ADSB...Seems to work OK in Canada...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup hypocrit you hide from your employer Air Services and then abuse other people from your cloak of anonymity, that is the true mark of a coward and worse is absolutely unAustralian.
I hope your group of likeminded acolytes also Air Services employees enjoy your company, I sure as hell wouldn't.
So all you hidden Air Services employees get on the bus and support your anonymous mate in his quest to slag off others from his hidden persona, hypocritical as this is the very sort of behaviour he accuses others of hiding behind.
I hope your group of likeminded acolytes also Air Services employees enjoy your company, I sure as hell wouldn't.
So all you hidden Air Services employees get on the bus and support your anonymous mate in his quest to slag off others from his hidden persona, hypocritical as this is the very sort of behaviour he accuses others of hiding behind.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the unenlightened this is how funds get approved:
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
An agency usually only gets óngoing'' funding for the ongoing administration of its responsibilities. Its responsibilities can be legislative in nature, or govt policies that are given to it to administer that fall within its charter eg the new children's channel for the ABC.
The budget process is where 'new policy proposals' are considered.
Usually, the only way to get funding outside the budget cabinet process is by getting cabinet approval via a full submission, or at the very least approval from the minister for finance, the treasurer, as well as the PM.
At this time of year everything would be through a budget cabinet process via the expenditure review committee.
Each year Depts and agencies submit 'new proposals' for approval as part of the budget process.
There is usually a small group of ministers including Treasurer and Finance who would meet as a Expenditure Review Committee to work through each new policy proposal and decide if it should proceed in principle, and how it is to be funded.
Usually a request for a say $100m new policy would need to be accompanied by ideas on how the funds could be offset through new taxes or charges, or a reduction in other activities. Portfolios are usually required to find the funding from savings or new taxes within their own protfolio. There would need to be extraordinary public benefits for $100m to be given without some quid pro quo.
It's most unlikely that any new policy proposal by an agency would get up without the full support of the portfolio minister.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
An agency usually only gets óngoing'' funding for the ongoing administration of its responsibilities. Its responsibilities can be legislative in nature, or govt policies that are given to it to administer that fall within its charter eg the new children's channel for the ABC.
The budget process is where 'new policy proposals' are considered.
Usually, the only way to get funding outside the budget cabinet process is by getting cabinet approval via a full submission, or at the very least approval from the minister for finance, the treasurer, as well as the PM.
At this time of year everything would be through a budget cabinet process via the expenditure review committee.
Each year Depts and agencies submit 'new proposals' for approval as part of the budget process.
There is usually a small group of ministers including Treasurer and Finance who would meet as a Expenditure Review Committee to work through each new policy proposal and decide if it should proceed in principle, and how it is to be funded.
Usually a request for a say $100m new policy would need to be accompanied by ideas on how the funds could be offset through new taxes or charges, or a reduction in other activities. Portfolios are usually required to find the funding from savings or new taxes within their own protfolio. There would need to be extraordinary public benefits for $100m to be given without some quid pro quo.
It's most unlikely that any new policy proposal by an agency would get up without the full support of the portfolio minister.[/FONT]
VFR TSO C145a is a GPS sensor that can be incorporated in a transponder. IFR TSO C146a is a STAND ALONE Navigator suitable for IFR.
A chipset or a complete box....methinks there is a difference.
More later...time line to follow.
A chipset or a complete box....methinks there is a difference.
More later...time line to follow.
Ozbusdriver,
You are on the right track, a C145 chip is for incorporation as a component in a system board, say an IRS/FMCS or an EGPWS system board, but nothing to do with VFR v. IFR. As an slight oversimplification re. RAIM, fundamentally all C129/129A/C145/C146 GPS produce position and rate information suitable for IFR navigation.
Seems to me the only equipment standards for VFR navigation relate to a compass and a clock.
For example, the GPS engine in the EGPWS of the new RFDS PC-12 provides the information to the ADS-B function of the transponder, as I am informed.
C146 is for a GPS engine integrated on a circuit board that includes additional components, processors, memory and programming that provide for, say, a moving map or other navigation , with ARINC serial outputs for additional functions, such as an instrument display/autopilots.
In fact, both the C145 and C146 TSOs have a matrix of sub-standards, labeled from Alpha to Gamma, which defines futher capability, and suitability for specific functions. Thus, a unit from Freeflight Inc., quoted in an earlier post, is C-14X Alpha, and as such, is not a suitable position/rate source for WAAS/Precision vertical navigation - sadly not likely to be an issue in Australia, unless the forthcoming Aviation White Paper comes up with something right out of left field..
By contrast, the GPS being quoted by Garmin to feed its 1090ES ADS-B transponder is the GPS output from their UAT box in isolation, and is C-146 Gamma, WAAS enabled, with all the bells and whistles.
If you go the Garmin way, the irony is that you will be carrying around the full Garmin FAA UAT box, but without any access to the available broadband functions, and in all likelihood, the AA ground receiver you are broadcasting to will be the Thales box also being supplied to FAA, but with the UAT (and possibly, VDL-2 voice/4 ADS-B) processor card slot(s) on the mother board left empty.
Your further investigation will reveal that, once 1090ES or UAT ( or VDL-2/4 ??) aircraft signals are received at the ground station and processed, the output to ATC computers are agnostic to the inbound information source format.
Maybe the FAA aren't so dumb, after all, in having a dual system, it almost guarantees no swamping from limitations imposed by number of available transponder codes, 4096.
Tootle pip!!
You are on the right track, a C145 chip is for incorporation as a component in a system board, say an IRS/FMCS or an EGPWS system board, but nothing to do with VFR v. IFR. As an slight oversimplification re. RAIM, fundamentally all C129/129A/C145/C146 GPS produce position and rate information suitable for IFR navigation.
Seems to me the only equipment standards for VFR navigation relate to a compass and a clock.
For example, the GPS engine in the EGPWS of the new RFDS PC-12 provides the information to the ADS-B function of the transponder, as I am informed.
C146 is for a GPS engine integrated on a circuit board that includes additional components, processors, memory and programming that provide for, say, a moving map or other navigation , with ARINC serial outputs for additional functions, such as an instrument display/autopilots.
In fact, both the C145 and C146 TSOs have a matrix of sub-standards, labeled from Alpha to Gamma, which defines futher capability, and suitability for specific functions. Thus, a unit from Freeflight Inc., quoted in an earlier post, is C-14X Alpha, and as such, is not a suitable position/rate source for WAAS/Precision vertical navigation - sadly not likely to be an issue in Australia, unless the forthcoming Aviation White Paper comes up with something right out of left field..
By contrast, the GPS being quoted by Garmin to feed its 1090ES ADS-B transponder is the GPS output from their UAT box in isolation, and is C-146 Gamma, WAAS enabled, with all the bells and whistles.
If you go the Garmin way, the irony is that you will be carrying around the full Garmin FAA UAT box, but without any access to the available broadband functions, and in all likelihood, the AA ground receiver you are broadcasting to will be the Thales box also being supplied to FAA, but with the UAT (and possibly, VDL-2 voice/4 ADS-B) processor card slot(s) on the mother board left empty.
Your further investigation will reveal that, once 1090ES or UAT ( or VDL-2/4 ??) aircraft signals are received at the ground station and processed, the output to ATC computers are agnostic to the inbound information source format.
Maybe the FAA aren't so dumb, after all, in having a dual system, it almost guarantees no swamping from limitations imposed by number of available transponder codes, 4096.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Leadsled’s contribution presents a number of misunderstandings and it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s begin with his advice to Ozbusdriver about the C145 “chip”. There are a few semiconductor products with that text in their name, but unfortunately none have anything to do with navigation. Perhaps the photodiode sold by that designation is the most aptly named, as its behaviour is to produce an electrical current from light, which would be a welcome change from the ill-informed rubbish included in several posts in this thread.
If a TSO C145 “chip” (or even “chip set”) was available then the aviation GPS businesses of Honeywell, Garmin, Freeflight and several other companies would have been history long ago. But there’s no such thing and they’re not. To make a compliant TSO C145 device necessarily involves sophisticated and highly integrated circuit board design and assembly. Considerably more than a single chip or chip set as has been indicated. Yes, you can source GPS semiconductor device products with WAAS capability, but that is far from TSO certifiable.
The good Captain then goes on to tell us what is and is not in TSO C145 and 146.
In such circumstances, one is compelled to refer to the actual, rather than the imaginary views of those documents (at revisions A, B, or C) propounded here.
Nowhere in those documents are there references to a "GPS engine integrated on a circuit board that includes additional components, processors, memory and programming that provide for, say, a moving map or other navigation, with ARINC serial outputs for additional functions, such as an instrument display/autopilots". In fact, chip sets, ARINC, moving maps and circuit boards aren't mentioned at all. Interfaces are mentioned once and only in general relation to adequacy of the interface specification for integrated equipment. “say” what you like, sir, but that’s not in the documents. Refer to TSO C146C at section 5 p. In TSO C146A it’s at 5 (a) 2. b. Recommended reading for those with fertile imaginations.
Now maybe Captain Leadsled really intended references to RTCA DO 229D? Doubtless, he will quickly be able to point to the relevant sections of those documents that reference those items. (this will be good).
Equally intriguing is his authoritative advice based on references to the Freeflight products as "C-14X Alpha".
First, Freeflight don't make any 146 devices, so what else could they be other than TSO C145? Is there some new TSO in the 14X-series coming that the rest of us never heard of?
Pray, good Captain, do let us know.
Second, his reference to "Alpha" confuses (erroneously or deliberately, I can’t tell) the TSO designation C145 at revision A with the classes of equipment within that TSO at its various revisions. The former is the revision of the FAA standards document. The latter is the class of equipment called up within that standard. In fact, the certification of all the current Freeflight products (models 1201, 1203 and 1204) is Beta-1. Refer to http://www.freeflightsystems.com/docs/FFS_GPS_WAAS.pdf
He also repeats the misguided argument bandied about in relation to the alleged need for Mode A 4096 codes by 1090ES technologies. I suggest that he and anyone else concerned about any potential architectural limitation refer to the following RTCA special committee paper: http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/WG3_Meetings/...0-WP-15-20.pdf
The limiting address space for 1090ES is the 24 bit ICAO skin code; there is no dependence on 4096 codes unless certain legacy ground stations require it. 1090ES ADS-B transponders will send the 4096 code as a type 23 message, but there is no fundamental reason why it has to be used unless legacy ground equipment requires it.
I did not want to have to waste more time on this thread and withdrew from it earlier. But several people have raised questions about it with me and I feel compelled to correct some of the half-baked ill-informed pretensions being put forward as authoritative here. Most of this thread serves little purpose other than to further confuse readers seeking the correct information. Perhaps that is what various posters intend.
Poople tit!!
OTD.
Let’s begin with his advice to Ozbusdriver about the C145 “chip”. There are a few semiconductor products with that text in their name, but unfortunately none have anything to do with navigation. Perhaps the photodiode sold by that designation is the most aptly named, as its behaviour is to produce an electrical current from light, which would be a welcome change from the ill-informed rubbish included in several posts in this thread.
If a TSO C145 “chip” (or even “chip set”) was available then the aviation GPS businesses of Honeywell, Garmin, Freeflight and several other companies would have been history long ago. But there’s no such thing and they’re not. To make a compliant TSO C145 device necessarily involves sophisticated and highly integrated circuit board design and assembly. Considerably more than a single chip or chip set as has been indicated. Yes, you can source GPS semiconductor device products with WAAS capability, but that is far from TSO certifiable.
The good Captain then goes on to tell us what is and is not in TSO C145 and 146.
In such circumstances, one is compelled to refer to the actual, rather than the imaginary views of those documents (at revisions A, B, or C) propounded here.
Nowhere in those documents are there references to a "GPS engine integrated on a circuit board that includes additional components, processors, memory and programming that provide for, say, a moving map or other navigation, with ARINC serial outputs for additional functions, such as an instrument display/autopilots". In fact, chip sets, ARINC, moving maps and circuit boards aren't mentioned at all. Interfaces are mentioned once and only in general relation to adequacy of the interface specification for integrated equipment. “say” what you like, sir, but that’s not in the documents. Refer to TSO C146C at section 5 p. In TSO C146A it’s at 5 (a) 2. b. Recommended reading for those with fertile imaginations.
Now maybe Captain Leadsled really intended references to RTCA DO 229D? Doubtless, he will quickly be able to point to the relevant sections of those documents that reference those items. (this will be good).
Equally intriguing is his authoritative advice based on references to the Freeflight products as "C-14X Alpha".
First, Freeflight don't make any 146 devices, so what else could they be other than TSO C145? Is there some new TSO in the 14X-series coming that the rest of us never heard of?
Pray, good Captain, do let us know.
Second, his reference to "Alpha" confuses (erroneously or deliberately, I can’t tell) the TSO designation C145 at revision A with the classes of equipment within that TSO at its various revisions. The former is the revision of the FAA standards document. The latter is the class of equipment called up within that standard. In fact, the certification of all the current Freeflight products (models 1201, 1203 and 1204) is Beta-1. Refer to http://www.freeflightsystems.com/docs/FFS_GPS_WAAS.pdf
He also repeats the misguided argument bandied about in relation to the alleged need for Mode A 4096 codes by 1090ES technologies. I suggest that he and anyone else concerned about any potential architectural limitation refer to the following RTCA special committee paper: http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/WG3_Meetings/...0-WP-15-20.pdf
The limiting address space for 1090ES is the 24 bit ICAO skin code; there is no dependence on 4096 codes unless certain legacy ground stations require it. 1090ES ADS-B transponders will send the 4096 code as a type 23 message, but there is no fundamental reason why it has to be used unless legacy ground equipment requires it.
I did not want to have to waste more time on this thread and withdrew from it earlier. But several people have raised questions about it with me and I feel compelled to correct some of the half-baked ill-informed pretensions being put forward as authoritative here. Most of this thread serves little purpose other than to further confuse readers seeking the correct information. Perhaps that is what various posters intend.
Poople tit!!
OTD.
To be specific. The TSO 145a refers to a GPS SENSOR TSO 146a refers to a GPS NAVIGATOR
Chip sets was probable not a good description and thank-you OTD for that. I do refer to a complete circuit board that can be incorporated within a device. A navigator is a complete stand alone device that provides all the functionality expected. LS you can invest in Garmin. Luckily there are other manufacturers that still see the big picture....Funny how the neighbours to the north haven't followed their southern cousins in incorporating UAT within their network. or any VDL entity. Mind you they did look at WAMLAT as a stop gap until they got more comprehensive coverage with ADS-B.
LS I bet I could google up a reply from the US AOPA that would show a contrary view to what you think is their position. I will have a look and see what I can find tomorrow....off to bed
Chip sets was probable not a good description and thank-you OTD for that. I do refer to a complete circuit board that can be incorporated within a device. A navigator is a complete stand alone device that provides all the functionality expected. LS you can invest in Garmin. Luckily there are other manufacturers that still see the big picture....Funny how the neighbours to the north haven't followed their southern cousins in incorporating UAT within their network. or any VDL entity. Mind you they did look at WAMLAT as a stop gap until they got more comprehensive coverage with ADS-B.
LS I bet I could google up a reply from the US AOPA that would show a contrary view to what you think is their position. I will have a look and see what I can find tomorrow....off to bed
Mr. Onthedials,
What a wonderful job of trying to confuse the audience, and probably resulting in confusing yourself. The annual comedy festival is on right now, perhaps you should give it a try.
Where do I start --- lets take the last one first ---- re. any limitation of 4096 ---- FAA/Mitre Corp. still thinks it's a problem, who am I to argue. Sure, if you eliminate most or all of the SSR, then it's no longer a problem (and would never be a problem in Australia, no where near enough traffic) but that's not what FAA is planning, is it.
In the highest density areas of US, most of the SSR (and new and upgraded Primary Radar) is going to stay ---- have a look at the complaints of AOPA/USA and NBAA about having to keep transponders if they fit UAT. After all, if you bother to actually read what I wrote, in this context, I was referring to FAA.
As for the rest, let's keep it really simple:
It would be quite pointless trotting out reams of documents that stand behind FAA TSO's, and you know, as well as anybody else reading this thread, what C145 and C146 GPS TSOs refer to, but 6/10 for an amusing attempt at sarcasm, dripping with contempt. Such a balanced and dispassionate exposition.
Thanks for the information about the Freeflight products, I thought they were C145, but chose to leave it at C14X, because I wan't going to spend too much time checking whether they were C145 or C146, and I am please to see they have solved some of their recent technical problems (you know about the AD directed downgrade, of course) and they are now where they are. It was all a bit embarrassing for various name brand avionics manufacturers using Freeflight (nee Trimble) C 145 GPS whatyamacallits doodads in their equipment.
Go check your documents, from memory mine tell me Gamma 1(or is it Gamma 3) is the minimum for a WAAS enable precision vertical guidance (to below non-precision approach minima )--- and less than that capability means there is little benefit from WAAS, after all, you can do non-precision approaches on the humble C129A -- RAIM permitting.
Back to the core issue ----- the essential difference between TSO C145 and TSO C146 GPS, in the simplest possible terms, and that is all that is needed for this discussion, is:
A C145 what ever you want to call it (in this context) lets call it a GPS "processor", is for incorporation in an avionics manufacturer's device, where all the supporting (and, of course highly complex) avionics gubbins are specific to that device, not necessarily from the same manufacturer as the GPS processor.
Say a stand alone EGPWS that does not depend on an external GPS feed, as it has its own on-board GPS. Or a Meggitt "glass cockpit" setups, STC'd for various aircraft. Or a Honeywell GNS XLS FMCS.
Just so you don't get confused about which C145 I am talking about, I am not talking about:
Cessna C145
C145 2-Chloroadenosine triphosphate tetrasodium hydrate
C145/170. A50T110. Non Thermostated glass cells.
MSO-C145 - Digital Anti-Jam Receivers.
PDB-C145 photodiodes
C145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976.
---- and any number of other things where C145 appears.
A C146 (in this context) device will typically be a "system", a GPS processor and supporting additional processors, memory, whatever, on a circuit board, that might be incorporated, as is, in a variety of devices by a variety of popular brand names, without the proprietor of the brand name having to develop the whole system from scratch --- as is the case a lot of consumer electronics manufacturer, the same under the skin ---- and aviation is only a very small part of the "GPS" market.
I won't bother with the same "explanatory" exercise as to what I am not talking about re. C146
I suppose you do know who's "GPS chips/chipsets/engines (common term of your choice - but I am certain you know what I mean ) are in who's big and not so big brand name boxes.
And the other main point, and where this started, is that none of it has anything to do with C145 = VFR and C146 = IFR, as the subsidy arguements were presented in the original CASA NPRM and carried through to the JCP.
Perhaps you could help me ---- those dinky little thingies I buy in boxes of 10 from Rockwell, which, when fitted to our circuit boards, produce all sorts of useful position and rate information --- what do you think I should call them ?
They sure a hell are not a "GPS", as in something you can switch on. They certainly don't look like a "chip set", like you find on the main board of your PC or laptop to support the processor. A clue, as well as a bunch of numbers, C129A rates a mention, and they are certainly not diodes, or light bulbs, or Seafarer's Conventions.
Tootle pip!!
What a wonderful job of trying to confuse the audience, and probably resulting in confusing yourself. The annual comedy festival is on right now, perhaps you should give it a try.
Where do I start --- lets take the last one first ---- re. any limitation of 4096 ---- FAA/Mitre Corp. still thinks it's a problem, who am I to argue. Sure, if you eliminate most or all of the SSR, then it's no longer a problem (and would never be a problem in Australia, no where near enough traffic) but that's not what FAA is planning, is it.
In the highest density areas of US, most of the SSR (and new and upgraded Primary Radar) is going to stay ---- have a look at the complaints of AOPA/USA and NBAA about having to keep transponders if they fit UAT. After all, if you bother to actually read what I wrote, in this context, I was referring to FAA.
As for the rest, let's keep it really simple:
It would be quite pointless trotting out reams of documents that stand behind FAA TSO's, and you know, as well as anybody else reading this thread, what C145 and C146 GPS TSOs refer to, but 6/10 for an amusing attempt at sarcasm, dripping with contempt. Such a balanced and dispassionate exposition.
Thanks for the information about the Freeflight products, I thought they were C145, but chose to leave it at C14X, because I wan't going to spend too much time checking whether they were C145 or C146, and I am please to see they have solved some of their recent technical problems (you know about the AD directed downgrade, of course) and they are now where they are. It was all a bit embarrassing for various name brand avionics manufacturers using Freeflight (nee Trimble) C 145 GPS whatyamacallits doodads in their equipment.
Go check your documents, from memory mine tell me Gamma 1(or is it Gamma 3) is the minimum for a WAAS enable precision vertical guidance (to below non-precision approach minima )--- and less than that capability means there is little benefit from WAAS, after all, you can do non-precision approaches on the humble C129A -- RAIM permitting.
Back to the core issue ----- the essential difference between TSO C145 and TSO C146 GPS, in the simplest possible terms, and that is all that is needed for this discussion, is:
A C145 what ever you want to call it (in this context) lets call it a GPS "processor", is for incorporation in an avionics manufacturer's device, where all the supporting (and, of course highly complex) avionics gubbins are specific to that device, not necessarily from the same manufacturer as the GPS processor.
Say a stand alone EGPWS that does not depend on an external GPS feed, as it has its own on-board GPS. Or a Meggitt "glass cockpit" setups, STC'd for various aircraft. Or a Honeywell GNS XLS FMCS.
Just so you don't get confused about which C145 I am talking about, I am not talking about:
Cessna C145
C145 2-Chloroadenosine triphosphate tetrasodium hydrate
C145/170. A50T110. Non Thermostated glass cells.
MSO-C145 - Digital Anti-Jam Receivers.
PDB-C145 photodiodes
C145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976.
---- and any number of other things where C145 appears.
A C146 (in this context) device will typically be a "system", a GPS processor and supporting additional processors, memory, whatever, on a circuit board, that might be incorporated, as is, in a variety of devices by a variety of popular brand names, without the proprietor of the brand name having to develop the whole system from scratch --- as is the case a lot of consumer electronics manufacturer, the same under the skin ---- and aviation is only a very small part of the "GPS" market.
I won't bother with the same "explanatory" exercise as to what I am not talking about re. C146
I suppose you do know who's "GPS chips/chipsets/engines (common term of your choice - but I am certain you know what I mean ) are in who's big and not so big brand name boxes.
And the other main point, and where this started, is that none of it has anything to do with C145 = VFR and C146 = IFR, as the subsidy arguements were presented in the original CASA NPRM and carried through to the JCP.
Perhaps you could help me ---- those dinky little thingies I buy in boxes of 10 from Rockwell, which, when fitted to our circuit boards, produce all sorts of useful position and rate information --- what do you think I should call them ?
They sure a hell are not a "GPS", as in something you can switch on. They certainly don't look like a "chip set", like you find on the main board of your PC or laptop to support the processor. A clue, as well as a bunch of numbers, C129A rates a mention, and they are certainly not diodes, or light bulbs, or Seafarer's Conventions.
Tootle pip!!
that's easy for you lot to say.