Low cost ADS-B ground station?
Thread Starter
Low cost ADS-B ground station?
In Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority introduced the most expensive and restrictive ADS-B mandate in the world. In our country, all commercial aircraft that fly IFR must have 1090ES ADS-B out.
Unfortunately, we only have a handful of ADS-B stations in the whole country. This gives coverage above 30,000' but not at many airports, where coverage to low level would enhance safety.
One of the reasons given in Australia is that ADS-B ground stations are too expensive. Can anyone help me on giving advice on the lowest cost ADS-B certified ground station that would be available?
In many cases our airports have fibre optics or microwave nearby, so communication costs back to the ATC Centre for the data should not be high.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Dick Smith
PS: I am a former Chairman of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia. My interest is in improving safety and participation levels in Australian aviation.
Unfortunately, we only have a handful of ADS-B stations in the whole country. This gives coverage above 30,000' but not at many airports, where coverage to low level would enhance safety.
One of the reasons given in Australia is that ADS-B ground stations are too expensive. Can anyone help me on giving advice on the lowest cost ADS-B certified ground station that would be available?
In many cases our airports have fibre optics or microwave nearby, so communication costs back to the ATC Centre for the data should not be high.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Dick Smith
PS: I am a former Chairman of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in Australia. My interest is in improving safety and participation levels in Australian aviation.
Thread Starter
Le Ping. I dare you to state the truth. That is in Aus you as an ATC do not provide a minimum of a class E separation service below 8500’ at all IFR approach’s at non tower airports. Even where there is ADSB coverage at ground level your resistance to change means airline jet aircraft when in IMC must self separate using 1930s radio “ do it yourself “ procedures. This is even after the huge expense of ADSB was paid.
Incompetent !
Incompetent !
"Your resistance to change" - there you go again attacking anyone who isn't onboard your vision. As you've been told repeatedly (I've run out of fingers and toes) by so many of us, "show us the money". Show us the resources, show us the training, show us the consoles, show us the extra controllers. I'm happy to work anything, but won't just accept a "vision" from a pilot without real resources to back it because all that ever happens is we get to do more with less.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fault I find is with the early mandate of ADSB, not following the ADSB-2 as mandated in the US by 2020. As noted, the systems are not compatible, thus creating an issue of what to have on the aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADSB V0 and V1 vs ADSB-V2
The U.S./Mexico mandates and the E.U. mandate define requirements to support current and planned ADS-B applications in these regions. The U.S./Mexico mandates require ADS-B Version 2 and define 19 parameters required to provide the data necessary for current and planned services, including ATC separation service. The E.U. mandate also requires ADS-B Version 2.
The E.U. mandate requires five parameters that are not part of the U.S./Mexico mandates (three of which are conditional on the actual availability of the data onboard the aircraft). The U.S./Mexico mandates require one parameter that is not part of the E.U. mandate. These differences are consistent with the current differences in surveillance requirements between the U.S./Mexico and the E.U.
2.2.2 Other countries using ADS-B for ATC separation services, such as Canada, Australia, and many countries in the ICAO Asia-Pacific region, are using ADS-B Out to provide surveillance services in mostly low-density airspace for ATC separation, or as support for existing secondary surveillance radar services in higher density en route and terminal airspace.
The needs of these nations are generally oriented towards delivery of existing levels of ATC surveillance service in new locations at low cost using existing avionics installations rather than aiming at a generational paradigm shift. Some of these countries use ADS-B for 3.0 nm separation in terminal areas.
These countries may transition to more demanding ADS-B requirements over time as their fleets and airspace requirements change.
2.2.3 These implementations accept the legacy ADS-B standards, ADS-B Version 0 and 1, which have a different and smaller set of the ADS-B Out parameters.
Other parameters are shown in the appendix
https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/...DSBIMPIP02.pdf
there is another thread on PPRUNE somewhere that discusses the differences in ADSB V0, V1, and V2...there was also a presentation from Honeywell on the subject.
The U.S./Mexico mandates and the E.U. mandate define requirements to support current and planned ADS-B applications in these regions. The U.S./Mexico mandates require ADS-B Version 2 and define 19 parameters required to provide the data necessary for current and planned services, including ATC separation service. The E.U. mandate also requires ADS-B Version 2.
The E.U. mandate requires five parameters that are not part of the U.S./Mexico mandates (three of which are conditional on the actual availability of the data onboard the aircraft). The U.S./Mexico mandates require one parameter that is not part of the E.U. mandate. These differences are consistent with the current differences in surveillance requirements between the U.S./Mexico and the E.U.
2.2.2 Other countries using ADS-B for ATC separation services, such as Canada, Australia, and many countries in the ICAO Asia-Pacific region, are using ADS-B Out to provide surveillance services in mostly low-density airspace for ATC separation, or as support for existing secondary surveillance radar services in higher density en route and terminal airspace.
The needs of these nations are generally oriented towards delivery of existing levels of ATC surveillance service in new locations at low cost using existing avionics installations rather than aiming at a generational paradigm shift. Some of these countries use ADS-B for 3.0 nm separation in terminal areas.
These countries may transition to more demanding ADS-B requirements over time as their fleets and airspace requirements change.
2.2.3 These implementations accept the legacy ADS-B standards, ADS-B Version 0 and 1, which have a different and smaller set of the ADS-B Out parameters.
Other parameters are shown in the appendix
https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/...DSBIMPIP02.pdf
there is another thread on PPRUNE somewhere that discusses the differences in ADSB V0, V1, and V2...there was also a presentation from Honeywell on the subject.
Thread Starter
Does anyone know what the cost of a ADSB ground station would be?
I reckon I may donate one for Launceston in the interests of airline safety and to help prevent a CFIT into Mt Barrow.
I reckon I may donate one for Launceston in the interests of airline safety and to help prevent a CFIT into Mt Barrow.
Then why are you asking about low cost, low reliability units? They won't allow anything of the sort to be used for separating traffic. $100,000 was the rough figure for an ADS-B ground station installation I think.
However there is a big increment in cost if you have to add all the infrastructure - tower, power, and comms. But if you have infrastructure in place (a typical mobile phone tower for example) then the installation costs can be minimal. Of course if you have to pay space rental to the mast provider that has to be factored into the through-life cost.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to ASA, an ADSB ground station costs between $100,000 and $400,000 (compared to a RADAR system at $1 million to $4 million)
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA...SITF4/sp01.pdf
IG reports on FAA and ADSB:
FAA plans to spend approximately $1.7 billion on ADS-B through 2014, and an additional $1 billion between 2014 and 2020.
The final cost and timeline needed to fully implement ADS-B—and achieve the extent of its benefits—remain uncertain. FAA currently estimates the cost of the program (through 2035) to be $4.5 billion, an increase of $400 million from original estimates.
FAA has deployed the ADS-B ground infrastructure, but the ability for controllers and pilots to use ADS-B information throughout the NAS remains years away. Notably, FAA has yet to resolve significant hazards identified during operational testing or conduct more rigorous testing of the entire system to determine whether all ADS-B elements will perform as expected. As a result, FAA has not authorized the exclusive use of ADS-B information to manage air traffic across the NAS. Further, the Agency’s system for monitoring the performance of the ADS-B signal remains under development.
ADS-B BENEFITS ARE LIMITED DUE TO A LACK OF ADVANCED CAPABILITIES AND DELAYS IN USER EQUIPAGE Federal Aviation Administration Report Number: AV-2014-105 Date Issued: September 11, 2014
Another pretty scathing report on ADSB.
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/...rd%20Letko.pdf
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA...SITF4/sp01.pdf
IG reports on FAA and ADSB:
FAA plans to spend approximately $1.7 billion on ADS-B through 2014, and an additional $1 billion between 2014 and 2020.
The final cost and timeline needed to fully implement ADS-B—and achieve the extent of its benefits—remain uncertain. FAA currently estimates the cost of the program (through 2035) to be $4.5 billion, an increase of $400 million from original estimates.
FAA has deployed the ADS-B ground infrastructure, but the ability for controllers and pilots to use ADS-B information throughout the NAS remains years away. Notably, FAA has yet to resolve significant hazards identified during operational testing or conduct more rigorous testing of the entire system to determine whether all ADS-B elements will perform as expected. As a result, FAA has not authorized the exclusive use of ADS-B information to manage air traffic across the NAS. Further, the Agency’s system for monitoring the performance of the ADS-B signal remains under development.
ADS-B BENEFITS ARE LIMITED DUE TO A LACK OF ADVANCED CAPABILITIES AND DELAYS IN USER EQUIPAGE Federal Aviation Administration Report Number: AV-2014-105 Date Issued: September 11, 2014
Another pretty scathing report on ADSB.
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/...rd%20Letko.pdf
Last edited by underfire; 18th Jul 2018 at 14:46.
Thread Starter
Malroy. Can you give a list of locations?
We were told in Aus that we needed to mandate ADSB years ahead and more prescriptive than the US because they had more low level radar coverage.
However we don’t use the ADSB for lower level class E separation services.
Above FL300 there has always been no measurable risk of collision especially after TCAS was mandated.
Huge misallocation of resources that has contributed to the demise of GA in Australia.
Sounds as as if the suppliers of ground stations are ripping off the industry.
We were told in Aus that we needed to mandate ADSB years ahead and more prescriptive than the US because they had more low level radar coverage.
However we don’t use the ADSB for lower level class E separation services.
Above FL300 there has always been no measurable risk of collision especially after TCAS was mandated.
Huge misallocation of resources that has contributed to the demise of GA in Australia.
Sounds as as if the suppliers of ground stations are ripping off the industry.