ADSB costs.

[Frank Arouet]

From AVWEB;

FAA'S ADS-B RULE WILL COST YOU (mhtml:{8F76497F-F4A6-4DD5-93DC-7C0933EEC8C0}mid://00000038/!x-usc:http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/faa_adsb_final_rule_cost_benefit_general_aviation_pilot_2026 33-1.html)
The FAA Thursday released a final rule dictating requirements for aircraft owners to operate in NextGen's ADS-B-required environment by 2020, and it's going to cost you. The rule addresses ADS-B Out. The FAA has previously (in the NPRM) estimated that the total cost to equip GA aircraft from 2012 to 2035 could range anywhere from $1.2 to $4.5 billion. It now estimates the quantified benefit to the GA fleet at $200 million. Those figures appear under a section titled, "General Aviation: High Equipage Costs With Little Benefit." According to the agency, "The FAA fully acknowledges that the general aviation community will incur significant costs from this rule." However, the FAA says this must be balanced against the system's overall benefits, which are expected to include hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel saved and the realization of other operational efficiencies. The FAA says it considered three options to resolve GA's cost benefit concerns.
First, to lower costs for individual operators (general aviation pilots), the FAA has modified the systems' performance requirements and determined changes that eliminate the need for ADS-B antenna diversity. The FAA believes this will help make the rule cheaper to implement. Second, moving forward, the FAA "intends to explore the costs and benefits" for service expansions that may include: more low altitude coverage; radar-like terminal ATC services at airports not currently served; automated closure of IFR flight plans; enhanced search and rescue; and providing FSS with ADS-B positional display information to allow for more tailored flight service functions. The third option considered was to limit ADS-B requirements to Class A and B airspace. This was dismissed because the FAA believes failure to equip all aircraft would greatly reduce the system's benefits.

[Frank Arouet]

Challenges abound with FAA's ADSB 'OUT' mandate.

The FAA on May 27 published its final rule (http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-12645_PI.pdf) mandating what owners will be required to have on board their aircraft in order to operate in the new satellite-based air traffic control system known as NextGen. By 2020, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out (ADS-B Out) will be required equipment in all airspace that currently requires a transponder. According to AOPA, the ADS-B Out equipment that the rule requires will cost the individual general aviation aircraft owner thousands of dollars but only duplicates what already exists with today’s radio transponder. The association is conducting a detailed analysis of the rule to further understand its impact on GA.
“Since the 1990s, AOPA has worked with the FAA on the development of space-based navigation,” said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA senior vice president of government affairs. “The industry has always maintained that the migration to the new system must be benefits-driven. But the only real beneficiary of this new ADS-B Out mandate is the FAA.”

The new system will let ATC see each aircraft’s GPS-derived position on controllers’ screens, a function currently fulfilled by radio transponders. So ADS-B Out should be a replacement for transponders, but instead the FAA is requiring ADS-B Out and transponders, meaning pilots will have to pay for and maintain two systems in order to help ATC perform its primary function: safe separation of aircraft. The final rule does indicate that the FAA may, at some future date, consider whether transponders could eventually be removed.
Over the past two decades, GA aircraft owners have embraced satellite-based navigation and have collectively spent millions of dollars upgrading their systems. Eighty percent of the GA fleet is equipped with GPS units. Twenty percent has GPS Wide Area Augmentation System-enabled equipment, allowing them to take advantage of extremely precise satellite-based instrument approach procedures during inclement weather. And aircraft owners have upgraded without mandate because they recognized the inherent advantages satellite navigation has over traditional radio navigation.“We are encouraged that the FAA has rejected the unrealistic five-year implementation plan that some have called for in favor of a 10-year timeframe,” said Rudinger. “That gives the FAA and industry a decade to work together to find low-cost solutions, such as permitting portable options to display available traffic and weather data information.”
AOPA remains committed to the transition to satellite-based navigation, but maintains that the transition must be benefits-driven—resulting in improvements in safety, efficiency, and increased access.
For more information about ADS-B, see the FAA fact sheet (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=7131).

[peuce]

...“The industry has always maintained that the migration to the new system must be benefits-driven. But the only real beneficiary of this new ADS-B Out mandate is the FAA.”

Yes, the FAA is the "direct" beneficiary... but the Industry is the "indirect" beneficiary.

Do you think that the FAA is rubbing it's hands together because it will now be able to sit, with a beer in its hand, watching lots of dots on the screen?

The fact that those dots are there will mean that they will be able (required) to provide a safer and more efficient service... which means that pilots are more likely to get home safer, that MACS are less likely, that punters will see the skies as safer, that more punters will fly. That is the BENEFIT.

[Jabawocky]

The benefits are clearly there.....we just missed the boat again.

Dick would argue why should we lead the world :ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

By 2020, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out (ADS-B Out) will be required equipment in all airspace that currently requires a transponder.
You still be around then, Frank?

[Frank Arouet]

Bloggs;

If those determined to rid the skies of GA get their way, no I probably won't, and you 'Regional's' will have the lower airspace all to yourselves.

Future ATCO's will probably work from Call Centres in Mumbai directing traffic at Oodnaddatta in 2020, and Regional pilots will come direct from internet game arcades in Villawood Detention Centre.

John McCormick is even quoted as saying recently there is a paid lobby group working to an agenda to get rid of General Aviation. One wonders who they might be and who is paying them?

ADS-B Out should be a replacement for transponders, but instead the FAA is requiring ADS-B Out and transponders, meaning pilots will have to pay for and maintain two systems in order to help ATC perform its primary function: safe separation of aircraft.

Why?

It would seem ADSB IN/OUT is not going to replace TCAS?

Some noisy proponents here have been drinking their bathwater. But then again some don't even own an aeroplane so they have no idea of costs.

[Jabawocky]

J MAc allegedy said that in Brisbane......I wish I was able to attend but at the time was elsewhere.

Bugger...would have made for a lively discussion.

Mind you he was not suggesting he thought it was good thing and in fact I think the opposite. But what does he know?

Or is he saying that just to gain some leverage somewhere? :suspect:

Me thinks the latter.....

J:ok:

[VH-XXX]

My concern about the whole thing is that if someone is flying with ADSB off or not present there will be no "paint" on radar thus someone could have a midair with IFR as nobody would know they are there.

[Pera]

meaning pilots will have to pay for and maintain two systems in order to help ATC perform its primary function: safe separation of aircraft

Actually ADSB helps ATC with it's secondary function of expedition. It's not required to separate.


a midair with IFR as nobody would know they are there.

ATC always knows where IFR aircraft are either by surveillance or position report.

[bushy]

If ADS-B is not required to separate, why should it be mandated?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahhhh Francis...where do I start?

Nothing new there, my friend....In fact! I can say I told you so! UAT was going to cost the US GA drivers plenty for what they will get. The FAA may well be putting in the ground stations that work on the dual system...however, a TCAS will not see UAT only( Hence, the need to maintain fitment of a transponder). AND even blind Freddy would tell you that the FAA will never stump up to fit UAT(GA only) in GA aircraft. I feel it somewhat ironic, UAT was designed because "Airline Only" mode S was perceived to be too expensive to use in GA...and now? Mode S is becoming ubiquitous and affordable and UAT is fast looking like a dinosaur dead end US only technology..(..payback for choosing their own DME instead of ours:}:ok:)

Thank heavens our guys did not jump on the UAT bandwagon.

This scenario DOES NOT APPLY TO AUSTRALIA! A compliant Mode A,C,S 1090ES ADS-B Tx Transponder costs **** all compared to what the yanks will cost.

Panic not, my back door philosopher...there will be plenty of runes to scratch over after fitting out your little RAA bugsmasher so you can still fly in "Big Boy" airspace.

[Jabawocky]

My concern about the whole thing is that if someone is flying with ADSB off or not present there will be no "paint" on radar thus someone could have a midair with IFR as nobody would know they are there.

You are slightly confused Mr XXX

Only the majors have PRIMARY radar, and maybe the odd other one, so outside the terminal area you are invisible with your transponder off. :suspect:

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

so you can still fly in "Big Boy" airspace.

You just don't get it do you?

"Big Boy airspace" costs me money were I to fly there. I don't want to fly there, so I see no reason to be burdened with the costs of an ATC tool for separation just because a couple of PPL know it all knob twiddlers who hire other people's capital investments to fly in "Big Boy airspace, think it would be jolly good if this gadgetry was mandated for everyone, everywhere and any time. UAT, valve wireless, or whatever.

And yes, I did geography at school.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, has it ever occured to you that there is far more to the story and far less sinister twists than you care to omit from your posts.

I do love fly fishing...Gotcha!

[VH-XXX]

You are slightly confused Mr XXX

Unlikely!

It's the primary ones that I'm most worried about!

[Frank Arouet]

Good grief. I haven't had one of them since I busted a night noise curfew at Bankstown in a 210. It was just after the new tower opened from memory because I was told to report to the Fire Station and ring for the good news. Memories.;)

[ARFOR]

XXX

- The Primaries [capital city airports] will have PPRIMARY radar [not TXPDR dependent, energy skin return] so ATC will see raw targets. They will also have Mode S and MLat-ADS-B [for PRM and Ground surveillance] for TXPDR returns.
- Outside of the Capitals it will be MSSR or ADS-B or WAMLat which are all dependent on a TXPDR [A/C and/or ES] output to be seen by ATC and ACAS, the later also where ATC surveillance does not exist.

Mr Arouet

ADS-B IN was never designed to be a replacement for ACAS, as it does not provide RA's. ACAS on the other hand is greatly enhanced when it can [change 7 and later] receive the additional information such ES data [position, azimuth, trajectory, etc]

Ironic isn't it that GA in the US will now pay twice for the folly of their unique ADS-B variant.

LeadSled [a.k.a Mr UAT] is very quiet :p

[rutan around]

Jabawocky

Quote "Dick would argue why should we lead the world"

If Dick does argue this way, I totally agree, why should we? With an area similar to ours and 240,000+ registered aircraft the US is only now beginning to think it needs ADSB. In Oz we have 12,000 or so registered aircraft, one for every 20 of theirs. We should defer any decision till we have at least 200,000 registered aircraft, OR the price comes down to hand-held GPS levels.

Cheers, RA

[OZBUSDRIVER]

As much as e would like to see 200,000 registered aeroplanes flying around Australia....the next hope is for the dropping in price point to continue. For me, I do not see the price point being any lower than a typical mode A/C transponder...the device ADS-B will eventually replace. In this case, there are already mode A/C/S/1090ES transponders available for the same price as a KT76

[Frank Arouet]

And how does this relate to UAT?

(BTW, what system do us Australians use in those FL's where ADSB is mandatory)?

And what is the price of a new KT76 transponder that would give a non aeroplane owner pilot any idea of what is expensive and what is cheap?

Just interested as an innocent bystander, non expert player.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Google it, Francis:}

[Frank Arouet]

May 27, 2010
ADS-B Rule: Big Bucks, Paltry Benefit [/URL]

By [URL="http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.author.contact.view?client_id=avweb_blog&story_id=202636&title=ADS%2DB%20Rule%3A%20Big%20Bucks%2C%20Paltry%20Benefit&author=Jeff%20Van%20West&address=http%3A//www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog%5FADSB%5FRule%5FDisappointment%5F202636%2D1 .html&summary=The%20FAA%27s%20new%20rule%20on%20ADS%2DB%20hamstrin gs%20what%20little%20benefit%20there%20might%20have%20been%2 0for%20GA.%20You%27ll%20have%20to%20buy%20what%27s%20really% 20an%20expensive%20new%20transponder%2C%20and%2C%20oh%2C%20y ou%27ll%20have%20to%20keep%20your%20current%20transponder%2C %20too."]Jeff Van West (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_ADSB_Rule_Disappointment_202636-1.html?type=pf)


http://www.avweb.com/images/clearpixel.gif

The subhead on page 110 of 149 says it all: "General Aviation: High Equipage Costs With Little Benefit (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA_FinalRule_ADSB_TextExcerpt_202632-1.html)." The FAA has made the rule on ADS-B out official. I don't know what I was hoping for, but somehow I'm still disappointed.
I'm not against the equipage to ADS-B. I'll even agree with the FAA who said, "The FAA fully acknowledges that the general aviation community will incur significant costs from this rule. However, this must be balanced against the foundation this capability provides in moving toward the NextGen infrastructure and benefits from its overall usage." Fine. We rarely fly into the major airports and airspace where the ADS-B benefit will be greatest, but we fly near enough that we have to be in the picture.
But what little relief or gain we could have hoped for seems to have been dropped. Free weather and traffic information? Not so fast. First off, the FAA has only defined ADS-B out requirements. This is how ATC sees you. They have yet to officially define the ADS-in, so manufactures have little motivation to really invest in complete solutions just yet.
But the rule does have some sway on those solutions. There are two parallel ADS-B systems, the UAT solution and the 1090ES solution. Only the UAT provides traffic and weather; the 1090ES just does traffic. But the new rule requires everyone above 18,000 feet use the 1090ES system. That's not just jets. Got a turbo Cirrus SR22? You must use 1090ES. This makes developing cheaper UAT systems (weather + traffic) for GA even less likely. The FAA noted that aircraft could equip with both systems of course. For an extra $10K? I think not. Look for stand-alone systems for ADS-B weather that try and compete with satellite weather receivers but have no impact on your ADS-B compliance.
But ADS-B compliance could at least replace your transponder, right? No, you'll have to have both. The time-honored transponder is part of the backup strategy should the new system break down.
In fact, if you want a simple way to think about how this is going to look from the GA perspective, think about it as getting a second, really-expensive transponder. Because, from a GA perspective, that's what this is. Minimum compliance will be what this rule has defined: ADS-B out. That means ATC can see you (like a transponder) but with greater accuracy. Pay more and you can get ADS-B in with traffic data. Sort of like a transponder that gives you TIS-B traffic today, but (presumably) of greater accuracy and without false alarms from your own radar shadow.
How much will this cost? That's still not completely clear because there will be some cost dropping with competition, but it'll be slower to evolve with the ADS-B in rule still incomplete. It won't be less than several thousand dollars though, unless you already have some equipment that can be upgraded or used.
This makes me envision an understandable procrastination resulting in a last-minute rush to install systems starting in, say, late 2018, a year before the Jan. 1, 2020 deadline. I'll bet now that anyone trying to buy the hardware or find a shop to install it about then will be on a long waiting list.
There's another storm on the horizon. I'm no radio-frequency expert, but I've asked several folks who are about the issue of frequency congestion on the 1090 Mhz spectrum. It's used by ADS-B, transponders, active traffic systems, TCAS and FAA radar. The answers have ranged from "it won't be a problem" to descriptions including words like "meltdown" and "catastrophe."
The rulemaking says this about it: "The FAA conducted a study to assess 1090 MHz frequency congestion in the future air traffic environment. The FAA is analyzing alternatives and will enact the necessary mitigations to reduce the 1090 MHz frequency congestion risk for ADS–B, TCAS, and SSR, while enabling ranges appropriate for many ADS–B In applications through 2035."
Right. Somehow I don't find that reassuring, especially if there's a rush to comply at the eleventh hour and GA's frequency usage skyrockets. Maybe the FAA is just hoping not that many of us will still be flying by then.
As I said earlier, I don't know what I was hoping for, but I know I'm disappointed.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis! And your view on this is......:E

And the cost of UAT is.............................:E

And the comparison to the Australian system is...........:E

And my answer is.............................I told you so:E

[Joker 10]

It is still bl##dy hard to see the benefit for VFR in G , somehow I just cannot see a croppy or mustering operation getting any benefit from ADSB.

Maybe the alient benefit might be we don't have to fill out the rubbish forms annually for BTRE.

But otherwise why would a Glider Tug need ADSB ?? or a meat bomb drop A/C, maybe a vintage experimental Cat Auster or a L19.

It is still a mystery as to the benefit to a station owned C172 or C182 that is used to facilitate local intra farm commutes.

Ah but it would be good for Air Services to levy charges against us all, bring on the ADSB "taxi meter" I say, jolly good idea.

[Joker 10]

Well good for you, I am sure the owner of the "high Performance" turbine aircraft will look after you, what ever that means in a brave new ADSB world, I hope Air Services are good to the owner with "soft" charges as you no doubt Waltz around the Tasmanian airspace,

[OZBUSDRIVER]

joker10, obviously you and the backwoods philosopher have knocked heads together and arrived with the oldest argument in the book...The toll booth.

As I tried to draw to the attention of Francis on the other thread...all this is at the grace of a future government...there are no rights that protect you from being charged for a service rendered.

However, what service does a VFR receive in G? By having an ADS-B Tx does not constitute RECEIVING a service. A VFR provides a service by having that device fitted........food for thought? Think of it this way...the surveillance radar is actually mounted in the VFR and not on the ground. The development of the transponder allowed SSR to take over from the bird killer defence type radar...now the SSR becomes a simple aerial...all the calculating occurs inside the aircraft ADS-B unit....at the cost of the owner of the unit....are you keeping up, Joker10? All of the capability lies with the owner of the unit. Do you think the government would attempt to charge you for your service? As good an argument as your toll booth!:E

[LeadSled]

UAT was designed because "Airline Only" mode S was perceived to be too expensive to use in GAOwen,

My dear fellow, once again you are talking absolute cotton pickin' rubbish, with no knowledge of the history. You never let the facts get in the way of your prejudices, do you??

ICAO instituted a design competition for a multi- access broadband transceiver, for which ADS-B was only one use. The future need was obvious, even to Blind Freddy. Late '70s or early 80's, as I recall, were you still in nappies?

The two "winners" were UAT and VDL-4. The patents for UAT (CDMA) are held by Qualcomm in US, for VDL ( TDMA) by Ericsson ---- another trans Atlantic compromise.

With the US traffic levels, 1090ES was originally regarded as non-starter, see the analysis resulting from Mitre Corp. research. (If 1090ES is confined to the relatively small number of "airline" aircraft, or high level operations, the Mitre Corp forecast saturation will not occur, hence the need to maintain the dual system, in the US)

Then came a combination of severe financial hard times in the airline industry in general, and in US and Europe in particular, PLUS, two major US avionics manufacturers of transponders, who did not have access to either of the broadband patents on terms that they considered acceptable.

Said big two, plus one European, persuaded the airlines that they could produce a "cheap and quick" ADS-B solution with 1090ES ---- and away went the lobbying by ATA, IATA, EATA, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all ---- and the rest, as they say, is history.

Unfortunately, what was to be cheap and quick has turned out to be neither. ( See the FAA NPRM for conversion cost figures, the experience of Qantaslink in updating Dash 8s has confirmed the upper end of the FAA cost range.)

Surprise!! Surprise!!, my (and their) current production model Collins TDR94D mode S transponders cannot be upgraded to the -800 model numbers, must buy the new boxes. Nor could the QFlink Universal FMCs, all new was the order of the day, hence the high cost of the cheap solution.

The cost of upgrading any glass cockpit that was not a factory fitted OEM is even more expensive than the Dash's have been. Look up the QF numbers for the Dash 's, they are on the Airservices web sit, last time I looked, in a presentation to an ASTRA meeting.

The delicious irony of it all, is that all the North American/European traffic that is going to fit 1090ES are now going to have to fit (in a shorter time scale than 2020) a broadband (probably VDL-4) anyway ----- because FAA/Eurocontrol et al have decided that VHF frequency saturation means that all routine ATC communication will be going to datalinks.

I suppose you do know that the ADS-B ground stations Airservices is using could be dual mode 1090ES/UAT, do you??

And Australian aircraft with a Mode C transponder could fit a complete Garmin UAT solution for a much cheaper price, including a much cheaper installation, than converting to the only compliant GA 1090ES solution available so far ------ and Australia is such a small market that there will be no "economies of scale" of any significance with GA 1090ES ----- and there would be no difference, as far as ACAS/TCAS availability is concerned.

So, the "cheap and easy" quick fix is turning out to be really expensive ---- including for poor bloody GA in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

PS:
(1)You do know about the (relatively) new SITA/ARINC comms. network, do you? The one that replaces ACARS. Last time I noticed, the SITA installation in Australia was coming along well, probably finished by now ----- and guess what, it's broadband.

(2) You can read the whole sorry story, with much more detail, plus all the necessary references, in several submissions to the JCP.

(3) Both UAT (Alaska) and VDL-4 ( Scandinavia and the Med.) trials were up and running years before 1090ES. The first day to day use of ADS-B/C for ATC was in Scandinavia (VDL-4), not, as often claimed, in Australia.

[Flying Binghi]

.


How much longer will we non military user's have the use of GPS ?


Hizb'***** has been testing UAV's for six years now.... only a matter of time...:hmm:





.

[Joker 10]

Time to sit back and wait for the moaning a gnashing of teeth as the Air Services new enroute VFR charges regime is ushered in.

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

Re your last to me,

1) "I" told "you" so!
2) Google it.
3) Google it.
4) Told me what?:8

[bushy]

Much of GA that carries ADSB out will be providing a service to the airlines and Airservices, and should charge money for providing that service. (Cost recovery)

[peuce]

Bushy .... :D

User Pays...

[Joker 10]

I can just see the resident Grazier at say Armidale getting into his trusty C182 on his way to the neighbours spread to say OK on the ADSB charges I am in good shape !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really

[frigatebird]

quote:
"I fly a high performance, turbine jump aircraft and ADSB in/out would be a huge benefit http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif"

quote:
"The owner of the high performance jump plane is tech savvy, he's open to any technology that will improve safety, he's known for it http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif He had no need to install the Aspen PFD but he did, go figure?

He doesn't fit the usual mould of 'tight arse' GA aircraft owner, out of touch with reality. That is, buys an aircraft then can't afford to put fuel in it. "

Sounds like You're All Right Then Jack (Owen)

With contempt like that shown to others, no wonder GA is contracting.

Those of us who fly our own aircraft privately 100 hours a year, still get enormous satisfaction out of exercising the skills and enjoying the freedom to do so, without unnecessary extra costs being imposed by red tape 'experts'.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CAASD (http://www.caasd.org/work/project_details.cfm?item_id=108) has worked with data link technology for several years, and its work in related areas of aviation research is part of Capstone's legacy. Developed under internal research and development funds at MITRE beginning in 1995, the UAT was originally conceived as a simple, multifunction broadcast data link alternative for small aircraft. methinks radar derived TIS-B was the original idea.

two hard drive crashes has removed a lot of my archive.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

(1)You do know about the (relatively) new SITA/ARINC comms. network, do you? The one that replaces ACARS. Last time I noticed, the SITA installation in Australia was coming along well, probably finished by now ----- and guess what, it's broadband.


Yes I know, My brother is one of the engineers that designed the hardware for it all...Think it is still being rolled out.

[frigatebird]

"Well frigate bird, how you equip your plane is entirely up to you."

Thank you for saying the obvious.. Actually I intend to..
Would like a Garmin 430 for its IFR capability to replace the present GPS.

SO MANY Assumptions.. where to begin.. (actually you seem to be the one having the whinge) I'll just underline a few you made, and you can work back from that..


You lot swan around through CTAF's, not talking on radio's because it is your right, right? Everybody, including paying passengers should get out of your way right? You've paid your dues right?

If you did some research you would find that this technology wont cost much more than what you'd buy a transponder for. Here's a thought, how about some of you whingers do a business plan next time you purchase an aircraft regardless of whether it's for private or business use. Here's aonther thought, if it doesn't stack up, hire an aircraft instead.

(Have hired and flown others aircraft for the last 40 years, this one is my steed alone)

You fellows enjoyed the 'golden age' of aviation, cadetships that you didn't forkout a cent for, wages that reflected the effort and professionalism displayed by a pilot, superannuation schemes that kids of today could only dream of, how about you put something back into the industry. It's also your lot that have sold off all 'our' airports and destroyed GA as we knew it. Lobby your local member for better depreciation allowances on aircraft etc, do anything apart from whinge and moan and bleat about 'your' lot in life.

(our club, and another operator on the field, have only recently just got some satisfaction from Council on Leases in regards to keeping the aerodrome from being sold off for subdivision)

I suggest to you frigate bird that the contempt shown on this subject is from fundamentalist dinosaurs who will do ANYTHING to avoid the cost of keeping EVERYBODY safe. just SO LONG AS YOU'RE ALRIGHT JACK



Actually I fly for my own pleasure now that Operators and Presumptious Know-It-Alls and other Dictators like yourself, are pushing a wheelbarrow for their own sake.

Encouraged a University Physics Professor to develop a low cost receiver back in the '80's, when we had Omega, but it came to nothing when the Americans took off with their models of GPS for GA.
Drawing attention to lack of facilities in some places, didn't win me popularity when I had a responsibility then either, but if it hadn't been said at the time, no one else was prepared to.

Keep up the 'squeaky wheel', you'll get the grease, seems to be the motto these days. Bought a Betamax once, because it was believed to be better technology at the time. Waited for a while after the Macintosh came out, and never bought one. Had high hopes for Microwave Landing Systems in remote areas once, but we have GPS approaches now.
Still have my old WAC charts to get around with, ..if needed..

So are YOU alright Jack..?

[LeadSled]

No worries mate, no need to apologise, I can see how you got confused http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Owen,
My dear chap, you wouldn't be scratching any posts would you?? The post to which I replied is no longer on the thread, and it wasn't my imagination.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Owen,
I have no idea of the criteria of the moderators, but the post to which I replied ( and quoted from) didn't seem all that different to the usual ---- in other words, I can't imagine why it might have been "moderated".
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Crikey! Leadsled, leave Owen alone, ya big bully! So far I am the only one saying anything about 1090ES. This thread is about the US UAT system...you do remember argueing about this back in 04/05 don't you? You guys do remember arguing that 109ES was going to be too expensive, it would be an orphan system that no one else in the world will make as standard, there will be no equipment, there are better systems in UAT/VDL/FLARM, We should follow the US and push for UAT, no standard, no equipment , too expensive equipment, diversity, ( I like that one..FAA are looking at a single antenna to reduce the costs)...and "the spoof" (binghi bombs are an unimaginative waste of electrons because there is no furthering an argument that sounds like a scratched record stuck on one track)...and now some 6 years down the track...what has shown to be the true path? What has turned out to be the most expensive equipment...

Look around you, Sirs...there is moss growing on you!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And...Leadsled..a free kick for you...fruit! You do understand the term?

Europe and East Coast US will suffer from it some time in the future if there is not a rationalisation of spectrum...It is THE only problem I have ever found in researching for equipment using 1090ES...however, this is the reason why mode S is designed the way it is....to reduce the congestion if your unit is already identified..yet there will still be 2 squits a second from each ADS-B???

[LeadSled]

What has turned out to be the most expensive equipment...Oz,

Gee!! That's easy to answer, 1090ES is way the most expensive for just about any aircraft that doesn't come ex-factory fitted, compared to either VDL-4 or UAT.

For ground installations there is nothing in it, how easy it is for the FAA to have the dual system. Perversely, some of the US military and some airports are using VDL-4.

And there is increasing realization of what an expensive "cheap" decision the 1090ES decision turned out to be ----- again, see some of the detailed comments to the FAA NPRM. Sadly, the "decision" is too far down the line, so we never did get to the stage of a decision for VDL-4 versus UAT. It seems as if VDL has won the day for the (shortly) mandatory datalink.

All thanks to airline beancounters who wouldn't know a bit from a bite, unless it bit them on their broadbums. Rare as it is, "ICAO" was thinking years ahead.

The FAA ADS-B NPRM $$$ numbers were reasonable, unlike the nonsense published in the JCP and previous, and the AsA propaganda.

And to correct you, I have never supported and don't support FLARM as a system, nor is it an ICAO recognized system, and never will be. At ICAO, IAOPA supported VDL-4. I have no particular preference, bu technically I would certainly support UAT, because it is CDMA, with much greater potential capacity as a datalink than VDL.

For any aircraft that requires an ADS-B OUT ( in US) the GARMIN UAT is the cheapest I know, to buy and to install, and it's serial outputs from the GPS are available for whatever your imagination can dream up. The GARMIN 1090ES ADS-B solution is many times the price, including installation, than it's UAT.

As I an certain you already know, the UAT ( and VDL) receiver is useful for all sorts of other uplinks, weather, real time rebroadcast of Cb/TS from ground based radar etc., and, if you really want it, ADS-B IN.

None of which we will ever see in Australia -----
---- because there will never be a generally available broadband datalink for aviation as per FAA (as opposed to SITA/ARINC, even Jetstar doesn't like their costs), when, with a bit of forethought, there could have been.

Tootle pip!!

PS: If some recent forecasts are correct, it will be western Europe, including Eurocontrol, who will see the SSR Code saturation Mitre Corp/FAA showed as the major technical objection to 1090ES ADS-B ---- a problem that would never apply to either UAT or VDL.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Plumbum? Pull the other one!

1090ES is way the most expensive for just about any aircraft that doesn't come ex-factory fitted, compared to either VDL-4 or UAT

OK, a link please...total system including GPS navigator if you must...that will beat the fitted cost of a TSOd 1090ES TRIG TT31.

Pony up!

[LeadSled]

TSOd 1090ES TRIG TT31.

Oz,
Check the TSO's, this crowd would NOT confirm they had GPS source that was C-145/146, and there also seemed to be a question about the transponder certification. The antenna does not have diversity, so there will be blind spots, as far as other aircraft are concerned, and you want anything more than the aircraft/ATC datalink.

The basic model requires a GPS input, so you need a C-145/146 source --- have you included that in the price.

The basic GARMIN UAT unit is self-contained -----stand alone, or however you want to describe it ----- and would be a suitable GPS source !!!! Likewise, Freeflight Systems ( ne. Trimble) have a suitable C-145/WAAS GPS source that is mooted to team with the Microair Mode S transponder, but I have never had a firm price for the Freeflight 1201.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Plumbum, answer the question! Show me a price of your best shot!

Best I can find for you is a Garmin GDL90 and a GNS530W with ancilliary gear at US$18858 plus fitting. That gives you UAT in the US but you still gotta add a transponder to the mix.. GTX330 would be a better fit at another US$3649.00. Total cost for your unit sytem is then US$22507.00 plus fitting

And this only works within range of the ground transmitters and it carries a huge amount of lag for the TIS-B.

Do you really want me to put up a price for 1090ES Rx and MX subscription?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The irony of the GDL90....read the disclaimer on the bottom of the page...
Note: The FAA is expected to finalize requirements for ADS-B mandated compliance in mid May 2010. Until these regulations are published, it is unknown if the GDL 90 will meet the mandatory requirements for compliance in 2020.



Shame, 1090ES is allready standardised. Lot of money for gear that may not comply in the US market...and probably the reason I cannot find ANY other UAT receivers in the US market. Garmin have it tied up..until the FAA finally tell the manufacturers what to include.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I am starting with the TT31 and the Funkwerk RTH60. GPS can be any TSO145a but why not have a GNS530W to get the navigator as well as a nice big display....MX WX for better than the equivalent of what the FAA will ever offer is US$420.00 per annum....and no need for a separate transponder.

This system works irrespective of ground station coverage in the Rx mode.

Do you want a price. Plumbum?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Still waiting...anyway, you have misrepresented the FAA ruling. The ruling is for Tx only...the minimum!

The FAA specifically proposed higher ADS–B Out and antenna diversity requirements than what is needed for ATC surveillance to enable certain ADS–B In applications. As discussed in further detail in this document, the FAA has reconsidered these elements in view of the comments and has changed the implementation plan for ADS–B.

The FAA has concluded that this rule will require only the performance
requirements necessary for ADS–B Out. Read that as no diversity!

Operators may voluntarily choose equipment that meets the higher performance standards in order to enable the use of these applications.


AIRSPACEThis final rule prescribes ADS–B Out performance requirements for all aircraft operating in Class A, B, and C airspace within the NAS; above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area up to 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL); and Class E airspace areas at or above 10,000 feet MSL over the 48 contiguous 14
United States and the District of Columbia, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface.

The rule also requires that aircraft meet these performance requirements in the airspace within 30 nautical miles (NM) of certain identified airports8 that are among the nation’s busiest (based on annual passenger enplanements, annual airport operations count, and operational complexity) from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL. In addition, the rule requires that aircraft meet ADS–B Out performance requirements to operate in Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico at and above 3,000 feet MSL within 12 NM of the coastline of the United States.

This final rule requires aircraft flying at and above 18,000 feet MSL (flight level (FL) 180) (Class A airspace) to have ADS–B Out performance capabilities using the 1090 MHz ES broadcast link. This rule also specifies that aircraft flying in the designated airspace below 18,000 feet MSL may use either the 1090 MHz ES or UAT broadcast link.

So guess what Mr Sled...to comply with the ruling, you only need 1090ES OR UAT. That means all of the extra bandwidth of UAT is for naught. The FAA is asking for no less than what the CASA and AirServices were asking for here in that dastardly JCP.

So... I can see savy GA VFR PPL in the US opting for a 1090ES transponder. A lot may have already fitted out a C146a navigator so they will just interface with a new transponder and go flying for no more than a couple of grand...the cost of a new transponder. The market will decide on what level of equipage will be required to comply with the ruling. Once again UAT is orphaned..as the US AOPA put it..by not mandating for UAT alone it will dilute the market and not allow for competitive manufacture of UAT.

UAT will have to stand up for itself and demonstrate whether it is competitive with satellite weather services and 1090ES Rx inputting into a handheld device (For VFR Rx may well be non-TSO..as it is only an advisory to see and avoid:E)

Why would you opt for a GDL90 or the waste of a UAT capable transponder when you will still need a garden variety transponder to operate alongside it. It would be far more prudent to opt for a 1090ES transponder to hook up to your navigator.....over to you , Mr Plumbum:E

As my original point ...ironic that UAT, that was designed as a cheap alternative for GA is now relegated by the very system it was designed to compete with...Mode S...on price! Ironic!:E

[Joker 10]

At least Lead has better quality bullsh*t than Owen

And better researched as well, not union clap trap.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK...the polite way...Joker10, where do you get the idea that ADS-B is a union issue? I know that in the US. ATC Union types and the Washington FAA showed up in Alaska and pulled the feed from the UAT on ATC screens because they were giving the same separation standard as if it was radar..That was about the only time NATCO stepped in in the US. Now? ATC in the US are separating at 3nm using ADS-B data, tighter standard than what we use here...so...reading between the lines there may have been a bit of a demarcation type dispute over the use of radar and the use of ADS-B...all settled and tucked away now.

[Joker 10]

ADSB is not a union issue per se, the output of Owen is common or garden Union inspired rhetoric.

[Joker 10]

Owen, what are you saying, You ARE an aircraft owner ?????? or just pretending to be one !!!!!

[Jabawocky]

OK

I'll jump in here....

Owen is an a/c owner....and now working on a premium asset too :ok:

Flies Commercially in several operations.

Instructor too:ok:.

Not a union nutter!....normally votes Liberal except for a slip up recently in protest to the Libs IR laws...................(And I still voted for them despite my disgust at what they were doing.)

Given the BS in Air No Services its no wonder a union group is needed by Owen and others in his position, because the way the place is run is lunacy :ugh: ....(And I am a successful business owner/employer not some wannabe either Joker)

So maybe I am not the best qualified to comment, but there ya go....my take on it.

So get back to playing the ball Joker, because if we all played the man on here with you......boy would we have fun, and you would have threats of lawyers etc. So maybe its time to button it on a few fronts hey. Stick to the facts, and the debate.

..........ooooh I bet that draws a bit of anger....its a bit of a bugger being a bit infamous, yet not as famous as say DS. Luckily for me I am a nobody really!:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I propose a "No D!ckheads" clause for D&G to weed out poor performing posters like our Joker...the thread is about ADS-B costs in the US. Nothing to do with bashing unions, Joker...return to the question!

[Joker 10]

No more assholes a much better Idea !!!!!! and who cares what ADSB costs in the USA.

It is the Australian Cost that matters and what the data feed will be used for !!!!!!

[Jabawocky]

and who cares what ADSB costs in the USA.

Gee my memory suggests that this source of data...the USA was one of the Nastro's favourite sources when previous discussions were made on these boards.

Apparently those sources of comparrison are no longer valid. :rolleyes:

Some folk should know better than others how the price of electronics around the globe is generally able to be measured and scaled. Its not like its rocket science:cool:

[Flying Binghi]

....the thread is about ADS-B costs in the US...

This is the DG&P (Australian) forum... perhaps Jetblast would be a more suitable forum...




.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Binghi...the thread starter was a NAStronuat. The thread was about the cost of ADS-B in the US and how the mob looking after GA in the states was getting upity about it....Another NAStronaut weighed in on the cost of UAT as compared to 1090ES...he did not even read the FAA ruling...UAT was costed out of the argument. Yes, you can have UAT but you will still need to keep using a transponder. So why wwould you want to fork out over US$20,000 for a piece of kit that can be easily down with a US$2300 piece of kit...It isn't rocket science just basic hip pocket economics.

Now, relevance to Australia? Do you realy want to go there, Binghi? For a start UAT is never ever going to happen in Australia...got more chance of getting the WAAS transponder from the MTSAT with all its infrastructure costs than getting UAT just for GA in Australia. Equipment costs are coming way dowwn for 1090ES, there is even a TSO 1090ES Rx unit that is now available. certified, useable in IFR aircraft to give certified traffic in your certified cockpit. only the certifiable would argue against that!

AND all cheaper than getting anything from that US giant.

As Jaba says, on other threads the NAStronauts bash on incessantly about how it is cheaper and better to copy the US...all BS..and now the argument fell at their feet..you now trot out that this is an Australian based forum so US happenings do not rate a significance...well boohoo! Argue the case or concede the floor!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker10...living up to your name. I take issue to your reference-
what the data feed will be used for

Are you suggesting a conspiracy? A mysterious department of the government monitoring your every move? Big Brother making note of your daily travels...and ....leveeing a tax on your useage????:eek:

A little aside. I used to compete against guys whoes activities I find quite deplorable. to a man, each one of them was highly security concious with their own equipment...they thought everyone else was like them and practiced the same deplorable activities....So...one has to ask...are you feeling a bit guilty, Joke? got something to hide? think the government will be exactly like you and wish to practice the same things on their fran...er...... shareholders:eek:

Be honest. The truth of the matter? There is nothing stopping a future government doing exactly as you fear...but why would they? What would they give in return...Ahhhhhh...I get it...YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS LIKE! inside information? You fear that given the tools the Rudd government would not hesitate to tax "Rich People's" activities...Well, there is one way to fix that! Its called a ballot box. Unless...you have a vested interest to keep these guys in power?

Playing the man too much here. Joker10, just say straight out what you fear a government will do if given the abilities of a widely deployed ADS-B system!

[Joker 10]

For my sins I spend some time in Canberra, where I have overheard the gem that there are systems coming that will allow Air Services to re introduce Air Navigation Charges to ALL traffic to bring airspace into line with User Pays principles.

So was it ADSB being refeered to ?? who knows, but ADSB is the only up and coming technology available for Light VFR traffic that could do this !!!

The eyes of Canberra are looking upon ways to "tax" the well off to look after the multitudes.

The Mining RSPT is a perfect example of this "Robin Hood" style of impost, came right out of left field with no consultation beforehand, new Air Navigation charges will happen the same way.