Benefits of ADS-B
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
The en route radar system in the U.S. is very, very expensive to maintain. Most of those en route radar sites (ARSR) are old GCI sites from the 1950s. The FAA will be happy to get rid of them but I don't know about the USAF.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: PA
Do you know what 'ADS-B In' is?
There are some ADSB-IN 'equivalent' sytems, but unless there is a way for each aircraft to communicate the flight plan or trajectory/intent data, I dont feel that is what is meant by ADSB-IN.
ADSB-IN requires each aircraft to broadcast aircraft identification, absolute bearing/2D distance, heading/tracking, wake vortex category, relative altitude/absolute altitude, ground speed, and vertical velocity. It also requires that the aircraft handshake to understand and validate the other aircrafts data integrity, similar to ADS-C. The intent bus has been left open on the FMS for this capability.
Since SafeRoute simply receives ADSB and estimates the other aircraft trajectory, the cooperative feature is not there, so I dont feel that is an ADSB-In system.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: PA
I agree, and ADSB systems were tested on aircraft back in 1999.
That being said, and going back to my original statement, we will all be long gone before ADSB-IN is ever utilized.
Hell, I dont even see ADSB-out being mandated in the US by 2020.
That being said, and going back to my original statement, we will all be long gone before ADSB-IN is ever utilized.
Hell, I dont even see ADSB-out being mandated in the US by 2020.
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
Swiss have been using IN for in trail procedures across the NATS for over a year on a trial basis. EU is ADSB out mandated already. Just because the FAA are slow to adapt ADSB doesn't mean everyone else is.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: earth
My group has started maintaining our aircraft to ADS-B standards and added it to the MEL, getting prepared to add it to the ops spec. There are many ground stations operative in the USA from what I understand.
Joined: Sep 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 956
Likes: 68
From: away from home
(Apologies for the thread drift - I just had to).
But I fly across N-Canada to the west coast quite often, and ADS-B really has made a difference up there. I hope we see it soon implemented in the Greenland and Iceland airspace.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: PA
"Others believe that “enshrining” today’s already congested 1030/1090-MHz transponder frequencies into the legislation would further delay the urgent need for a better and more secure surveillance datalink."
Therein lies one of the biggest issues, the congestion which leads to drop-offs, the second major issue is the security and integrity of the broadcast. This is the major reason that Boeing does not support ADSB-IN systems, the lack of security in the broadcast.
In the US, the FAA is going to use 980 below 18,000 adding complexity.
The FAA mandate is for ADSB version2, unfortunately, Australia and Europe jumped in too early with mandating Version 0.
Given that the parameters are being argued, especially security/intergrity parameters of the ADSB broadcast, it is very likely that the Version 2 will not be compatible with version 0, but who knows.
This dialog on ADSB about sums it up:
But where is the pushback for technological change coming from?
Pushback: After working for the FAA for 31 years, I can tell you politics, politics, politics. The only tech advances that get anywhere are those that come from the appointed political management people that can use it to enhance their personal résumé and bragging rights. Suggestions from controllers, pilots, technicians, and engineers are almost always buried in beurocracy for fear of actually making sense.
Therein lies one of the biggest issues, the congestion which leads to drop-offs, the second major issue is the security and integrity of the broadcast. This is the major reason that Boeing does not support ADSB-IN systems, the lack of security in the broadcast.
In the US, the FAA is going to use 980 below 18,000 adding complexity.
The FAA mandate is for ADSB version2, unfortunately, Australia and Europe jumped in too early with mandating Version 0.
Given that the parameters are being argued, especially security/intergrity parameters of the ADSB broadcast, it is very likely that the Version 2 will not be compatible with version 0, but who knows.
This dialog on ADSB about sums it up:
But where is the pushback for technological change coming from?
Pushback: After working for the FAA for 31 years, I can tell you politics, politics, politics. The only tech advances that get anywhere are those that come from the appointed political management people that can use it to enhance their personal résumé and bragging rights. Suggestions from controllers, pilots, technicians, and engineers are almost always buried in beurocracy for fear of actually making sense.
