ADSB costs.
Thread Starter
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
From AVweb insider
May 27, 2010
ADS-B Rule: Big Bucks, Paltry Benefit
By Jeff Van West
The subhead on page 110 of 149 says it all: "General Aviation: High Equipage Costs With Little Benefit." 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.
ADS-B Rule: Big Bucks, Paltry Benefit
By Jeff Van West
The subhead on page 110 of 149 says it all: "General Aviation: High Equipage Costs With Little Benefit." 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.
Francis! And your view on this is......
And the cost of UAT is.............................
And the comparison to the Australian system is...........
And my answer is.............................I told you so
And the cost of UAT is.............................
And the comparison to the Australian system is...........
And my answer is.............................I told you so
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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!
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!
UAT was designed because "Airline Only" mode S was perceived to be too expensive to use in GA
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.
Thread Starter
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
OZBUSDRIVER;
Re your last to me,
1) "I" told "you" so!
2) Google it.
3) Google it.
4) Told me what?
Re your last to me,
1) "I" told "you" so!
2) Google it.
3) Google it.
4) Told me what?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Really
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
"I fly a high performance, turbine jump aircraft and ADSB in/out would be a huge benefit
"
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 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'.
"I fly a high performance, turbine jump aircraft and ADSB in/out would be a huge benefit
"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
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'.
Last edited by frigatebird; 2nd Jun 2010 at 12:52.
CAASD 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.
two hard drive crashes has removed a lot of my archive.
(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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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..?
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..?
Last edited by frigatebird; 3rd Jun 2010 at 12:55. Reason: correction
No worries mate, no need to apologise, I can see how you got confused 
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!!
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!!
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!!
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!
Look around you, Sirs...there is moss growing on you!