Many Not Going to Fit ADS-B
You could get close but not quite because:
a) Zaon is long out of business.
b) The Zaon system only worked by listening in on the mode C responses triggered by a ground based radar. This means that it really would be useless outside of the radar coverage areas of Australia.
c) The Zaon worked by detecting the direction that the Mode C response came from. This is always going to be less accurate and prone to more spurious signals that recieving an encoded broadcast. I haven't flown with one but when I was in the USA knew people who had them who were less than impressed with the accuracy.
a) Zaon is long out of business.
b) The Zaon system only worked by listening in on the mode C responses triggered by a ground based radar. This means that it really would be useless outside of the radar coverage areas of Australia.
c) The Zaon worked by detecting the direction that the Mode C response came from. This is always going to be less accurate and prone to more spurious signals that recieving an encoded broadcast. I haven't flown with one but when I was in the USA knew people who had them who were less than impressed with the accuracy.
Folks,
A fundamental point that some (most) of you have missed, is that there has NEVER been a collision risk probability to justify ADS-B in any airspace, and this comment is not geographically confined to Australia.
ADS-B is NOT for collision risk reduction, it is a tool for ATC separation, just like radar or procedural separation. Given Australia's traffic levels, as an ATC tool it is "nice to have", but has never been in the category of "must have".
Indeed, in a cost/effectiveness (NOT cost benefit) analysis, whether in US or Australia, ADS-B comes up well, the ATC service provider can slash infrastructure costs, effectively transferring hundreds of millions of $$$ cost onto the operators, whilst still providing the same service as SSR.
All the PR about "improved efficiency" for airlines is pure flummery, at least FAA is honest about this, Airservices is, in my opinion, not honest in its claims for ADS-B.
Clearly, most of you do not know the history, or have forgotten, particularly the several CASA attempts at a cost/benefit analysis to justify ADS-B. See if you can find a copy, you will be surprised at the nonsense. As for the RIS, what a joke in very poor taste.
In fact, it would be wonderful if there was enough GA traffic to warrant ADS-B ---- but that is so far from reality. Surely most of you have realised that the largely CASA induced collapse of GA is not just the whinging of a few malcontents, but is all too real --- as reflected in collapsing avgas sales and ever decreasing movement rates in the bottom end of GA.
And some turkey here wants to mandate ADS-B IN and OUT for everything, including VFR aircraft ---- get real !!!
Tootle pip!!
A fundamental point that some (most) of you have missed, is that there has NEVER been a collision risk probability to justify ADS-B in any airspace, and this comment is not geographically confined to Australia.
ADS-B is NOT for collision risk reduction, it is a tool for ATC separation, just like radar or procedural separation. Given Australia's traffic levels, as an ATC tool it is "nice to have", but has never been in the category of "must have".
Indeed, in a cost/effectiveness (NOT cost benefit) analysis, whether in US or Australia, ADS-B comes up well, the ATC service provider can slash infrastructure costs, effectively transferring hundreds of millions of $$$ cost onto the operators, whilst still providing the same service as SSR.
All the PR about "improved efficiency" for airlines is pure flummery, at least FAA is honest about this, Airservices is, in my opinion, not honest in its claims for ADS-B.
Clearly, most of you do not know the history, or have forgotten, particularly the several CASA attempts at a cost/benefit analysis to justify ADS-B. See if you can find a copy, you will be surprised at the nonsense. As for the RIS, what a joke in very poor taste.
In fact, it would be wonderful if there was enough GA traffic to warrant ADS-B ---- but that is so far from reality. Surely most of you have realised that the largely CASA induced collapse of GA is not just the whinging of a few malcontents, but is all too real --- as reflected in collapsing avgas sales and ever decreasing movement rates in the bottom end of GA.
And some turkey here wants to mandate ADS-B IN and OUT for everything, including VFR aircraft ---- get real !!!
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled, to be clear, incase that comment about a "Turkey" was aimed at me, I do not think that all Aircraft including VFR should have ADS-B In or Out Mandated, my point was merely that to get the benefits they are claiming this would be the only way. Anything less is, as you've said, just "Flummery" in the end.
And agree entirely, I made this point about the requirement for an ATPL Flight test and put the challenge to others to bring up any particular incident or potential incident that could have been avoided by the new requirements.
This is the biggest problem with EVERYTHING that CASA are currently doing, none of it is to actually improve upon any actual threat to safety, it is to justify their jobs and be seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something whilst achieving their aim of removing GA and thusly simplifying their jobs. It might not even be the current mob who are truly to blame, it has been those there for a while driving it all but no one seems willing to stand up and admit it.
And agree entirely, I made this point about the requirement for an ATPL Flight test and put the challenge to others to bring up any particular incident or potential incident that could have been avoided by the new requirements.
This is the biggest problem with EVERYTHING that CASA are currently doing, none of it is to actually improve upon any actual threat to safety, it is to justify their jobs and be seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something whilst achieving their aim of removing GA and thusly simplifying their jobs. It might not even be the current mob who are truly to blame, it has been those there for a while driving it all but no one seems willing to stand up and admit it.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What rock have you been under? There are quite a few selling disturbingly cheaply at the moment. I know of one very nice Seneca that sold a few weeks ago specifically because the owner did not want to do the ADS-B upgrade.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If collision risk was the reason then mandating Flarm for all aircraft would be way cheaper. Flarm is already installed in most gliders in Australia, the newer Powerflarm also sees transponder equipped aircraft..
Folks,
Among others, a group under the AFAP umbrella has been and is pushing for mandatory ADS-B for all aircraft.
An interesting piece in the US AOPA mag., (from FAA papers) recently, about "automation dependence" and the degradation of pilot skills.
This extends to various "automated" collision warning systems in light aircraft, which are NOT effective at close range (because, oversimplified, of the order of accuracy of the displayed target position) such as in a VFR circuit.
In short, using ADS-B, and various other systems, is probably increasing collision risk, because pilots are becoming dependent on such systems, and no longer keeping an adequate lookout. And, of course, ignoring the probability of a a non equipped or u/s equipped aircraft in the area.
Sadly, in Australia the problem/risk is minimised by the minimisation of any actual flying, thanks CASA for keeping the skies "safe".
Tootle pip!!
Among others, a group under the AFAP umbrella has been and is pushing for mandatory ADS-B for all aircraft.
An interesting piece in the US AOPA mag., (from FAA papers) recently, about "automation dependence" and the degradation of pilot skills.
This extends to various "automated" collision warning systems in light aircraft, which are NOT effective at close range (because, oversimplified, of the order of accuracy of the displayed target position) such as in a VFR circuit.
In short, using ADS-B, and various other systems, is probably increasing collision risk, because pilots are becoming dependent on such systems, and no longer keeping an adequate lookout. And, of course, ignoring the probability of a a non equipped or u/s equipped aircraft in the area.
Sadly, in Australia the problem/risk is minimised by the minimisation of any actual flying, thanks CASA for keeping the skies "safe".
Tootle pip!!
Enigma now makes a relatively cheap complete portable ADS-B in and out solution. I assume it works.
http://www.enigmaavionics.com.au
I understand it needs CASA approval to be legal.
I advise the owners of Enigma to take their product and manufacturing to the United States right now because time to market is everything in electronics these days.
If they do not take their product to the USA immediately Three things will happen:
(1) CASA will not approve it for years, if ever, because its made in Australia and they hate that. Meanwhile they will engage with you in endlessly expensive meetings and technical analysis. You will be lucky if this analysis does not find its way to the USA long before they consider approving your product. If you try for a confidentiality agreement, well, that will take SIx months to negotiate.
(2) If CASA do approve it, it will be with Australian CASA required changes and a CASA rider to the approval that it is for domestic use only and that means you can't use CASAs approval to sell it overseas.
(3) By the time CASA approves it there will be at least one American alternative (Garmin) and Three Chinese copies on the market and you will fail because the time to market cycle for electronics is about Nine months or less.
Message to Enigma guys: take your product to the USA immediately! Do not try for CASA approval, they don't know how to do things quickly and couldn't care less about AUstralian industry or GA aviation. You have only a few months, if not mere weeks before someone announces a similar product and if its Garmin then you are toast!
http://www.enigmaavionics.com.au
I understand it needs CASA approval to be legal.
I advise the owners of Enigma to take their product and manufacturing to the United States right now because time to market is everything in electronics these days.
If they do not take their product to the USA immediately Three things will happen:
(1) CASA will not approve it for years, if ever, because its made in Australia and they hate that. Meanwhile they will engage with you in endlessly expensive meetings and technical analysis. You will be lucky if this analysis does not find its way to the USA long before they consider approving your product. If you try for a confidentiality agreement, well, that will take SIx months to negotiate.
(2) If CASA do approve it, it will be with Australian CASA required changes and a CASA rider to the approval that it is for domestic use only and that means you can't use CASAs approval to sell it overseas.
(3) By the time CASA approves it there will be at least one American alternative (Garmin) and Three Chinese copies on the market and you will fail because the time to market cycle for electronics is about Nine months or less.
Message to Enigma guys: take your product to the USA immediately! Do not try for CASA approval, they don't know how to do things quickly and couldn't care less about AUstralian industry or GA aviation. You have only a few months, if not mere weeks before someone announces a similar product and if its Garmin then you are toast!
Upgrade costs and practicality
Aircraft operating in New Zealand airspace currently have a diverse range of navigational capabilities. This diversity, coupled with a wide mix of aviation activities, a high level of non-commercial operations and an older aircraft fleet, mean that not all participants will have the level of equipage to meet future requirements and that upgrading costs will vary greatly.
A balance will need to be struck between the needs of the operators who are driving towards an exclusive PBN environment (which will allow best cost savings) and the needs of some participants in the aviation system, in particular some in the general aviation community, for whom cost may outweigh benefits until equipment costs reduce.
In addition, there are some practical implications to take into account, New Zealand only has a small number of avionics engineers experienced in the new technology and is reliant on supply of equipment from overseas. Time will be needed to allow operators to arrange for upgrades and there may be impacts on the operation of both existing and new aircraft systems.
Aircraft operating in New Zealand airspace currently have a diverse range of navigational capabilities. This diversity, coupled with a wide mix of aviation activities, a high level of non-commercial operations and an older aircraft fleet, mean that not all participants will have the level of equipage to meet future requirements and that upgrading costs will vary greatly.
A balance will need to be struck between the needs of the operators who are driving towards an exclusive PBN environment (which will allow best cost savings) and the needs of some participants in the aviation system, in particular some in the general aviation community, for whom cost may outweigh benefits until equipment costs reduce.
In addition, there are some practical implications to take into account, New Zealand only has a small number of avionics engineers experienced in the new technology and is reliant on supply of equipment from overseas. Time will be needed to allow operators to arrange for upgrades and there may be impacts on the operation of both existing and new aircraft systems.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Enigma box is for Light Sport Aircraft, Experimentals and like. It is a VFR solution, not IFR. Probably won't be allowed in standard certified aircraft. Looks to me like it is aimed at the US market where TABS WILL be allowed for Experimentals and Light Sport.
They are already competing against at least two products I know of that are TABS approved GPS units for around US$700 which can drive ADSB capable transponders. One is a Garmin unit. The cost of the TSO'd transponder has been the issue.
It also isn't "portable". You'll need a transponder antenna and a GPS antenna on the outside of the aircraft. Likely the installation wiill need "approval" and/or "certification". No bets as to whether CASA and ASA will countenance TABS devices in Australia.
Flarm will likely only help you in the circuit. The range is short, uncertain and the system suffers from airframe shielding due to the frequency and the low power transmitter. Also needs a Flarm equipped target. PowerFlarm will detect transponder Mode C (range and altitude only, no bearing) and ADSB targets but doesn't advertise its presence to those.
They are already competing against at least two products I know of that are TABS approved GPS units for around US$700 which can drive ADSB capable transponders. One is a Garmin unit. The cost of the TSO'd transponder has been the issue.
It also isn't "portable". You'll need a transponder antenna and a GPS antenna on the outside of the aircraft. Likely the installation wiill need "approval" and/or "certification". No bets as to whether CASA and ASA will countenance TABS devices in Australia.
Flarm will likely only help you in the circuit. The range is short, uncertain and the system suffers from airframe shielding due to the frequency and the low power transmitter. Also needs a Flarm equipped target. PowerFlarm will detect transponder Mode C (range and altitude only, no bearing) and ADSB targets but doesn't advertise its presence to those.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raspberry Pi ?
just in case anyone needs to look it up like me.
The Raspberry Pi is a series of credit card–sized single-board computers developed in the United Kingdom by the Raspberry Pi Foundation with the intention of promoting the teaching of basic computer science in schools and developing countries.
The original Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi 2 are manufactured in several board configurations through licensed manufacturing agreements with Newark element14 (Premier Farnell), RS Components and Egoman. These companies sell the Raspberry Pi online. Egoman produces a version for distribution solely in Taiwan, which can be distinguished from other Pis by their red coloring and lack of FCC/CE marks. The hardware is the same across all manufacturers.
The Raspberry Pi is a series of credit card–sized single-board computers developed in the United Kingdom by the Raspberry Pi Foundation with the intention of promoting the teaching of basic computer science in schools and developing countries.
The original Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi 2 are manufactured in several board configurations through licensed manufacturing agreements with Newark element14 (Premier Farnell), RS Components and Egoman. These companies sell the Raspberry Pi online. Egoman produces a version for distribution solely in Taiwan, which can be distinguished from other Pis by their red coloring and lack of FCC/CE marks. The hardware is the same across all manufacturers.
Gawd...not you again, Eyrie.
You would be wrong on the enigma equipment. You need to dig a lot more to find out who makes the engine for them and where they are along with certification.
You would be wrong on the enigma equipment. You need to dig a lot more to find out who makes the engine for them and where they are along with certification.
Eyrie, I owe you an apology! Checked the Enigma site and I am gobsmacked...the company had a solution in the works over ten years ago. All they needed was the gps engine to get the proper TSO...which it did over six years ago...and now this! If enigma reads this...I reckon you guys have dropped the ball big time. A blind mounted basic encoder to feed the data to a mode S was all that was required.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I made a mistake in my post above. I meant to say "The cost of the TSO'd GPS has been the issue".
There have been ADSB compliant Mode S transponders at reasonable cost available for a while like the Trig units and others but a GPS that's TSO'd has been about DOUBLE the price of the transponder itself. The Trig unit and some others have the altitude encoder built in to the transponder
I stand by the other things I said in that post. AFAIK the US will demand a real ADSB out even in standard certified VFR aircraft if what I read on Avweb is correct but will allow TABS in LSA, Experimentals and hopefully, gliders.
OZBUSDRIVER, how did you come on the information about the Enigma timeline? I sure can't find it on their website.
There have been ADSB compliant Mode S transponders at reasonable cost available for a while like the Trig units and others but a GPS that's TSO'd has been about DOUBLE the price of the transponder itself. The Trig unit and some others have the altitude encoder built in to the transponder
I stand by the other things I said in that post. AFAIK the US will demand a real ADSB out even in standard certified VFR aircraft if what I read on Avweb is correct but will allow TABS in LSA, Experimentals and hopefully, gliders.
OZBUSDRIVER, how did you come on the information about the Enigma timeline? I sure can't find it on their website.
LeadSled,
'is probably...increasing collision risk.' The same thing could be said for GPS! This is really down to training isn't it? Somebody using automated collision warnings as a substitute for lookout and listenout in the VFR pattern is asking for trouble. I'm sure that was never the designer's intention. Pilots need to have timely, accurate information and they must know how to locate, analyse and act on it. 'adequate lookout' has always been an unreliable way to separate aircraft in isolation, there are so many limitations to it and this is precisely the reason why systems were developed to aid situational awareness. ADS-B can be used (correctly) to perform directed lookout which increases the likelihood of identifying and avoiding a conflict, not the other way round.
How do you force someone to go scud running? Does the pilot somehow enter an airmanship void, is his/her decision making incapacitated?
In short, using ADS-B, and various other systems, is probably increasing collision risk, because pilots are becoming dependent on such systems, and no longer keeping an adequate lookout.
By the look of it, this will mean a large number of pilots will no longer fly IFR and be forced to go scud running.
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 27th Oct 2015 at 19:00. Reason: Turned down the cynicism
Chronic Snoozer, the phenomenon you are talking about is called 'risk shifting". Technology is developed that properly used, reduces risk but the response of the user is to engage in more risky behaviour leaving the overall level of risk substantially the same or even greater.
The classic example is ABS in cars. Drivers responded by reducing separation distances between vehicles, the net effect was that the reduction in nose to tail crashes wasn't what was expected.
Shirley pilots aren't stupid enough to engage in risk shifting?
The classic example is ABS in cars. Drivers responded by reducing separation distances between vehicles, the net effect was that the reduction in nose to tail crashes wasn't what was expected.
Shirley pilots aren't stupid enough to engage in risk shifting?