guesstimate / an aircraft and its likely destination.....pretty colours on the tail are a 'ded giveaway'...:ugh:
(ded - meaning deduced....as in 'ded rekonin'...)

Don't NEED one of these gadgets to find out :=:=- plenty of other ways.....:=

However, THIS technology MIGHT be good for a 'poor man's TCAS....with a little more development... or do they have that already..??:8

[Frank Arouet]

Strewth! I didn't see that one coming Jabba.:ouch:

So!............, I am having a non debate with someone who uses a preposition to assume he is having a debate with Dick by proxy? I'll ring him to let him know.

So!............., (to maintain the point), fair suck of the saveloy cobber, but that's a bit rich even from you.:uhoh:

[Jabawocky]

No mate........ Just stick to the real world.

Back in 65 and any time since the bad towell headed folk could have done stuff without the technology of today. Sure it being available means they might use it, but it makes no difference, without it, they would do the same things anyway!

Is that better?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

From last Thursday's Avweb (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1741-full.html#203393)
AEA: ADS-B Via STC For GA Is DOA



FAA guidelines that require ADS-B equipment to be installed under the supplemental type certificate (STC) process will derail efforts to provide low-cost solutions for general aviation aircraft, the Airline Electronics Association said this week. The FAA policy, stated in a memo (PDF) sent out on Aug. 30, would "stall early equipage, delay early implementation, and, at the extreme, cause the failure of ADS-B implementation all together," AEA said in an Oct. 4 letter (PDF) to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. STC rules would at least double the cost of installing a single ADS-B system in a business or corporate aircraft, and for light GA aircraft, the costs would increase by as much as 700 percent, the AEA said. The FAA said the STC installation rules may relax over time, but the AEA says that will only discourage the adoption of ADS-B avionics by GA owners.



"How do we encourage an early [adopter] to commit to an installation with a 700 percent premium that would likely take months to complete, instead of choosing to delay equipage until some later date, knowing it will reduce the owner's initial investment from $35,000 for a required STC installation to more of an industry palatable and promised $4,500 for a follow-on installation?" asks the AEA in the letter to Babbitt. "We believe the consequences of the August 30, 2010, memorandum will have a fatal effect on the first phase of your FAA Flight Plan towards the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Your immediate intervention is needed to limit the damage caused by this policy," the AEA letter concludes. The FAA said recently that ADS-B will be fully operational in the U.S. by 2013. By 2020, aircraft operating in controlled airspace will be required to have ADS-B-out capability to announce their position and identification. Optional ADS-B-in will provide cockpit displays of traffic and weather

[Joker 10]

Now where are all those "low cost" folk, seems the "no TSO" is foiled by the required STC.

Good luck fitting it to your trusty C 152

[peuce]

Looks like the FAA and CASA have mated ...

Sharing around the "stupid" gene !

[Flying Binghi]

...an iPhone/iPad and Android application called Plane Finder AR that matches the real-time ADS-B signals of passing aircraft with a database built by ADS-B-equipped planespotters and displays the ID of the plane, altitude and destination...

Bit of a red herring re terrorism threats methinks... :hmm:


Though this seems plausible enuf, the way it would probably happen...

If someone really wants to do that [shoot down a jet]

...and we all know, that there is more than one way to identify / guesstimate / an aircraft and its likely destination...

... though, why would a towel head bother ? Why not hit the targeted person/Group on the way to the airport or just about anywhere else. No SAM required... At any rate, the bad boys are in country and just as likely to be picked up beforehand, or worst case, soon after...:cool:

On the other hand, GPS guided flying terror weapons....








.

[peuce]

It looks like they've had a "threesome" ....

(MODS: Don't worry, I've put myself on a 24 hour self-imposed PPRUNE ban ... I just couldn't help myself)

[Joker 10]

The long awaited FAA ADSB standards for 2020 are released as a Final Rule.

As anticipated it is a "Dogs Breakfast" of conflicting technologies.

The requirement to carry a transponder will remain in perpetuity as a back up for potential system failure if the GPS system goes down for any reason.

The FAA ADSB system is unique and not based on International standards, in fact it is not compatible with either Mexican or Canadian standards their next door neighbours.

The U.S. system will have 2 transmission modes, 1090 Es and UAT.

This means that even if equipped for ADSB in all aircraft won't be able to see all other aircraft unless they carry both 1090Es and UAT, the system has dual architecture.

And there is no subsidy for underwriting any part of the required installation in Aircraft.

There are also no exemptions, so even LSA need to be ADSB out equipped, given the dual architecture a fully equipped LSA might just make it under the 600 kg limit if it doesn't carry fuel.

And now we also know that an STC will be needed to fit the ADSB out the cost will be steep.

Can CASA make a better job of this ?? and what will compatible gear cost given the mess in the largest market in the world, no wonder AOPA USA were vehemently opposed to the rule when it was first propsed.

[Flying Binghi]

...and what will compatible gear cost given the mess in the largest market in the world...

Hmmm, i remember hearing the lament of some who imported aircraft into Oz with them Lorans... though ah guess exporting outa Oz with a DME-A fitted woulda seemed an un-needed cost as well.





.

[Frank Arouet]

Especially if it was DME-A.:oh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AND...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 with each other...the transponder requirment is for UAT because it is NOT a transponder, where ES is!

Personally the STC path is a bit odd for avionics fitment...understand it for any device that actually manipulates or modifies the airframe...but a radio device?

[Jack Ranga]

Makes a bit of a mokery of the belief that the US is worlds best practice in these areas, does it not?

[Joker 10]

The transponder requirement is also for redundancy should the GPS constellation go down for any reason, a long shot but hey the aircraft already have them so just add more gear, American overkill.

[Joker 10]

I missed a bit buried in the middle of the explanation memo, Transponders are to stay so TCAS II can remain effective, seems they have little faith in ADSB in as a viable technology for separation.

[Frank Arouet]

ADSB in Alaska misleading at best.

PODCAST. ADS-B in Alaska: FAA's Folly? (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/AudioPodcast_IFRMagazine_JimGibertoni_Alaska_CapstoneProgram _ADSB_203682-1.html?kw=self)

[Capn Bloggs]

ADSB in Alaska misleading at best.
Nothing new there. ADSB will always be line-of-sight. ADSB wasn't (I hope) introduced into Australia so some lighty pilot could use it when stuck at 500ft undercloud in a valley between two huge mountains. As stated in the interview, it is a big benefit where coverage exists.

[Frank Arouet]

You could have fooled me.:ouch: The noisest proponents tried to sell it here for traffic separation in the circuit at Oodnadatta- a SAR tool- in flight collision avoidance- real time weather and data, all at a give away government funded price = $NIL.

That fizzled out to everyone having to fund their own, if and when, it was mandated. Light aircraft of every description included.

It was and remains primarily a ATC surveillance tool. In that role it does a fine job and is a natural evolution of radar where radar is used for that purpose.

It is interesting to note the "spin" being seen for what is was with the "Capstone" project. Misleading indeed!:yuk:

[peuce]

Hi Frank,

I think you will find that the primary use of ADS-B, as proposed by the "believers", was to initially provide ATC with a tool ... to allow them to help us with traffic separation, traffic information and SAR ... and, by the way, not only to replace existing radar, but to add to the surveillance coverage.

The secondary advantage would be to allow those aircraft with ADS-B IN, to receive a direct traffic picture in their vicinity e.g Oodnadatta circuit area.

[Frank Arouet]

peuce;

I had the opportunity of having the first, very first hand, face to face, Airservices briefing by the "briefer" (who should remain anon but he knows who he is),after having walked out of an AOPA meeting at Murray Bridge many years ago during a coup which was taking place. He was the guest speaker yet to be heard. He stated in no uncertain terms the "fact" that Airservices "were" going to give "us" all an ADS-B unit at "no cost" to us and it was up to "us" to sign up for it asap. It was similarly tried on at a Bankstown Trotting Club after meeting dinner of the same organisation which supported it via a couple vested interest technocrats. All you mentioned was part of the speil.

The thing was, "they" with help from a few noisy friends, tried it on, to mandate it first, which pretty well guaranteed there would be no "freebies". (remember the tooth fairy? If it's mandated why subsidise it.)

The "spin" was amazing and got very nasty indeed. I know, I copped heaps from a mob of crazy zealots who eventually succumbed to imposed dumbness. Probably someone sued somebody. (I hope they did because they ruined a good organisation).

If they had only tried to sell it as an evolutionary ATC tool, people probably would have embraced it in Australia.

I know I would have.

But I hate liars.

[peuce]

Frank,

As to the politics of how, or whether, or if, it would have been given to the fleet for nicks ... I don't really care ... I think that door has closed ...I'm a bit over it now.

The future should be the focus now. I still believe it's an extremely useful bit of kit to be in the Industry's arsenal... one way or the other. What form it will take, who will use it, and how, and when, and at what cost, are the interesting questions for me.

[Jabawocky]

Look at posts 187 and 188 and if you dare ask ASA what the real story is.

I think you will find both posts say the same thing, however one has a large amount of spin on it, and its not the one by an ATC'er either!

J:E

PS........Time waits for no man!

[Frank Arouet]

peuce;

I agree with your sentiments, however one should always remember those that fail to learn from historical mistakes are certainly doomed to a live through a repeat performance.

I'm in a fight right now for my right to earn a quid because some commo wants to take my water away from me and give it to some frogs downstream.

one way or the other. What form it will take, who will use it, and how, and when, and at what cost, are the interesting questions for me

Same orchestra, different music mate.

[Jabawocky]

Frankie,

I know you will find it hard to believe.....but I am with you now....you have my support with the water BS............not even knowing the whole story, but I know the BS you will be facing. Having said that..........ADSB is they way of the future one way or another.

So the water you catch is yours??????? No I thought not......Fecking C:mad:nts!!!

I hope you win on that one! :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

ADSB is they way of the future one way or another.

I agree, but pay our own way and have our own say.

[Frank Arouet]

And the rest of the silence answered my question.:suspect:

[Jabawocky]

What Question? :confused:

[Frank Arouet]

The question is irrelevant if you don't understand the answer. But my own curiosity is satisfied.

In the meantime, some historical philosophy for your entertainment;

'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city;
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became full of pity
For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.
"For the cliff is all right, if you're careful," they said,
"And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below when they're stopping."
So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would those rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.
Then an old sage remarked: "It's a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
When they'd much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he,
"Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley."
"Oh he's a fanatic," the others rejoined,
"Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
No! No! We'll support them forever.
Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,
While the ambulance works in the valley?"
But the sensible few, who are practical too,
Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
They believe that prevention is better than cure,
And their party will soon be the stronger.
Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
And while other philanthropists dally,
They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence
On the cliff that hangs over the valley.
Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
For the voice of true wisdom is calling.
"To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best
To prevent other people from falling."
Better close up the source of temptation and crime
Than deliver from dungeon or galley;
Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff
Than an ambulance down in the valley.
-- Joseph Malins (1895)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

thanks for that link, Frank. Interesting podcast.

Imagine a ground receiver on top of Mt Mowbulin....

However, I was led to believe that the Capstone guys had put receiver/transmitter sites in to attempt to eliminate that problem..so there you go.

Try to take this as appolitical as possible...The CASA wants to mandate by December 2013 for ALL aircraft.

Pretty cool that a mob of "well meaning" Wentworth group """EXPERTS""" make a statement in the height of the biggest droubt in recent memory to save the Murray and proceed to use the argument that farmers proved they can do it tough with limited water because they survived that drought...so can easily afford to forgo water for the environment:mad::ugh:...Feel for you, Frank:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Sometimes we all have to pull together for a common good. Goes for water or aviation.

I admit to being a bit biased when discussing ADSB and I guess it's time to play with what we may be dealt with and forget the lead up bull$hit we were fed.

I had a feeling they would pull this mandate for ALL aircraft again so it doesn't surprise me.

Time to pull together I think.

[Jack Ranga]

Frank, you had me at sometimes :ok:

[LeadSled]

--.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!
OZ,
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.

[Jabawocky]

.................. M85CFf7q_MU

[Frank Arouet]

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.

[LeadSled]

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.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

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:hmm: 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 :mad: 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?

[Jabawocky]

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 :eek:

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.

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. :rolleyes:

[Jack Ranga]

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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif....really so.


As a bloke who has met the afforementioned, I can confirm that ye ole fruit speaketh bullsh!t of the highest order :ok:


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. :rolleyes:


I don't think I've heard a greater load of sh!t than your direct tracking in the 70's twaddle. Back in the good ole days eh? Mate, it's the 10's, soon to be the 20's (not the 1920's where you seem to be existing) a new millenium mate. Fact is, you've backed the wrong horse mate, it's over for you and your accolytes.

You're next conquest?

[LeadSled]

OZ, etc,
Code saturation is a red herring!

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.

UAT is a datalink
Well, stone me, what a revelation, who'd a' thunk it!!

1090ES is one way traffic back to TAAATS...UAT requires a dedicated ----

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 !!

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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif plane visible to the rest of the poor sods flying in the same airspace with TCAS...1090ES does not suffer from that issue.

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.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

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:ugh:

[Blockla]

Mitre Corp analysisAnd who do they represent, who pays their wages? You can get any analysis you pay for... Next thing you'll be saying Robert Poole makes a genuinely balanced assessment on why ATC should be privatised.

[The Chaser]

Evening Ol’ Fruit :E

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 !!
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):-

• 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
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:-
Strange how the FAA don't regard the "aircraft to aircraft" case as particularly criticalFrom the ITT link:-
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
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!!! :ugh:

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 (http://www.trig-avionics.com/adsb.html)
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 lastly, you say;-
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.
Biting that tail again ;) …… either way, better to address the problem before the mid-airs occur is it not?

Poodle Dip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

TC, couldnasaiditbettermeself:ok:

[The Chaser]

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:-
Transponders will still be required when the backup surveillance strategy using SSR is necessary and to interact with TCAS- and ACAS-equipped aircraft.
Federal Register Page 30176 ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I should check my links more often- IATA have submitted a new edition for user requirments for ATS (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety_security/newsletter/may-2010/Documents/URATS%202nd%20Edition%20Jan%202010_To-Printer.pdf)...a year ago(slack me!)

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.my italics

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.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I really have to keep up to date....

A view of ADS-B by Mr Bill Hamilton on Plane Crazy Down Under (http://www.planecrazydownunder.com/2010/11/28/episode-48-ads-b-cest-un-petard-with-bill-hamilton/) Have a listen to the podcast.

?????:hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

Yes I did. What's your critique? You obviously don't approve.

Bill Hamilton Tags Plane Crazy Down Under (http://www.planecrazydownunder.com/tag/bill-hamilton/)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

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.:E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Cummmooon Francis.....just a little nibble:E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

What a US Glider fraternity (http://www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2010B.pdf)think of transponders

[Joker 10]

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.

[Capn Bloggs]

Joker 10,

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.
What ATC system? That'd be using the extensive Australian radar coverage, would it? :suspect:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

joke/2:E gotta love those prices for UAT:ok:

When you snoop around the glider blog sites, they are pretty happy with the Trig gear especially.

[Flying Binghi]

#207 Jabawocky ...dont tell Binghy that...he will be in decine...

..."in decine"...:confused:




.

[The Chaser]

The "spoofing" theory is not so unbelievable though. That could easily cause a lot of mischief.
No it could not. The GNSS positional accuracy is (where required) confirmed both by the airborne sending unit, and independently via the ground station (where in coverage) receive timing. Also, don't forget that even if an ADS-B GNSS derived position is not (temporarily) broadcast as part of the 1090 message, the A,C and S data still is, and will be plotted where Multilat (non-dependent) and/or Mode S radar coverage exists (Capital city and surrounds).

Back to the sub-subject of GPS availablity/reliability :hmm:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=7738576&SIZE=19346&TYPE=PDF
[/b]§ 2281. Global Positioning System[/b]

(b) SUSTAINMENT AND OPERATION FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES.— The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the sustainment and operation of the GPS Standard Positioning Service for peaceful civil, commercial, and scientific uses on a continuous worldwide basis free of direct user fees.

In doing so, the Secretary—

(1) shall provide for the sustainment and operation of the GPS Standard Positioning Service in order to meet the performance requirements of the Federal Radionavigation Plan prepared jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to subsection (c)
(2) shall coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation regarding the development and implementation by the Government of augmentations to the basic GPS that achieve or enhance uses of the system in support of transportation;
(3) shall coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and other appropriate officials to facilitate the development of new and expanded civil and commercial uses for the GPS;
(4) shall develop measures for preventing hostile use of the GPS in a particular area without hindering peaceful civil use of the system elsewhere; and
(5) may not agree to any restriction on the Global Positioning System proposed by the head of a department or agency of the United States outside the Department of Defense in the exercise of that official’s regulatory authority that would adversely affect the military potential of the Global Positioning System.
(c) FEDERAL RADIONAVIGATION PLAN.— The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation shall jointly prepare the Federal Radionavigation Plan. The plan shall be revised and updated not less often than every two years. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements applicable to such plan as first prepared pursuant to section 507 of the International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act 1 (47 U.S.C. 756). The plan, and any amendment to the plan, shall be published in the Federal Register.
ACCESS TO GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title II, § 279, Feb. 10, 1996, 110
Stat. 243, provided that:
‘‘(a) CONDITIONAL PROHIBITION ON USE OF SELECTIVE AVAILABILITY FEATURE.—Except as provided in subsection (b), after May 1, 1996, the Secretary of Defense may not (through use of the feature known as ‘selective availability’) deny access of non-Department of Defense users to the full capabilities of the Global Positioning System.
‘‘(b) PLAN.—Subsection (a) shall cease to apply upon submission by the Secretary of Defense to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives of a plan for enhancement of the Global Positioning System that provides for—
‘‘(1) development and acquisition of effective capabilities to deny hostile military forces the ability to use the Global Positioning System without hindering the ability of United States military forces and civil users to have access to and use of the system, together with a specific date by which those capabilities could be operational; and
‘‘(2) development and acquisition of receivers for the Global Positioning System and other techniques for weapons and weapon systems that provide substantially improved resistance to jamming and other forms of electronic interference or disruption, together with a specific date by which those receivers and other techniques could be operational with United States military forces.’’
Have a read of the full legislation. It makes quite clear why the US is not interested in any civilian 'unreliability' issues. ;) Quite apart from the non-US Galileo and other interoperable constellations coming on line.

[LeadSled]

Perhaps INS, even "VOR calibrated" INS just aint that accurate eh. Jaba methinks yer putting up a red herring there..Binghi,

Jaba is right, see FAA AC90-45A, the standard for area navigation. Available updating was DME/DME, DME/VOR or LOC, and the later addition of GPS as an update source didn't change the Doc. 8168 rules for an "area nav" approach.

Even when we got the GPS update in suitable INS equipped aircraft, the minima were still the same as a VOR/DME approach (generally 400'/1 nm, except in Australia).

All the original "area nav" approaches in US were overlay approaches, you just followed the profile of a VOR or NDB approach.

Indeed, there were many area nav devices available in the US from the late 1960s, we never saw then in Australia, because we never had the density of VOR or proper DME, and still don't.

All QF 747, and subsequent types in the fleet (all B767 and later B737, and, I would assume, various Airbus to the JAA/EASA equivalent) ) are certified re. AC90-45A.

Tootle pip!!

Chaser,
Maybe you are not aware, but US forces (and, I would assume, other countries) can very effectively spoof/deny GPS coverage in (sort of) specific areas, as a nornal precaution. It works well, I know, because we got caught on the edge of an exercise --- it really screwed up the GPS feed to the IRS/FMCS system.

[T28D]

In fact it is just time shift technology, simple really if you can handle the physics involved.

One could chase ones tail all over the place seeking to validate a rational response to the technology available to the designers and owners of the GPS system but it is factual that they ( THE U.S. Government ) "own" the system and despite all the heart felt angst, they will do with it ( the system) as they ( the government) see fit and the rest of us can cry unfair till our lungs dry up, face it the system is theirs !!!!!!!!!

[The Chaser]

You are very good at arguing the same points made by others after the fact ol' fruit ;)

Yes I am very well aware, that is why I posted the US government legislation on the previous page :hmm:. It is clear the economic, social, and safety impacts of selective, tactical removal of signal are considered, and by design protected (where the signal is safety critical) by all of those system devices (such as RAIM, cross reference NAV, back-up NavAid, etc etc) for just such cases.

Do any of you really think there are not protocols in place between sovereign governments (including ours) and the US specifically dealing with these issues!? :hmm: ... no doubt the same with the Euro's on Galileo :E

As far as this diversionary subject is concerned, it is well known by those who have half a clue that the aviation systems are designed to be fail SAFE. In other words, even if the constellation/s were not available at zero notice, there are other NAV, ATS etc system contingencies in place to ensure air traffic can immediately recover in to a less efficient, but safe operating mode.

T28 ... Atomic Time shift is but one method ;)

[T28D]

The clock is atomic, the shift is applied physics.

[baswell]

It is clear the economic, social, and safety impacts of selective, tactical removal of signal are considered
"Selective Availability" is just that - "selective". What happens if the US has a bit of biffo with some of our northerly neighbours? They can decide to deny them (and thus us!) availability of GPS, while everything is hunky-dory in the Americas and Europe. Considered and actioned.

I know officially new satellites are launched without the capability - but that doesn't mean some new software can not be uploaded at any time.

There is one major issue with turning on SA in this day and age, though: they can only do it once. It will take experts only a few days to crack it and the enemy front-line troops will have Android phones with perfectly operating GPS in weeks. The next line of consumer and aviation GPSs will have upgradable firmware to get updates for the hacks.

In any case, that's why we should support Galileo and have dual receivers. Push come to shove, some government controls that too, but the more systems we have, the less likely it is they all go down.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks to Zeke for the link-

GNSS outage due to DOD testing (https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2011/Jan/GPS_Flight_Advisory_CSFTL11-01_Rel.pdf)

Take a look at the map...Comments Mr bomber? 215nm radius @ 4000ft. Truelly global in area!

Pilots are highly recommended to report anomalies during testing to the appropriate ARTCC to assist in the determination of the extent of GPS degradation during tests.

Interesting!

If the DOD is interested in feedback....suggests the DOD doesn't have to turn off the entire network to have the desired effect in a war theatre sized area of the planet.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Backhand thanks to Plumbum and thanks to the chaser for the link-

FAA FACES SIGNIFICANT RISKS IN IMPLEMENTING THE AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE – BROADCAST PROGRAM AND REALIZING BENEFITS (http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/ADS-B_Oct%202010.pdf)

Worth the read...as the Plumbum says, keep an open mind and thank the deity that we didn't follow the yanks on this one.

[Flying Binghi]

ADS-B related stuff that i have found.... apparently, we have established that the Oz gov/ASA don't have any agreement with the owners of them magic GPS signal generators that ensures them magic signals keep on coming. And ah see's the Japanese are getting their own GPS sat's up because, in part, they have a concern that them yank GPS sat's will stop with the civvy signal... and yer gotta ask, if the yanks are turning off the civvy signal, wont every other GPS sat owner be doing the same...

So, ADS-B needs GPS for it to work and we have no guarantee of supply of this critical input - a very bad business case just for starters..:hmm:

In the meantime, before we cargo cultists loose them GPS signals, what will probably happen as pointed out by other posters is we end up with full flight charging - every flight, all flights. The Chaser and OZBUSDRIVER have helpfully pointed out just how safe it is for every pilot to see really flight critical 'traffic' out to 500 miles, or 4 hours, so how can we object..:hmm:

The other thing that will blossom under the ADS-B system, while we got it, is them civvy UAV operators. UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) will more then likely need ADS-B to be able to operate. With the help of ADS-B ah guess civvy UAVs will displace many of the helicopter and fixed wing operators that are currently doing observation work - probably will be hundreds of the things flying around big city's... IMO, a great lark if yer can get it - current aircraft owners pay for the establishment of ADS-B and the UAV operator's just walk in and take the business for free..:hmm:


...anyway, nuff for now..:)




.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Show me where it is printed the US Government will turn off the entire network Binghi....and I will believe you....All I have seen is assesment of risk...vanishingly small, maybe?

The Japs have MTSAT to enhance their GNSS signal from the network...not replace it...it is an interoperable WAAS satellite...They want Australia to play as well. that would mean Australian government expenditure and with such a broad user base...it is impossible to make one user group pay for the entire network...otherwise we would have the same precision approaches as the yanks to any aerodrome you want to write a procedure for...even somewhere like Benalla or Lockhart River.

The Russians with GLONASS, The europeans with Galilao, The Chinese with Beidou are yet to launch any workable network. The Indians and the Japanese have launched geosynchronous WAAS satellites...enhancing the GNSS, not replace it.

You cannot fear what your own government does to you, Binghi...if you do not like what they do...lobby and, ultimately, vote for a change...we are a democracy, after all.

As for civvie UAV...because they do not have an eyeball in a cockpit they do need an active means of seeing aircraft around them...Sorry, but I still haven't seen a TCAS that small to fit in such a small airframe...ADS-B enables the technology...you see the hinderance I see the possibilities of UAV to go where it is too risky to send a human or too long or too mundane...and...they still have to pay for the enabling equipment the same as an aeroplane owner so they do not get something for free.

Half full or half empty...your choice Binghi.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AS much as I love linking to Wiki-

Other Uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_applications#Other_uses)

There are plenty of applications that can be used as a tolling method...and a very accurate one at that! A few years ago the NSW government wanted to make every heavy vehicle owner pay for a GPS receiver/logger so the government could charge a toll for the use of the Pacific Hwy..also as a check to ensure the vehicle only used designated roads. the NSW police still have the intent of desiring a logger that will be admissible evidence in a court to be able to detect and prosecute speeding and driving hours enfringments without intercepting a single vehicle. All capable because of GPS.

Free kick for you, Binghi...read my first post on this thread...information...make up your own mind.

And....still number three or at least first page of a google search for ADS-B or 1090ES:ok: bet the boys in blighty are happy about that:ok:

[Tidbinbilla]

The thread topic is ADSB. I have moderated 47 posts in order to bring it back on track.

Other similar threads became heated and personal, and have hence been either closed or deleted.

The moderators will be watching this thread (and the antagonists) closely. Any repeats of poor behaviour will not be tolerated, and will result in individuals being dealt with firmly and decisively.

TID.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AVwebFlash Complete Issue (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1830-full.html)...

sorry guys....doing this from my phone...general gist.....new 4G Phone network will be operating on the adjacent frequecy range...may be enough to cause serious interferance within 5nm of a transmitter.....40,000 of them:uhoh:

EDIT- thanks mods for fixing link...understandably, this is in the US...however, it may well end up here.

[CaptainMidnight]

The GPS jamming is happening here. 18 hours per day continuously (supposedly) for a month. The area covers a few aerodromes in the area to the east (AMK etc) and affects routes over and in the vicinity of WR. And there is an ADS-B site there. C0717/11
GPS RECEPTION MAY BE UNRELIABLE WI 80KM OF S31 00 E136 36 (APRX 15NM NW WOOMERA)
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
PRIMARY CTC 0408 402 241 SECONDARY CTC 08 8674 3370
SFC TO UNL
FROM 02 091930 TO 03 111330 EST
DAILY 1930/1330

[The Chaser]

This is US stuff, but just in case the frail and infirm think it might migrate to OZ:-

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/lightsquared-order-fcc-10991
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) also has filed a letter expressing concern about the potential for adverse impact on GPS and other Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers, as well as maritime and aeronautical emergency communication systems, and Inmarsat receivers used by Federal agencies. We emphasize that the waiver is predicated on the specific combination of facts and circumstances before us. As such, and consistent with the comments of Iridium and AT&T, we limit the scope of this conditional waiver to LightSquared in its use of MSS L-band spectrum. V. GPS AND OTHER INTERFERENCE CONCERNS

A. GPS-Related Interference Concerns

39. Several commenters raise concerns about potential interference to GPS receivers and other devices that may result from operation of LightSquared’s base stations, while LightSquared asserts that it continues to meet its obligations with regard to addressing interference concerns. NTIA also expresses concern that LightSquared’s services could adversely impact GPS and other GNSS receivers, and asks that the Commission address these inference issues before interference occurs. We emphasize that any potential interference to GPS is a significant concern, and note that the Spectrum Task Force at the Commission recently established an internal technical working group dedicated to examining this issue.

40. The U.S. GPS Industry Council proposes that NTIA, working with industry and government technical experts, examine the potential for interference within a reasonable time frame, not to exceed 90 days. In its letter, NTIA states that, if the Commission grants LightSquared’s request, the Commission should establish a process that will ensure the interference issues are resolved prior to LightSquared’s offering service that could cause interference, and that will motivate all parties to move expeditiously and in good faith to resolve the issues.139 NTIA further states that it stands ready to work with the Commission, LightSquared, and affected parties and concerned Federal agencies to address these interference concerns. More recently, LightSquared states that it takes the concerns raised by the GPS community about possible overload of GPS devices by LightSquared’s base stations very seriously, and that it is appropriate for interested parties to devote resources to a solution as soon as possible LightSquared professes confidence that the issues can be resolved without delaying deployment of its network. At the same time, in order to address the concerns raised, LightSquared states that it would accept, as a condition of the grant of its request, the creation of a process to address interference concerns regarding GPS and, further, that this process must be completed to the Commission’s satisfaction before LightSquared commences offering commercial service, pursuant to the approval of its request, on its LBand MSS frequencies. Further, LightSquared commits to working diligently and cooperatively with the Commission, NTIA and the Federal agencies, and the GPS community to help resolve the interference issues through a rigorous process that can address these issues in a comprehensive manner. 42. As an additional condition of granting this waiver, we require LightSquared to help organize and fully participate in the working group described above. The working group shall focus on analyzing a variety of types of GPS devices for their susceptibility to overload interference from LightSquared’s terrestrial network of base stations, identifying near-term technical and operational measures that can be implemented to reduce the risk of overload interference to GPS devices, and providing recommendations on steps that can be taken going forward to permit broadband wireless services to be provided in the LBand MSS frequencies and coexist with GPS devices. 43. Further, we require that LightSquared submit an initial report to the FCC and NTIA by February 25, 2011, that includes a work plan outlining key milestones for the overall analyses. In addition, LightSquared must submit progress reports on the 15th day of each succeeding month or first business day thereafter. The first of these reports must at a minimum include base station transmitter characteristics, categories of GPS devices and their representative performance characteristics, and test plans and procedures. LightSquared is further required to submit a final report no later than June 15, 2011, that includes the working group’s analyses of the potential for overload interference to GPS devices from LightSquared’s terrestrial network of base stations, technical and operational steps to avoid such interference, and specific recommendations going forward to mitigate potential interference to GPS devices. The Bureau reserves the right to adjust the reporting dates and requirements in consultation with NTIA. The process will be complete once the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete.We’ll all be roooned ….. NOT!!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Googling info..IT side think GPS issue is minor...Aviation/DoD/ side think there are major issues with freq band being so close...not just those 40000 land sites but two satellites covering all of the US by 2015.

Funnily enough, both sides think the FCC is their friend.

EDIT to add. lightsquared are/have been accumulating bandwidth for the last eight years...this last bit is AFTER they have flown their birds into space and now they want to get a licence from the FCC?

[T28D]

Aquote from the EAA Magazine

The important thing to know is that LPV guidance in your instrument panel behaves just like an ILS signal. Other RNAV or GPS approaches present linear guidance, meaning one dot of deviation equals the same distance off the centerline no matter how far you are from the runway or waypoint. The LPV, like an ILS, shows angular deviation, so any tracking error shown on your instruments narrows as you near the runway. Like an ILS, when you get to the runway threshold, a dot of deviation off centerline equals only a few feet of actual distance from the center.
If it were up to me, I’d use linear deviation guidance for all approaches because I think that method is easier to fly. The “sensitivity” of the linear display stays the same all the way to the runway, while the LPV, like the ILS with angular deviation, “cones in” the closer you get to the decision point. But the FAA people who created the LPV specs wanted LPV to behave exactly like an ILS, so we pilots don’t need to learn anything new. Old dogs, new tricks – that sort of thing.
In spite of having angular deviation, I have found the LPV easier to fly than an ILS because the GPS-derived LPV guidance is rock steady. You don’t realize how much a typical ILS signal is wandering around until you fly with LPV on one display and raw data ILS on the other. Because it is an analog signal, and its radio beams are susceptible to all sorts of reflection and distortion, the ILS guidance can never be as steady as the LPV, which comes from a new GPS position and velocity calculation being made several times each second.
All of this has taken on new significance to me given the several potential GPS interference sources that are in the news. If I lose GPS guidance en route, it is important because that is my primary source, but there is a lot of time and several navigation alternatives to fall back on. If nothing else, the controller’s radar can provide guidance en route to get you where you are going. But if GPS signals are interfered with while you are flying a few hundred feet above the ground on an instrument approach in the clouds, snow, or murk, that is a different and much more critical matter.
A potential wide-scale GPS interference source is a new 4G broadband Internet network called LightSquared that has been given preliminary approval by the FCC. LightSquared’s proposed thousands of transmitters would operate on frequencies closely adjacent to the GPS frequencies. The GPS industry is very concerned that the comparatively powerful transmitters of the network will cause widespread interference and loss of navigation for airplanes flying within miles of the transmitters. Garmin is among those expressing concern to the FCC about the new network. The FAA is also onboard in seeking to prevent possible GPS interference.
But there is also potential GPS navigation interference already out there from some unknown number of GPS jammers that are sold mostly over the Internet. These devices are designed to temporarily disable a GPS device that may be in your car or truck and is transmitting your movements to others. If you don’t want your spouse to know where you are, or don’t want the boss to know how fast you’re driving (or not driving), these jammers can block reception of GPS signals by a receiver in your vehicle.
Using a GPS device to record, then transmit, the location and movement of a vehicle has become very common. For example, trucking companies want to know where their trucks are located and how well they are progressing toward the destination, and a GPS device can automatically send that information. You can also imagine why people would be curious about the movement and location of others and could “plant” one of these small GPS devices in a car to report its activity. Let’s just say these devices create a privacy issue.
The jammers that can prevent GPS reception cost only a few hundred bucks. The jammers are in a legal gray area at best, but they are proliferating. The effective range of most jammers is advertised to be in the 10s of meters, with some I have seen claiming to disable a GPS and cell phone out to 40 meters. That’s no issue for airplanes at cruise altitude, but what about nearing the decision point of only 300 or so feet above the runway on an LPV approach? The jammer would have to disrupt the signal for only a couple seconds to create a problem at the end of a GPS approach.
All of us should be concerned about the possible interference of new networks such as LightSquared. But those transmitters are regulated. If public pressure is kept on the FCC, as I know it will be, testing and modification if necessary can protect GPS operation interference from legal and authorized broadcasts.
That is not true for the many small portable devices designed specifically to interrupt GPS reception. That is a cat and mouse game in which those who want the information GPS can provide will continually search for ways to defeat the jammers. Those who want privacy from GPS reporting on their activities will pay more and more for powerful devices that provide privacy. It’s a GPS issue not envisioned when the system was designed by the Air Force for military navigation and weapons guidance beginning about 40 years ago.
Newly designed GPS satellites will contain advanced technology to help prevent jamming, but those satellites will take years to deploy. And the people designing the jammers won’t stand still in their search to find more effective ways to block GPS reception.

[The Chaser]

That is interesting, and a tad worrying :bored:

According to the article, the effective range of these personal jammers is 10's of metres, out to 40 metres!?!? One would assume then they are jamming other nearby automotive and other units as well as the unit being intentionally jammed.

The LoS protections on IFR aviation GNSS systems is one thing, but at the end of an IFR approach in the soup :eek:

The FCC and FAA must have/are doing something about it?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The FCC gives Lightsquared an extention for their final submission on the effects of their proposed 40,000 ground stations on the GNSS.

LightSquared Update (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/fcc_lightsquared_test_report_delay_extension_gps_204827-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS)

June 16, 2011

LightSquared Update
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor

Recent tests have shown that LightSquared's proposed grid of 40,000 wireless network ground stations could interfere with GPS signals, and now the FCC has granted LightSquared a two week extension to file a report on its position. LightSquared's report was originally due Wednesday, the same day the FCC granted the extension. LightSquared spokesman Jim Carlisle said Tuesday that the company underestimated the number of tests that would be necessary to show the network should be allowed. In a letter to the FCC, Carlisle wrote that additional testing "was necessary to permit a proper evaluation of various mitigation options for addressing the GPS receiver overload issue." And that producing a report is really hard.



"Producing a final report is a massive undertaking," Carlisle wrote, citing the multitude of factors involved in the process. The FCC responded by granting the company a new deadline of July 1. In response to the FCC's decision, co-founder of the Coalition to Save our GPS and vice president of Trimble, Jim Kirkland, described his understanding of the process, so far, saying, it's "been a combination of really really bad ideas and slightly less bad ideas." According to Kirkland, too much of the burden of proof has been placed on the companies that could be most affected by LightSquared's network. Said Kirkland, "the FCC should let the private industry return to work and stop squandering resources to solve an unsolvable problem."
]

[HardCorePawn]

Concerned that Big Brother might be watching?? How about anyone with an internet connection... :suspect:

FlightTracker - Flight tracker for aircraft transmitting ADS-B (http://www.flighttracker.gleff.com/)
planefinder.net - Real Time Live Air Traffic Flight Radar (http://planefinder.net/)
Flightradar24.com - Live Flight Tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/)
RadarVirtuel.com (http://www.radarvirtuel.com/)

Granted, the coverage is limited to areas where someone has connected up a USB ADS-B receiver (http://www.airnavsystems.com/RadarBox/index.html) to their PC, but as the more major of those links show, the coverage is already fairly significant...

As a sidebar, interesting that the planefinder one has added Volcanic Ash Cloud monitoring as well :8

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ADS-B AC 20-165 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf)

ADS-B GPS source Gap (http://www.accord-technology.com/pdfs/ADAB_GPS_source_GAP.pdf)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It is very hard to get a link to this work. This study is from ADFA and precis the threat annalysis of ADS-B using TOWS.

Generally, looks at all threats, opportunities weaknesses and strengths TOWS
of ADS-B as a system.

Access to the study is through quickview...so, I hope I am not standing on toes linking this site. Appols in advance:-)

Identification of ADS-B System Vulnerabilities and Threats (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:r0PtGbRPF_8J:www.patrec.org/web_docs/atrf/papers/2010/1916_222%2520-%2520Purton%2520Abbass%2520Alam.pdf+purton+abbass+alam&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShf_SiN1nBq-2kAuYxtgZXTdne97T_7WkQC1LHZ-SiqKxCDVo0UP3snlVFi6M7J0NtnWTYby0G8omwtQZiXWAPgHg39Q9OkiSbOB bCDzCWwbZoEBsArXbOz92yjMfyg7vipGySF&sig=AHIEtbTn8ADTVDNoU7hHarjvTM8DltioBQ)

Sameer Alam (http://seit.unsw.adfa.edu.au/staff/sites/s3147403/), chief investigator for AirServices wrt ATM systems.
Prof. Hussein Aly Abbass (http://www.seit.adfa.edu.au/staff/sites/abbass/)

[baswell]

Easy PDF link to the above document:

http://bas.scheffers.net/documents/Identification%20of%20ADS-B%20System%20Vulnerabilities%20and%20Threats.pdf

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks Bas.:ok::ok::ok:

[baswell]

New Advisory Circular 21-45:

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/021/download/draftac21-45-1.pdf

The money quote:
8.4.3 Particular navigation packages that do not have a TSOA, but can be demonstrated to achieve the accuracy and integrity values required, may be acceptable to CASA.

So design something to c145 spec, but don't go through the full certification process and still get accepted? (In the same way VHF radios do not need to be TSO, just approved?)

That would be awesome for affordable ADS-B out for VFR aircraft.

[KittyKatKaper]

It would be awesome, if 8.4.3 said "would or will, instead of "may be acceptable" :(

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... some interesting reading ahead..:)


via the OZBUSDRIVER links to the chief investigator for AirServices wrt ATM systems...


"...Mapping Lessons from Ants to Free Flight: An Ant-based Weather Avoidance Algorithm..."

...Oh oh, maybe not so interesting. Could be some aviation destroying 'global warming' muppetry going on...

"...Estimation of Aviation Emission for Free Flight..."

"...Baseline Aviation Emission Inventory for the Australian National Airspace..."

...:hmm:







.