ADS-B, Stuff that I have found.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre ADSB it could be done
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........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In the very recent past perhaps, not in 1965 for example.
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be real Frank, if they wanted to they could have back then too.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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!
Frank.........just forget it, you are on a hiding to nothing with this current argument. Be realistic for just this once hey
Digital Terror threat cancelled folks....back to normal viewing!
J
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
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!
Frank.........just forget it, you are on a hiding to nothing with this current argument. Be realistic for just this once hey
Digital Terror threat cancelled folks....back to normal viewing!
J
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No argument, simply stated;
What was it that Dick said?
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.
Frank,
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What was it that Dick said?
In future let me know when I am debating with the master of debating illogically!
"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'...
(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..??
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'...
(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..??
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strewth! I didn't see that one coming Jabba.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
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?
Thread Starter
From last Thursday's Avweb
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
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
...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...
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...
On the other hand, GPS guided flying terror weapons....
.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
...and what will compatible gear cost given the mess in the largest market in the world...
.
