Should ADSB out/in be mandatory for all general aviation aircraft?
I can recall at least 3 cases where expert pilots had mid airs with other expert pilots under "see and avoid."
There is a non-zero chance that there are far more near misses than pilots are aware of.
Ground based fails when there are intermediate obstacles. Cost is a problem that should no longer be a problem, given the ubiquity of cellular communications, but the smaller market and regulatory hurdles and the out-dated specification are all to blame for keeping the cost up.
A suitable ADSB-In system is within the capacity of any hobbyist to realize for around $200 or less, including the ability to alarm on proximity.
The Canadian system, Aireon, seems like a replacement for ATC use of transponders and primary radar, rather than a system to alert small aircraft to each other's presence; of course it is over capable of separation, but that won't count if not every uses it. Using Iridium is a tech upgrade over transponders, but that is being eclipsed by Starlink.
There is a non-zero chance that there are far more near misses than pilots are aware of.
Ground based fails when there are intermediate obstacles. Cost is a problem that should no longer be a problem, given the ubiquity of cellular communications, but the smaller market and regulatory hurdles and the out-dated specification are all to blame for keeping the cost up.
A suitable ADSB-In system is within the capacity of any hobbyist to realize for around $200 or less, including the ability to alarm on proximity.
The Canadian system, Aireon, seems like a replacement for ATC use of transponders and primary radar, rather than a system to alert small aircraft to each other's presence; of course it is over capable of separation, but that won't count if not every uses it. Using Iridium is a tech upgrade over transponders, but that is being eclipsed by Starlink.
The problem with ADSB is the cost. In Canada we have gone with a space based solution. This makes some sense given the huge size of Canada but it requires antenna diversity which limits the range of available products all of which cost around 10 K. If the UK is going the same route everyone should push hard for a ground based system like the US UAT. It is dramatically less expensive and works just as well.
I fly gliders and I hate FLARM. It is a total scam with users that are completely beholden to an unregulated monopoly and which has numerous operating deficiencies. The regulators should have stopped this in its tracks and forced an open source solution.
I fly gliders and I hate FLARM. It is a total scam with users that are completely beholden to an unregulated monopoly and which has numerous operating deficiencies. The regulators should have stopped this in its tracks and forced an open source solution.
A space based solution, in a huge country like Canada, arguably is the way ahead - I can see that, FOR ATC USE.
The size of the country is totally irrelevant when it comes to aircraft seeing each other, as if they're not within a few miles of each other, it doesn't matter - they don't need to see each other.
A lot of the problems with the plethora of systems are caused by the fact that some (ADSB) are being driven by air traffic controllers, and some others (FLARM, PAW) are being driven by pilots. Hence the significantly different approaches.
Even in a tiny country like the UK however, a ground based solution is deeply flawed. I did a bit of work a couple of years ago after a mid-air fatal - I flew a mode-S equipped aircraft to the overhead of the location of the crash, and then climbed up until ATC could see me on secondary radar. This was over a large area of very flat landscape about 300ft AMSL and well under 50 miles from at-least three radar equipped major airports - I was at 1400ft before ATC could see me on secondary, and 2000ft before they could see me on primary. That clearly shows that ATC cannot be at the core of collision avoidance solutions. Safe and workable solutions MUST be based upon aircraft seeing each other electronically.
G
My base lies between two mountain ranges in Canada. My transponder replies to the satellite on the ground. Another glider pilot told me his PowerFlarm sees my ADSB return 50 km away.
My transponder replies to the satellite on the ground. Another glider pilot told me his PowerFlarm sees my ADSB return 50 km away.
Thread Starter
The clamour for rules and regulations is a sign of our times. People are less likely these days to have their own mind but want rules and machines to make the simplest of decisions for them. It is a mistake to believe that making a rule/regulation will always solve the problem. The idea of mandating the carriage of ADSB or any other machine fits into this thinking. My late father was always telling me; " be careful making rules because they may not solve the problem but will always create rule breakers.
And as for 'machines making decisions for us', let's not disregard the fact that human flight itself is a product of the synergy between man and machine. Aviation depends on and evolves with technology, thus safety is improved. I'd certainly rather my machine tell me that an aircraft could hit me in hazy conditions than waiting for the MK1 eyeball to tell me.
Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I disagree that mandating ADSB reflects a clamouring for rules and regulations. It's the same as mandating seatbelts on cars. Yes, it's an extra step before hitting the gas, but it's equally an extra barrier before hitting the windshield. The same principle applies with ADSB.
And as for 'machines making decisions for us', let's not disregard the fact that human flight itself is a product of the synergy between man and machine. Aviation depends on and evolves with technology, thus safety is improved. I'd certainly rather my machine tell me that an aircraft could hit me in hazy conditions than waiting for the MK1 eyeball to tell me.
And as for 'machines making decisions for us', let's not disregard the fact that human flight itself is a product of the synergy between man and machine. Aviation depends on and evolves with technology, thus safety is improved. I'd certainly rather my machine tell me that an aircraft could hit me in hazy conditions than waiting for the MK1 eyeball to tell me.
If I have a very hard landing, and am wearing my harness - then the chances of my dying are significantly lower for wearing the harness, than if I wasn't. Ultimately it's me who lives or dies.
If I am flying in marginal visibility and am using both a transponder and some form of traffic receiver, then the chances of my having a collision with another nearby aircraft are much lower. It is me, my passengers, and whoever was in the other aircraft who live or die.
So the electronic conspicuity technology protects other people, not just me - unlike the harness which really only protects me.
This isn't a case for ADSB as a specific technology, it's for EC/receiver/display generically. The argument about which technology is best is separate.
G
I've come to the point where my only advice to fellow pilots is "emit something" in fact anything will be better than nothing. I'm happy with my set up and still follow the VFR mantra of "see and avoid" but have simply added "hear and avoid" as well.
The following users liked this post:
I don't think you mean transponder which is line of sight to a beacon on the ground. I'm presuming that you mean your ADSB
These arguments are very persuasive but miss the point. The mandatory wearing of safety harnesses are of a different kind. In a world of surveillance such as street cameras with face recognition and speed cameras. Here in France they are installing speed cameras that do much more; they will also detect should you inadvertently cross the solid white centreline and more. With all this high tech big brother is on our backs whenever they can be. It is announced today by NatWest Bank that they are tracking their customers spending habits and telling them to stop eating meat and to drive electric cars to save the planet; god knows what their calls will be to pilots flying gas guzzling aeroplanes. Say goodbye to your bank account.
One of the joys for many is to get airborne and away from all these earthly pressures, 'the freedom of flight' as it was once called. I can empathise with all that.
One of the joys for many is to get airborne and away from all these earthly pressures, 'the freedom of flight' as it was once called. I can empathise with all that.
When CVRs were brought into the airline world, the unions got together and refused to accept them until there were clear commitments that the data would only ever be used for safety, and not disciplinary purposes. GA organisations aren't as powerful as airline unions, but perhaps we should pursue a similar line between us all?
G
G
Nope. Transponders reply to interrogations wherever they came from including satellites. Receivers pick up the reply. ADSB data is appended to the reply.
