ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Quite often you can fly above an embedded line of thunderstorms when above FL 410
Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been trying hard to keep away from this, but I can't let this one go
Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.
The flight departed Samoa at 0545, and initially climbed to flight level 350 (FL350) in airspace that was controlled from New Zealand. High frequency (HF) radio was used for long distance radio communication between the aircraft and air traffic control (ATC) and very high frequency (VHF) radio for line of sight radio communications with airport service providers.
At 0628, when the aircraft was approaching the intended cruising level of FL350, ATC instructed the flight crew to descend to FL270 by time 0650 in order to maintain separation with crossing traffic. The flight crew later reported to ATC that a descent to that altitude would have increased the aircraft’s fuel consumption and requested a climb to a higher flight level. At 0633, ATC issued an amended clearance for the flight crew to climb to FL390 and the aircraft was established at this level at 0644.The flight continued at FL390 until the descent into Norfolk Island.
At 0628, when the aircraft was approaching the intended cruising level of FL350, ATC instructed the flight crew to descend to FL270 by time 0650 in order to maintain separation with crossing traffic. The flight crew later reported to ATC that a descent to that altitude would have increased the aircraft’s fuel consumption and requested a climb to a higher flight level. At 0633, ATC issued an amended clearance for the flight crew to climb to FL390 and the aircraft was established at this level at 0644.The flight continued at FL390 until the descent into Norfolk Island.
From the horses mouth.
Hansard from AAI inquiry 22/10/12 (my bold):
Senator FAWCETT: In your opinion, given that the aircraft was not RVSM equipped, was the pressure to get above the 41,000 feet a significant factor in your thinking for the fuel load that you took out of the origin that day?
Mr James : It was a factor and had been an issue that I had had difficulties with in the past, and I was mindful of it.
Senator FAWCETT: Just for the committee, RVSM is airspace where air traffic control can apply reduced separation minima vertically between aircraft, but the aircraft has to be calibrated, if you like, with appropriate equipment to be able to fly there. If you have to go below that you have to use a lot more fuel, which is why it is a consideration operationally. So if you were flying below the RVSM airspace, what flight level would that be—280 or 290, or something around there?
Mr James : I believe it is 280.
Senator FAWCETT: Given the all-up weight considerations of the aircraft with a medical kit on board, can you uplift sufficient fuel to fly below RVSM airspace and hold fuel for your abnormal operations or, if required, an alternative for Norfolk Island?
Mr James : I do not believe you can. I believe you can nearly do so, but, from my understanding, I do not think it can be done.
Senator FAWCETT: Did you ever reflect that back to the company—that, essentially, what you were being asked to do was not actually technically possible?
Mr James : I had two opportunities with the company where they sought my feedback. The first time they simply wanted an account of what took place, and, on the second occasion, it was apparent to me that they had formed a very strong opinion as to who was responsible for the accident, and I did not think that an involved discussion about detail was going to achieve anything.
Senator NASH: On that, what made you think that? That second meeting, you were just saying, led you to form that view—that they had formed the view, obviously, that it was your responsibility. What led you to believe that?
Mr James : They said that. They said as much. Mick was present at that meeting. I was told that—
Senator EDWARDS: In what role were you present at that meeting, Mr Quinn?
CHAIR: And is there anything you would like to add about the capacity in which you appear today?
Mr Quinn : I appear in a private capacity and also as representative of Captain James. My role was: as Dominic was not a member of the union at that stage, he had contacted me and asked me if I would advise him, and Pel-Air allowed me to represent Captain James as an advocate, from a technical point of view, in the Pel-Air committee.
Senator NASH: When they said they had formed that view, what evidence did they give you that led them to form that view?
CHAIR: Could I also raise a procedural matter: at some stage soon, we will go in camera with you as the witness; if you feel you want to give us answers in camera that you do not want to give in public, you may take that—
Senator XENOPHON: Can I ask one question before we go in camera?
Sorry, Senator Nash; were you still—
Senator NASH: It was just that one that I had.
Mr James : I am happy to proceed with these questions. The comment was made to me, 'Are you not aware that, at all times, Pel-Air aircraft carry full fuel?' I replied, 'No, I'm not.' And then I asked, 'Where exactly is that set down in a document?' They were not able to point me in the direction of any such reference. They also said that, had I carried this additional fuel, I would have been able to arrive above Norfolk Island and divert to Noumea. In an email exchange that followed—I thought about what had been said and I wanted to add something on my behalf—they said the fuel would have got me there. I then said, 'What you are considering is the flight fuel, and if you add the reserve fuel and other required contingency fuels to that it can't be done.' My email was not responded to by the company.
That should clear it up for you Dick...
Senator FAWCETT: In your opinion, given that the aircraft was not RVSM equipped, was the pressure to get above the 41,000 feet a significant factor in your thinking for the fuel load that you took out of the origin that day?
Mr James : It was a factor and had been an issue that I had had difficulties with in the past, and I was mindful of it.
Senator FAWCETT: Just for the committee, RVSM is airspace where air traffic control can apply reduced separation minima vertically between aircraft, but the aircraft has to be calibrated, if you like, with appropriate equipment to be able to fly there. If you have to go below that you have to use a lot more fuel, which is why it is a consideration operationally. So if you were flying below the RVSM airspace, what flight level would that be—280 or 290, or something around there?
Mr James : I believe it is 280.
Senator FAWCETT: Given the all-up weight considerations of the aircraft with a medical kit on board, can you uplift sufficient fuel to fly below RVSM airspace and hold fuel for your abnormal operations or, if required, an alternative for Norfolk Island?
Mr James : I do not believe you can. I believe you can nearly do so, but, from my understanding, I do not think it can be done.
Senator FAWCETT: Did you ever reflect that back to the company—that, essentially, what you were being asked to do was not actually technically possible?
Mr James : I had two opportunities with the company where they sought my feedback. The first time they simply wanted an account of what took place, and, on the second occasion, it was apparent to me that they had formed a very strong opinion as to who was responsible for the accident, and I did not think that an involved discussion about detail was going to achieve anything.
Senator NASH: On that, what made you think that? That second meeting, you were just saying, led you to form that view—that they had formed the view, obviously, that it was your responsibility. What led you to believe that?
Mr James : They said that. They said as much. Mick was present at that meeting. I was told that—
Senator EDWARDS: In what role were you present at that meeting, Mr Quinn?
CHAIR: And is there anything you would like to add about the capacity in which you appear today?
Mr Quinn : I appear in a private capacity and also as representative of Captain James. My role was: as Dominic was not a member of the union at that stage, he had contacted me and asked me if I would advise him, and Pel-Air allowed me to represent Captain James as an advocate, from a technical point of view, in the Pel-Air committee.
Senator NASH: When they said they had formed that view, what evidence did they give you that led them to form that view?
CHAIR: Could I also raise a procedural matter: at some stage soon, we will go in camera with you as the witness; if you feel you want to give us answers in camera that you do not want to give in public, you may take that—
Senator XENOPHON: Can I ask one question before we go in camera?
Sorry, Senator Nash; were you still—
Senator NASH: It was just that one that I had.
Mr James : I am happy to proceed with these questions. The comment was made to me, 'Are you not aware that, at all times, Pel-Air aircraft carry full fuel?' I replied, 'No, I'm not.' And then I asked, 'Where exactly is that set down in a document?' They were not able to point me in the direction of any such reference. They also said that, had I carried this additional fuel, I would have been able to arrive above Norfolk Island and divert to Noumea. In an email exchange that followed—I thought about what had been said and I wanted to add something on my behalf—they said the fuel would have got me there. I then said, 'What you are considering is the flight fuel, and if you add the reserve fuel and other required contingency fuels to that it can't be done.' My email was not responded to by the company.
That should clear it up for you Dick...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADSB in the US.
Just got back from a conference on ADSB implementation in the US. There is still quite a bit of work to be done, especially with all of the additional features such as Wx.
The bad part.
There is NO funding set for 2015 and 2016 for ADSB implementation in the latest FAA budget.
This will likely have an impact on the projected 2020 timeframe (remember when it was 2015 in 2010?)
Just got back from a conference on ADSB implementation in the US. There is still quite a bit of work to be done, especially with all of the additional features such as Wx.
The bad part.
There is NO funding set for 2015 and 2016 for ADSB implementation in the latest FAA budget.
This will likely have an impact on the projected 2020 timeframe (remember when it was 2015 in 2010?)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because FAA's ADS-B plan and rule are seriously flawed
Industry won't pay because FAA's ADS-B plan and rule are seriously flawed, and virtually no one outside FAA agrees with FAA.
For example, not all airspace users can see each other in critical airspace because of the absurd UAT, Mode S, and ADS-R Rube Goldberg schema. UAT and ADS-R are an abomination that will not work now, or ever, and will never be global,
UAVs are critical to be seen by other aircraft, as well as gliders, and other air vehicles, ...and FAA's present ADS-B is inappropriately designed, and far too expensive, and won't even work for those kinds of users, for many reasons.
91.227 and the related TSOs and MOPS are massively overspecified, and fail to address some key issues,with the present criteria requiring an excessive NIC and NAC, implying a required use of unnecessary and obsolete WAAS for all but the highest end users, unnecessarily driving costs out of sight,
Airlines are not equipping with ADS-B at any needed rate, and already going to get relief to at least 2026 for any compliance, if even the rule is sustained at all. GA is not equipping at any rate that will come anywhere near compliance in 2020.
NextGen itself is heading toward a massive $40B failure, for a variety of reasons,... for example, the FAA's proposed use of ADS-B, as pseudo-radar, is a ridiculous extension of a long obsolete and dysfunctional 1950s 1:1 hand carried separation process that no one can afford any more, with vastly better, safer, and less expensive (RNP based) dynamic trajectory separation methods now possible for ATS, ...and finally
FAA itself looks like it will finally be busted up by Congress in the fall budget hearings, with ATS split out as a separate ANSP, and hopefully a more competent set of aviation and technically experienced executives and specialists brought in to both ATS and Flight Standards and Certification functions. Don't believe a word from any current FAA officials about any deadlines, at least not any more than their earlier counterparts pronouncements on deadlines for MLS or IFR Loran C.
For example, not all airspace users can see each other in critical airspace because of the absurd UAT, Mode S, and ADS-R Rube Goldberg schema. UAT and ADS-R are an abomination that will not work now, or ever, and will never be global,
UAVs are critical to be seen by other aircraft, as well as gliders, and other air vehicles, ...and FAA's present ADS-B is inappropriately designed, and far too expensive, and won't even work for those kinds of users, for many reasons.
91.227 and the related TSOs and MOPS are massively overspecified, and fail to address some key issues,with the present criteria requiring an excessive NIC and NAC, implying a required use of unnecessary and obsolete WAAS for all but the highest end users, unnecessarily driving costs out of sight,
Airlines are not equipping with ADS-B at any needed rate, and already going to get relief to at least 2026 for any compliance, if even the rule is sustained at all. GA is not equipping at any rate that will come anywhere near compliance in 2020.
NextGen itself is heading toward a massive $40B failure, for a variety of reasons,... for example, the FAA's proposed use of ADS-B, as pseudo-radar, is a ridiculous extension of a long obsolete and dysfunctional 1950s 1:1 hand carried separation process that no one can afford any more, with vastly better, safer, and less expensive (RNP based) dynamic trajectory separation methods now possible for ATS, ...and finally
FAA itself looks like it will finally be busted up by Congress in the fall budget hearings, with ATS split out as a separate ANSP, and hopefully a more competent set of aviation and technically experienced executives and specialists brought in to both ATS and Flight Standards and Certification functions. Don't believe a word from any current FAA officials about any deadlines, at least not any more than their earlier counterparts pronouncements on deadlines for MLS or IFR Loran C.
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
ADS-B is the most impressive tool put toward for air traffic control safety in modern times.
It has only two inherit demonstrated flaws and they revolve around basic human gullibility and entrenched corporate psychosis.
Nobody should put a bucket of money between an air safety outcome and a business entity. It's made worse when the entity is a government QANGO.
It has only two inherit demonstrated flaws and they revolve around basic human gullibility and entrenched corporate psychosis.
Nobody should put a bucket of money between an air safety outcome and a business entity. It's made worse when the entity is a government QANGO.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no single "silver bullet"for safety
While ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C each have their useful roles, as well as pros and cons, clearly sir, you have either substantially overstated the role and worth of ADS-B, ...or perhaps still have limited knowledge of Air Traffic Service separation provision fundamental concepts and requirements. Many elements profoundly affect separation safety, ranging from basic flight planning information for strategic trajectory definition, to real time trajectory definition related to modern inertial systems, ILS, FMS, RNP, and GPS, ...to COM processes, to ATM tools of independent position fixing via radar and transponders, with backup airborne systems such as modern TCAS (which has specifically been responsible for countless saves and lives). So it is important to distinguish between fundamental ATS principles, operating concepts, and what was important to the past, and will be important to the future, while differentiating between primary methods, and backup methods for providing separation assurance. When viewed in that context, ADS is but one tool, but not the only tool, and certainly not the most important tool, for helping optimize the C-N-S triad, and ATM. In fact that FAA "ADS supremacy" fallacy and flaw is a root factor why FAA NextGen is heading directly toward a massive $40B failure at this point.
UAT and ADS-R are an abomination that will not work now, or ever, and will never be global,
The only part of that statement that is correct is that UAT will never be global.
It is 1090ES that is the "abomination", the ADS-B system should have been carried on either VDL-4 or UAT broadband data links, something 1090ES can never be. This was the outcome of the ICAO planning for future broadband data links.
It was sunk by airline lobbying.
In the US choice of UAT (CDMA) over VDL (TDMA) the FAA made the right technical choice, but ATA/IATA members were seduced into believing the spiel that 1090ES would be "cheap and cheerful", when it has proven to be neither, and the Mitre Corp. forecasts of channel saturation with 1090S/ES in US are being realised.
Meantime, airlines generally, and in some cases by mandate, are having to fit a broadband datalink anyway, and that is VDL (specifically VDL-2) and being operated world wide by ARINC and SITA, replacing ACARS.
As the experience (ongoing) has taught us, the optimum outcome, both operationally and in cost, would have been UAT as the international standard, with widespread use, well beyond just carrying ADS-x data. VDL-4 would also have worked, but CDMA signal formats are ultimately better for data than TDMA, as mobile phone/data development has so comprehensively proved.
One last point, by and large ADS-B will play no part in TCAS operations. Although a standard exists to import such data, I am not aware of any airline that has bought the option, because there is no increase in functionality of TCAS by so doing. Forget all the "could be", thems the facts.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
the related TSOs and MOPS are massively overspecified
Folks,
Although, sadly, the old and mangy steed has long since bolted down the paddock, consider the following:
1090ES is about the equivalent of the old analogue mobile phones, except that 1090ES data capacity is less - seriously narrow band.
VDL (as in VDL-4 ADS.x) is the equivalent of the original digital phone system, TDMA, Time Division Multiplex Access, the Ericsson system broadband.
UAT, Universal Access Transceiver, is CDMA, Code Division Multiplex Access, is the Qualcomm system, and is the system used on generation 3 mobile phones and for many other broadband datalinks, with virtually unlimited capacity due the basic characteristics of CDMA.
After the ICAO competition gave us VDL and UAT, what a brilliant idea it was to go back to equivalent of analogue phones for an international system to carry ADS.x.
The great thing about the FAA UAT system is its communications capabilities, with all the services (in addition to ATC comms-ADS-B) that are already available is US/Canada. And that we will never see in Australia as a result of the short term thinking that gave us 1090ES. It is not good enough to say there is and never will be a demand in Australia for real time weather, live Notams or whatever, the choice of 1090ES precludes that for all time.
AND!!!! UAT based ADS-B has proved to be far and away the cheapest system for ADS-B, if you are the one paying the bills, even without regard to all the other potentials. Can be done for around US$2000, all up, maybe even less if you already have a suitable C145/146 GPS source, in a small GA aircraft.
In the day and age of "Big Data", aviation goes for "little data", and Australia boasts about what a big contribution we made to the decisions that gave us this piece of technological vandalism.
Tootle pip!!
Although, sadly, the old and mangy steed has long since bolted down the paddock, consider the following:
1090ES is about the equivalent of the old analogue mobile phones, except that 1090ES data capacity is less - seriously narrow band.
VDL (as in VDL-4 ADS.x) is the equivalent of the original digital phone system, TDMA, Time Division Multiplex Access, the Ericsson system broadband.
UAT, Universal Access Transceiver, is CDMA, Code Division Multiplex Access, is the Qualcomm system, and is the system used on generation 3 mobile phones and for many other broadband datalinks, with virtually unlimited capacity due the basic characteristics of CDMA.
After the ICAO competition gave us VDL and UAT, what a brilliant idea it was to go back to equivalent of analogue phones for an international system to carry ADS.x.
The great thing about the FAA UAT system is its communications capabilities, with all the services (in addition to ATC comms-ADS-B) that are already available is US/Canada. And that we will never see in Australia as a result of the short term thinking that gave us 1090ES. It is not good enough to say there is and never will be a demand in Australia for real time weather, live Notams or whatever, the choice of 1090ES precludes that for all time.
AND!!!! UAT based ADS-B has proved to be far and away the cheapest system for ADS-B, if you are the one paying the bills, even without regard to all the other potentials. Can be done for around US$2000, all up, maybe even less if you already have a suitable C145/146 GPS source, in a small GA aircraft.
In the day and age of "Big Data", aviation goes for "little data", and Australia boasts about what a big contribution we made to the decisions that gave us this piece of technological vandalism.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAT and ADS-R: Very bad ideas that shouldn't survive
Not so LeadSled. With all due respect, to understand why UAT and ADS-R are bad ideas, one needs to understand the very role of ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C in the broader context of C-N-S optimization, safe dynamic trajectory based separation, primary versus backup mechanisms, and normal, rare-normal, and non-normal ATS and aircraft operations. When that fundamental conceptual set of considerations is addressed properly (and not as presently in either SESAR or NextGen), UAT fails miserably, conceptually, and practically, as being any useful idea, and by a wide margin. Even Mode S and ES and ELS are only interim steps, in a constantly evolving set of Data links ranging from ARINC622/745, FANS, Link16, VDL M2, Link2000, Mode S and others.
The basic long term issue is timely adequate properly specified "State Vector" exchange of relevant parameters, among vehicles, and with ANSPs.
UAT and ADS-R fail badly by any set of relevant measures needed to effectively exchange relevant RNP based trajectory state vector data needed for effective, timely, and affordable global separation assurance for all air vehicles. Both UAT and ADS-R fail to pass muster for serving as ANY useful component of any functional and affordable, and capacity capable, and readily airspace accessible future global ATS schema. UAT should never have been accepted within the US, or allowed by ICAO. UAT should now be phased out, and relegated to the dust bin of aviation history, along with MLS, REGAL, DECCA, and GCA/PAR, and eventually even banned globally as any useful component of ATS.
So for the time being, until we better solve the C part of C-N-S (via using RCP methods like we do for NAV with RNP) with a family of COM DL systems suited for vehicles from tiny UAVs to C172s to CJ3s to B777s to SpaceX and F22s, our least bad option for ADS-B is just using Mode S (TCAS, ES, and ELS,...), along with FANS for ADS-C, and VDL M2.
Both UAT and ADS-R are a very bad ideas, and are but a dead end on an already dying branch of the avionics evolutionary path. Neither should be promoted beyond the damage they are already doing to avionics and the INAS, and both should be phased out of aviation at the earliest opportunity. In fact even the idea of ADS-B itself is simply a data exchange of a particular set of parameters, of the broader needed state vector exchange, via an evolving family of data links, that will continue to evolve as we move toward a much more affordable, safer, and more effective automated dynamic RNP based trajectory exchange system for global ATS.
The basic long term issue is timely adequate properly specified "State Vector" exchange of relevant parameters, among vehicles, and with ANSPs.
UAT and ADS-R fail badly by any set of relevant measures needed to effectively exchange relevant RNP based trajectory state vector data needed for effective, timely, and affordable global separation assurance for all air vehicles. Both UAT and ADS-R fail to pass muster for serving as ANY useful component of any functional and affordable, and capacity capable, and readily airspace accessible future global ATS schema. UAT should never have been accepted within the US, or allowed by ICAO. UAT should now be phased out, and relegated to the dust bin of aviation history, along with MLS, REGAL, DECCA, and GCA/PAR, and eventually even banned globally as any useful component of ATS.
So for the time being, until we better solve the C part of C-N-S (via using RCP methods like we do for NAV with RNP) with a family of COM DL systems suited for vehicles from tiny UAVs to C172s to CJ3s to B777s to SpaceX and F22s, our least bad option for ADS-B is just using Mode S (TCAS, ES, and ELS,...), along with FANS for ADS-C, and VDL M2.
Both UAT and ADS-R are a very bad ideas, and are but a dead end on an already dying branch of the avionics evolutionary path. Neither should be promoted beyond the damage they are already doing to avionics and the INAS, and both should be phased out of aviation at the earliest opportunity. In fact even the idea of ADS-B itself is simply a data exchange of a particular set of parameters, of the broader needed state vector exchange, via an evolving family of data links, that will continue to evolve as we move toward a much more affordable, safer, and more effective automated dynamic RNP based trajectory exchange system for global ATS.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: In plain sight
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7478tiThe trajectory/state data will make ACAS TA, RA, and ATCS RAAM , STCA parameters that much more accurate, which of course is needed to expand the capacities of the Airways system globally a traffic congestion grows.
Multiband patchworks won't/don't help Leadsled
Regards
Q
Bloggsie,
Go find definitions of TDMA and CDMA, nothing to to with aviation as such. Multiplex means the same thing as multiple access, and nothing to do with a big building company.
7478t1,
With the very greatest of respect, UAT is a broadband communications system, VDL is a broadband communications system.
Whatever system is used for a particular purpose, if the implementation for that purpose is seriously flawed, that is not the fault of the basic system.
If the basic system was seriously flawed, we would have no Generation 3 mobile phones, and the vast array of communications dependent on modern data transmission systems.
If 1900ES ( which you must admit is hardly "new" technology, dating back to the early 1940's) remains, which sadly it will, you are stuck with a seriously narrow band system, hence the FAA and Eurocontrol mandates for fitting of broadband transceivers for a number of other ATC functions, the main one being transferring much routine voice comms. to datalinks, which, in part, we have been doing for 25 years or more --- it is that long ago that I got my first airways clearance on the ACARS.
Go reads the Mitre Corp. studies, if all the traffic in US that is expected to use UAT based ADS-B transferred to 1090ES, chaos. Even now, the projected channel saturation is happening.
Further, are you suggesting that all the UAT ADS-B equipped smaller aircraft in US have to retrofit with 1909ES, as well as maintaining their UAT equipment of all the other uses to which UAT transceivers are put in US.
I suggest you do some serious reading on the political lobbying that overturned the ICAO choice of either VDL-4 or UAT as what was to be the "for the future" international standard for aviation broadband.
That lobbying had nothing to do with the technical "superiority" of 1090ES and everything to do with who held which patents (none of the traditional airline avionics manufacturers) and the financial state of many airline --- who were sold the idea that 1090ES would be "cheap" -- a bit like the CASA figures, and nothing like the rather more realistic figures for the FAA Cost/Benefit analysis.
All you have done by referring to FANS-1 and successors is obfuscate the issue, they were never anything to do with 1090ES as a datalink. I would assume you are aware that ACARS is/was pretty limited, essentially VHF analogue, and FANS data went out over ACARS or by satellite comes.
By and large, VDL-2 has succeeded VHF analogue for successors to ACARS. As I recall, VDL-4 was also being quite widely used for ground traffic separation on some US airports, and also by the US military on some of their practice ranges. As already mentioned, the first use of ADS-B in day to day ATC was VDL-4 in northern Europe.
As for re-broadcast using ADS.x, I have always thought that somewhat questionable, but I fail to see why that has anything to do with the basic datalink being used.
Tootle pip!!
Go find definitions of TDMA and CDMA, nothing to to with aviation as such. Multiplex means the same thing as multiple access, and nothing to do with a big building company.
7478t1,
With the very greatest of respect, UAT is a broadband communications system, VDL is a broadband communications system.
Whatever system is used for a particular purpose, if the implementation for that purpose is seriously flawed, that is not the fault of the basic system.
If the basic system was seriously flawed, we would have no Generation 3 mobile phones, and the vast array of communications dependent on modern data transmission systems.
If 1900ES ( which you must admit is hardly "new" technology, dating back to the early 1940's) remains, which sadly it will, you are stuck with a seriously narrow band system, hence the FAA and Eurocontrol mandates for fitting of broadband transceivers for a number of other ATC functions, the main one being transferring much routine voice comms. to datalinks, which, in part, we have been doing for 25 years or more --- it is that long ago that I got my first airways clearance on the ACARS.
Go reads the Mitre Corp. studies, if all the traffic in US that is expected to use UAT based ADS-B transferred to 1090ES, chaos. Even now, the projected channel saturation is happening.
Further, are you suggesting that all the UAT ADS-B equipped smaller aircraft in US have to retrofit with 1909ES, as well as maintaining their UAT equipment of all the other uses to which UAT transceivers are put in US.
I suggest you do some serious reading on the political lobbying that overturned the ICAO choice of either VDL-4 or UAT as what was to be the "for the future" international standard for aviation broadband.
That lobbying had nothing to do with the technical "superiority" of 1090ES and everything to do with who held which patents (none of the traditional airline avionics manufacturers) and the financial state of many airline --- who were sold the idea that 1090ES would be "cheap" -- a bit like the CASA figures, and nothing like the rather more realistic figures for the FAA Cost/Benefit analysis.
All you have done by referring to FANS-1 and successors is obfuscate the issue, they were never anything to do with 1090ES as a datalink. I would assume you are aware that ACARS is/was pretty limited, essentially VHF analogue, and FANS data went out over ACARS or by satellite comes.
By and large, VDL-2 has succeeded VHF analogue for successors to ACARS. As I recall, VDL-4 was also being quite widely used for ground traffic separation on some US airports, and also by the US military on some of their practice ranges. As already mentioned, the first use of ADS-B in day to day ATC was VDL-4 in northern Europe.
As for re-broadcast using ADS.x, I have always thought that somewhat questionable, but I fail to see why that has anything to do with the basic datalink being used.
Tootle pip!!
I am NOT getting back into this old argument!
I am NOT going to direct Plumbum to reassess his statements re ICAO standards, origins of UAT and why, TDMA, CDMA, VDL 1 thru 4 and what they mean, where and who uses them, orphaned technology, sour grapes....and etc etc...
I am NOT getting back into this old argument!
I am NOT......
THIS ARGUMENT IS SO BLOODY OLD...IT SHOULD BE IT'S OWN STRAWMAN.
You lost the argument last time, why drag it all up again? The yanks are about to get a rude shock re-atc and who will get access and who will pay once the FAA is divested. We have been there before them.
1090ES is the standard...get used to it, Plumbum. UAT , whilst it can be fitted into the receiver...what cannot be fitted is the transmitter network that produces all the free bandwidth that you so crave....SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT! Leadie, you cannot even set up your own network because AirServices refuses to allow access to its secure network.
No argument from eight years ago at the finish and from twelve years ago at the start has changed...why try again? What has changed?
......I've said too much.....coming nurse
I am NOT going to direct Plumbum to reassess his statements re ICAO standards, origins of UAT and why, TDMA, CDMA, VDL 1 thru 4 and what they mean, where and who uses them, orphaned technology, sour grapes....and etc etc...
I am NOT getting back into this old argument!
I am NOT......
THIS ARGUMENT IS SO BLOODY OLD...IT SHOULD BE IT'S OWN STRAWMAN.
You lost the argument last time, why drag it all up again? The yanks are about to get a rude shock re-atc and who will get access and who will pay once the FAA is divested. We have been there before them.
1090ES is the standard...get used to it, Plumbum. UAT , whilst it can be fitted into the receiver...what cannot be fitted is the transmitter network that produces all the free bandwidth that you so crave....SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT! Leadie, you cannot even set up your own network because AirServices refuses to allow access to its secure network.
No argument from eight years ago at the finish and from twelve years ago at the start has changed...why try again? What has changed?
......I've said too much.....coming nurse
Well that's it then. Why try and implement a failed system? For me it will be the cheapest, smallest compliant transponder with no integration with anything, definitely no ads-b out, no TSO'd GPS, plus a FLARM core talking to the Dynon to keep track of gliders and anybody unfortunate enough to be using ADS-B out.
I will add One approved radio, for the sake of regulations, Two would be overkill since no one understands the current broadcast requirements at uncontrolled ALA's anyway so what's the point of listening let alone transmitting beyond the absolute legal bare minimum?
Thank you pprune for this and other threads that demonstrate the complete incapacity of CASA and AsA to design and implement in clear english a comprehensive and efficient set of operational safety standards for anyone. You have saved me at least $10,000.
I will add One approved radio, for the sake of regulations, Two would be overkill since no one understands the current broadcast requirements at uncontrolled ALA's anyway so what's the point of listening let alone transmitting beyond the absolute legal bare minimum?
Thank you pprune for this and other threads that demonstrate the complete incapacity of CASA and AsA to design and implement in clear english a comprehensive and efficient set of operational safety standards for anyone. You have saved me at least $10,000.
Ha..away again...Sunny, on the money. All you need is the transponder and a tso'd gps source. All this guff is because a couple of people have twenty year old bizjets that are going to cost a motza to upgrade....should you feel sorry for them if you can comply for as little as $4000.00?....
........pills? Yes, of course I took the blue one!
........pills? Yes, of course I took the blue one!
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
I don't want to rewrite history but the cost was never going to be a problem for anybody as AsA were going to fund it all.
Four thousand Dollars?? No, I was definitely told it would all be free.
Four thousand Dollars?? No, I was definitely told it would all be free.
Folks,
Believe me, Frank is correct, we sat in enough meetings where we were told not to worry about the cost ---- the subsidy would cover all or most of it, and the rates of $$$ subsidy for each type of operation was actually published in the propaganda blurbs.
Those of us who volunteered that it was just that, propaganda, that GA would never see the money, were howled down by those who wanted to believe.
Frank will well remember several "identities" in "representative bodies" who had a major conflict of interest, that did most of the howling down, and to hell with the interests of their members.
OZ,
My sincerest apologies if you have popped a fooffle valve, I know as well as you do that we are stuck with 1090ES, that doesn't make dumbxxx technological decisions any less dumbxxx, and doesn't make political strong-arming respectable.
Those of us who attended a major conference in US , on the subject, in 1996 (my org. was an ICAO Observer status attendee, and supporting VDL-4) simply were absolutely astounded when the 1090ES "solution" that had been consigned to the dustbin by FAA and most EU authorities (that had given it any thought at that time), were subsequently confronted with 1090ES being adopted as the "international standard".
Remember the UPS/Tennessee Valley trial, the Mediterranean trial, the Scandinavian trials and implementation ----- all VDL-4. And, of course, all the FAA work in Alaska, UAT.
A case of "money isn't everything, but it is sure a hell way ahead of whatever is in second place" --- just like real estate or coal mine development in NSW.
Tootle pip!!
Believe me, Frank is correct, we sat in enough meetings where we were told not to worry about the cost ---- the subsidy would cover all or most of it, and the rates of $$$ subsidy for each type of operation was actually published in the propaganda blurbs.
Those of us who volunteered that it was just that, propaganda, that GA would never see the money, were howled down by those who wanted to believe.
Frank will well remember several "identities" in "representative bodies" who had a major conflict of interest, that did most of the howling down, and to hell with the interests of their members.
OZ,
My sincerest apologies if you have popped a fooffle valve, I know as well as you do that we are stuck with 1090ES, that doesn't make dumbxxx technological decisions any less dumbxxx, and doesn't make political strong-arming respectable.
Those of us who attended a major conference in US , on the subject, in 1996 (my org. was an ICAO Observer status attendee, and supporting VDL-4) simply were absolutely astounded when the 1090ES "solution" that had been consigned to the dustbin by FAA and most EU authorities (that had given it any thought at that time), were subsequently confronted with 1090ES being adopted as the "international standard".
Remember the UPS/Tennessee Valley trial, the Mediterranean trial, the Scandinavian trials and implementation ----- all VDL-4. And, of course, all the FAA work in Alaska, UAT.
A case of "money isn't everything, but it is sure a hell way ahead of whatever is in second place" --- just like real estate or coal mine development in NSW.
Tootle pip!!
Explanations of what happened in the past that caused where we are today are fine, but dwelling on the past, what the environment was and what happened 10-20 years ago and talking about what might have been isn't particularly productive.
The focus now needs to be on what needs to be done to improve the current environment moving into the future, taking into account the technologies currently available and in place (e.g. Australia's extensive ADS-B coverage above 10,000 and SSR coverage in the "J" curve)), and where we should be heading for the future.
And as is prevalent on these forums now, criticising people who have a different opinion or point of view also isn't helpful, and just serves to discourage commenting.
The focus now needs to be on what needs to be done to improve the current environment moving into the future, taking into account the technologies currently available and in place (e.g. Australia's extensive ADS-B coverage above 10,000 and SSR coverage in the "J" curve)), and where we should be heading for the future.
And as is prevalent on these forums now, criticising people who have a different opinion or point of view also isn't helpful, and just serves to discourage commenting.