Benefits of ADS-B
 

Apart from allowing cool apps on iPhones to watch traffic coming and going, what enhancements/safety benefits does ADSB transponding bring to ATC. It doesn't add anything to mode s data does it ?

Also, why is it that I can only see aircraft in my phone app once they're airborne ? Is the data that my iPhone picks up trasmitted from the aircraft or via the radar ground station ?

Many thanks.

It can add the ability to see aircraft. For example, the Hudson Bay area of Canada was non-radar. No radar was being installed because it is so expensive to install maintain, especially in a remote area like that. But, when relatively cheap non-moving receiver antennas can be installed with lower maintenance costs, it becomes viable. Now there is radar equivalent in the Hudson Bay area for properly equipped aircraft.

No radar in Central Australia. On a typical Ayers Rock to Cairns service, pre ADSB, we'd be radar identified only for the last 200 odd nm into Cairns. Now, with ADSB, we're identified on first contact wit with ATC, which is some 770 nm earlier.

Only a matter of time before it leads to reduced separation on the North Atlantic. At present all aircraft at same level are separated by a minimum of ten minutes, which is incredibly inefficient in comparison to Radar separations which are 5 miles where I work

ADS-B provides more accurate aircraft positioning than Radar, can ead to reduced separation and less restrictions on airspace utilization...and subsequent fuel savings and less carbon emissions.

ADS broadcast (ADS-B) is transmitted from the aircraft transponder continuously whilst it is powered on. It is different from ADS-C which is transmitted to a specific ground station using SATCOM or VHF etc at specific times determined by the 'contract'.

ADS-B sends out various aircraft parameters including position every few milliseconds which is decoded by a ground station. It is distinctly different from a radar that picks up position manually and SSR information.

The ADS broadcast is not encrypted and can be picked up by anyone with a 1090mhz receiver which includes ground stations, spotters, and even other aircraft that have ADS-In capability. This can be displayed on the ND etc.

ADS-B therefore has the advantage that no ground based radar receiver is required and the only device required to present an accurate radar picture is a single tuner capable of receiving on 1090mhz.

Edited to add note that the ADS-B will only be picked up within range of the transponder which is typically a couple of hundred miles....ADS-C using satcom, such as is used Oceanic will work when in range of satellites.

less fruit.

and ADS-B transmits twice a second airborne and once a second on the ground.

.. for the luddites amongst us in the sand pit ... what happens when the power failure occurs and the back up power strategy doesn't work ?

If substantial reductions in separation are in place, procedural rules are going to be hard pressed to sort it all out before confetti rain occurs ?

Same thing that happens under SSR radar I guess...

It has an advantage to helicopter operators that work in busy airspace. I can see aircraft running on the ground and working at low level, well under the radar :ok:

Think I might take Cunard ...

Hi
 

Now Flying around we might have noticed with fly the airspace equivalent of a motorcycle, and it's easy to go unnoticed. So for all the fast fixed wingers and other aircraft blasting around they'll see us on the map and get an alert that we are near.

In case I missed it on the huge informative thread of MH370, Was it equipped with ADS-B/C?

Yes, but for some reason it became non-operational when the plane was on course half way across the gulf of Thailand between Malaysia and Vietnam.

There are many benefits of ADS systems, Mode S, ADS-B, ADS-C, all have different parameters.

NextGen was supposed to go live with ADSB 2 in 2020. This is ADSB-Out only.
At the last conference, about 3 weeks ago, it looked pretty grimm. Bandwirdth is a huge issue. What is to be included in the broadcast is stuck in all kinds of committees and interest groups. The big surprise was that in the FAA budget for 2014/2015, there is no money alloted for ADSB. From what I have heard, I am not sure if the FAA has any budget for 2014/2015 :rolleyes:

With regards to ADSB-In, there is little chance that any of us will see this implemented. Boeing does not support ADSB-In because of the security/integrity issues. They stated they will only do what is mandated that they do.

OK,
What does that have to do with ADSB-IN?

That was a test in 2008, what happened to the pilot program?

GPS position. This will allow for a a whole bunch of advancement in ATC/aircraft automation.

Question: Does ADS-B as a concept require GPS to work?

Answer: No.


The D in "ADS-B" stands for dependent, as in, on onboard navigation sources. Now what exactly the technology of that source is is fully open for implementation to resolve - it doesn't say "dependent on GNSS". It just so happens that GPS is currently the only such system out there that delivers the accuracy, integrity and continuity needed to make the dependency worthwhile for surveillance application in civil aviation. So what are other navigation sources that could be considered?

In the first instance, generally any GNSS. Technically, the russian GLONASS is good enough for the same application as GPS and using or not using it for ADS-B is a political question. Putin loves nothing more than to lure gullible and shortsighted west European politicians into yet more interdependency so that he can then force their hand when needed, like, say, when invading a neighbour country with aspirations towards membership in Euro or North Atlantic institutions. Soon enough China will have their version of GNSS running and India is aspiring to the same at a longer horizon. In the ADS-B standard there is nothing that forbides the respective countries to enable, or dare I say, mandate that traffic operating in their airspace be ADS-B capable using their native GNSS system. It is the likelihood of an equivalent reciprocation from the West that makes this a non-option, not the technical means.

In the second instance, the onboard inertial unit. Contemporary systems, albeit improving, generally are not yet up to the performance standards required for proper surveillance but it is better than nothing if the GPS should fail or become unavailable, and position info delivered by those is useful in degrading to procedural control or clearing the sky, whatever is stipulated as the next mode of operation. It may not be usable to provide a 5NM separation due to low integrity, but it is still usable information.

And in third and further instances, any number of technological means, extant or upcoming. Take a look in the NAV domain, where PBN makes good use of the existing DME infrastructure, to great effect. A pair of DME's in a suitable configuration can support a 0.3 NM RNP approach - that is way more precise than what a 5 NM enroute separation would require. It would however by prohibitively expensive to dot the Earth with DME units to provide the required coverage for a meaningful separation application. Thus it becomes a feasibility limitation, but not a technical one.

Are UPS still using ADS-B for pilot controlled self-separation at Louisville or was this only a trial which has finished?

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.

Yes I do, very much so. There were the ADSB-In trials into Brisbane a few years ago. I dont feel that simply receiving ADSB data, meets the definition of 'IN'.

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.

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.

underfire
 

Don't underestimate the possibility of technology quickly growing faster than you do..

Given current technology (everywhere but on an aircraft) ADSB in 2020 would be like adding an 8 track tape player to your car.

Time for the FAA to evolve.

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.

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.http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implement...maps/radio.png

Hey, my dad still has a box full of these tapes! But no player.
(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.

"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.

http://i60.tinypic.com/34gn1aq.jpg

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.

ADSB relieves the pressure on 1090 by reducing transponder FRUIT. 2 a second from ADSB rather than 300 times a second from A/C transponders