What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

ADS-B out

RV8R999

Well Known Member
Why do so many feel ADS-B OUT has nothing to do with safety?

If the OUT functionality provides your location, altitude, track, speed to all the IN users doesn't this help them avoid a midair with you? Seems like a safety enhancement to me.

If nobody has the OUT then the IN won't have info to provide TIS correct?
 
Last edited:
ADS-B

I couldn't agree more. I don't see the safety aspects of each aircraft having a "personal code", (big brother?) but "see and be seen" with the Mark 20 doesn't work well enough for my comfort level at closing speeds at close to 400 mph. Having others able to see me and being able to see others is almost as important to me as landing with fuel left in the tanks. I don't want to fly in the system constantly to get that. I'm planning on having ADS-B in & out with traffic displayed on the EFIS' moving map.
Practicing approaches with people in the traffic area reporting 3 miles out, when in fact they are 5 or 6 miles out, can sure get interesting. I'd like to KNOW where they are instead of relying on them (or me) making bad guesses.
 
The safest way to avoid a mid air is don't fly

I'm sorry if that offends you but the number of people flying is going down - not up. The number of pilots is less than 2/3 of the number 30 years ago. That is a mid air collision avoidance factor. We already have a requirement for transponders in congested airspace which provides an in and out function in appropriate conditions without unique aircraft identification and indiscriminate tracking by whoever wants to do it. Not only will there be an installation cost & complexity but there will be a recurring certification cost, additional risk of prosecution for failure to comply with a whole new set of regulations and associated legal costs. This is my freedom you are tramping on as well as your own. Maybe that is an out of date concept but I still want to keep it.

Bob Axsom
 
While it may be a safety enhancement, the real question is- is the increase in safety worth the cost to provide it? Nobody could argue that grounding the entire GA fleet wouldn't make things safer, but at too high a cost. The question is where doe ADS-B out fall on the continuum of "do nothing--------ground the whole fleet."

So much is likely to change between now and 2020 that it is foolish to adopt now. Sort of like buying your EFIS along with your tail kit.
 
I am loving my ADS-B.

I have both IN & OUT (NavWorx). Without the OUT you are not guaranteed to get the IN. The system needs aircraft to participate to make it work to it best. My EFIS displays the targets and I can visually pick out anything that it displays with in five miles of me with in 3 seconds.
You still need to keep you eyes outside the airplane, but I know that it is easy to miss targets. Because of ADS-B, I can see (on the EFIS) traffic that will intercept my very far off and adjust my course to avoid the interception.

The system in my area (Oregon) is on and I think that it is on most places in the US by the end of the year.
I will also be getting the benefit of free weather.

For $2500.00 I think that this is the best upgrade to my airplane since I bought my TT autopilot. Makes flying in congested areas much safer.
 
I have both IN & OUT (NavWorx). Without the OUT you are not guaranteed to get the IN. The system needs aircraft to participate to make it work to it best. My EFIS displays the targets and I can visually pick out anything that it displays with in five miles of me with in 3 seconds.
You still need to keep you eyes outside the airplane, but I know that it is easy to miss targets. Because of ADS-B, I can see (on the EFIS) traffic that will intercept my very far off and adjust my course to avoid the interception.

The system in my area (Oregon) is on and I think that it is on most places in the US by the end of the year.
I will also be getting the benefit of free weather.

For $2500.00 I think that this is the best upgrade to my airplane since I bought my TT autopilot. Makes flying in congested areas much safer.
What form does the "free" weather take on, with a NavWorx system & compatable EFIS?
 
What form does the "free" weather take on, with a NavWorx system & compatable EFIS?

I have NavWorx hooked up to my Garmin 496 and my AFS 3500 EFIS. The 496 only supports TIS-A so is more limited then the AFS (no weather, 7 targets and 7 miles range).
The AFS is connected with TIS-B and FIS. I am using a beta version of the AFS software that is one month old and it doesn't display the weather. I just talked to Rob Hickman (AFS), and he tested his newest code on Saturday. I has weather, 3D traffic, TAF and NOTAMS are coming. He said that the code would be released very soon. I'll get another version of the beta code before I go flying again to test it.

Now just to wait for the weather to be nice enough to go flying.

Kent
 
I have NavWorx hooked up to my Garmin 496 and my AFS 3500 EFIS. The 496 only supports TIS-A so is more limited then the AFS (no weather, 7 targets and 7 miles range).
The AFS is connected with TIS-B and FIS. I am using a beta version of the AFS software that is one month old and it doesn't display the weather. I just talked to Rob Hickman (AFS), and he tested his newest code on Saturday. I has weather, 3D traffic, TAF and NOTAMS are coming. He said that the code would be released very soon. I'll get another version of the beta code before I go flying again to test it.

Now just to wait for the weather to be nice enough to go flying.

Kent

Yes but when you say "It has weather", what exactly is meant? Graphical overlays, on the moving map, of critical info like precip, winds, etc?? Is there a document that desribes what is available and then I guess it's up to the EFIS what gets displayed?
 
FIS-B weather services

I know my post does not address specifically any particular avionics suite's capabilities, but this is what is available that an avionics provider could provide programming for via ADS-B IN. (Equipment capabilities deem FIS-B is not available to 1090ES due to bandwidth issues on that frequency, so UAT (978mhz) is the only way to get the FIS-B product. TIS-B is available to both). Some ground stations (legacy...meaning original) may not currently support all of these products, but as they are upgraded these services will then be available.

The following excerpt is from the FAA webpage:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/general_information/

What are the ADS-B In broadcast services?

ADS-B In services consist of the Flight Information Service-Broadcast (FIS-B) and the Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B).
FIS-B provides a broad range of textual/graphi*cal weather products and other flight relevant information to UAT equipment users (FIS-B is not available on 1090ES) to enhance situational awareness. FIS-B includes the following:

Aviation Routine Weather Reports (METARs)
Non-Routine Aviation Weather Reports (SPECIs)
Terminal Area Forecasts (TAFs) and their amendments
NEXRAD (regional and CONUS) precipitation maps
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) Distant and Flight Data Center
Airmen?s Meteorological Conditions (AIRMET)
Significant Meteorological Conditions (SIGMET) and Convective SIGMET
Status of Special Use Airspace (SUA)
Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs)
Winds and Temperatures Aloft
Pilot Reports (PIREPS)
TIS-B service status
TIS-B is an advisory-only service available to both 1090ES and UAT equipment users which aids in the visual acquisition of surrounding transponder-based traffic to increase situational awareness.
 
ADS-B Out does little for your traffic awareness unless you have "In" capability as well. ADS-B Out is not a mandated requirement if you stay out of areas that require Mode C now (almost 100% match except in mountainous areas).

You apparently will be required to maintain your Mode C transponder if you have one.

It may be (unknown with certainty), that many people will not equip with ADS-B Out. If that is a valid statement of the reality in 2020, then you still do not have a viable system since you still need to look for the many aircraft that are not ADS-B Out equipped. It does help, but so does ATC flight following/traffic advisory services, or any of the current traffic detection systems available for our aircraft at affordable prices.

One of my biggest complaints is that we are being forced to shoulder a cost so that the FAA and airlines can save money. If the FAA wants to pay the entire cost to put a system in my plane, I will equip.

Another reality. How many deaths occur each year due to midairs compared to other factors. If you want real safety...fix those other factors. Or just accept a rare event if the fix is too costly and/or not close to 100% effective.

If you want ADS-B, go for it. I am opposed to the mandate and am not done fighting it.

Example: Today a Mooney crashed near KCOS just prior to noon. I checked the KCOS METAR an hour later and it was 1/4 mile vis, freezing fog and overcast at 100'. Probably the same at the time of the crash. Two fatalities.

I am not instrument rated so am just a bubba pilot. But why would a Mooney even attempt a landing in those conditions. Add similar fatalities then compare to fatalities from midairs.
 
Last edited:
From the 2007 McNall report:

"Midair Collisions
6 total/4 fatal
Collisions between aircraft in flight are relatively rare. Most happen in day VFR conditions, frequently in or near an airport traffic pattern. Total midair collisions for 2006 dropped to six from the previous year’s 10. Fatal midair accidents remained at four, with nine persons killed. As collision avoidance technology becomes more widespread in general aviation, these numbers may improve in coming years."

Nine killed. That is nine too many but wait, how many were killed for fuel management problems?

"Fuel Management
86 total/11 fatal
Easily preventable, fuel management accidents include fuel exhaustion (the airplane runs out of gas), fuel starvation (fuel remains on board but is prevented from reaching the engine, e.g., failing to switch tanks at the right time), and fuel contamination. In 2006, 63 (eight fatal) accidents were
a result of fuel exhaustion. Fuel starvation caused 17 (three fatal) accidents, and fuel contamination resulted in six (none fatal). These numbers are significantly lower than the 113 total and 20 fatal fuel management accidents in 2005."

So fuel exhaustion accounted for TWICE as many fatal accidents, no...pilot screw ups, as mid airs. If the FAA is really concerned with safety. Fix that problem first. You may save far more lives at a lower cost.

Or consider weather issues:

"IMC 88 (65) 73.9%"

65 fatal events due to weather. Versus four (let me repeat that....FOUR) for mid-airs.

Go fix the big killers before worrying about the rare events like mid-airs.

Plus there is a point that may blow away the mid-air safety argument. I have to get more data but it could be a huge expose.
 
I believe the point of ADS-B In/Out isn't as much about trying to fix the mid air problems we are having but rather ensure we continue to avoid them in the future and at a cost which is sustainable for many years to come. Yes, there is an initial procurement of equipment cost shared by the users but the government looks at total life cycle cost of the program (equipment, maintenance, manpower, training, Operations, etc..).
 
It is worth remembering that ADSB signals are transmitted from certain places on the ground, usually major airports. Because of limitations of point to point radio, the ADSB In information (traffic & weather) will not be available at outying airports until airborne. With traffic, this is OK. With weather, perhaps not.

For that reason, it may be better to get ADSB traffic, but get your weather through XM (satelite).
 
In the January 2011 AOPA Magazine, page 12, a comment is made that the FAA says the ADS-B Out "...mandate will not greatly increase or decrease safety, but is needed to move NextGen forward."

My assessment/opinion of that statement: ADS-B Out equipage will not do squat (or minimal squat) to prevent the already rare mid-airs but GA must pay between $2.5 billion and $6.2 billion to equip with this unneeded system so that the FAA can reduce radar costs.

Here is an ADS-B coverage map. I believe that the blue is where you have coverage from 1800' AGL and above

http://tinyurl.com/2j74wh
 
Last edited:
myopic. The current system is aging, expensive and provides little upgrade or flexibility. In order to keep mid-air rare the nextgen system needs to do at least as well as the current given that a new system is inevitable ADS-B Out is important.
 
for various reasons, i'm of the opinion that in busy airspace, radar (or some other ground based technology like multilateration) will and never can be replaced.
ads-b is interesting for oceanic and remote (alaska etc...) applications, because it can be used to reduce prescribed minimum separations (sometimes procedural) significantly.
however, to this day, nobody has shown me how to safely and significantly go below the current 3 or 5NM / 1000ft applied with radar, even with this "nextgen" technology. not even in the independent in-trail spacing scenarios. problem is, at some point things happen simply too fast, even for the best of automation.
so it is a true mistery to me, how they want to achieve the promised doubling or quadrupling of capacity just by replacing the position base info!
the benefits will have to be gained through better management, coordination and datalink tools, not simply by replacing one position source with another and expecting all the rest to fix itself. yet the challenging and currently limiting part is not the position information and accuracy.

there are other problems with ads-b...
one, the system completely relies on good position integrity by each element. sending out false positions could cause real havok and create new dangers. in reality, for small planes this position info must be gps-based as they cannot be expected to have triple redundant inertial reference systems.
but there will always be a risk of outages / antenna problems / intentional disturbances or freak problems like satellite outages due to space debris and radiation. of course it's all very remote, but from a system stability perspective it's a huge threat to "put all eggs in one basket" so to speak.
and if you want to conclude that this is the best way to do it, then the benefits must far outweigh the risks, which IMHO is simply not the case.
it's one thing to accept such a risk impacting a single flight during a gps non-precision approach, or whether risking a complete system crash in such a scenario.

second, the data is not encrypted and the basic concept dates pre-9/11. so security really is poor, with all potential targets giving away their targeting info for free... considering the technology available even at a hobbyist level, one does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to imagine awful scenarios.
or how about spamming the system with non-existent aircraft? the list goes on...
anybody seriously expect that air force one or other sensitive flights will take part in such a system? heavily doubt it.
however if one single element does not cooperate, the whole system becomes very unsafe and unstable.

non-cooperation could also be unintentional, based on electric system failures etc... however IMHO it is unacceptable that such a condition puts other unsuspecting flights at risk. in todays environment this can be taken care of either through primary radar or the controller on the ground accounting for transponder-failed flights, keeping everybody else away. in a partially automated system, things are not that simple any more.

i'm all for progress, new technology and greater capacity, but i'm very skeptical about all the ADS-B hype going on right now. and even more so concerning small aircraft. my opinion: ADS-B is overhyped and will not deliver what's promised.

and no, i'm in no way worried to loose my job as controller... maybe it will change some, but there's always going to be humans in the system, plus i'd love to work even more capable systems yesterday, if they only were available... while some of our systems here in switzerland are truly advanced compared to some of the ancient equipment our colleagues in the U.S. still work on... my respect.

rgds, bernie
 
You do not replace terminal radar (primary or secondary) with ADSB.

You do get more coverage in places where radar is not available for far less cost.

In remote locations it will be a great benefit even in cases of SAR tracing.

The extra protection for RPT (or whatever you call it...fare paying passengers) from U/L and GA is a bonus.

Those folk who focus on the negatives are not weighing up the positives. The earth is flat :rolleyes:
 
Don't get me wrong, i see the positives for remote areas like australia with previously no radar coverage.

plus, i'm not one of the typical naysayers and pessimists.

however, all i'm criticitzing is:
- this is not how ads-b is being sold and advertised. as a matter of fact it's being sold as the next "holy grail" for aviation.
- use in remote areas does not warrant a mandatory fleet wide upgrading spree that has to be paid for by the owners.
- a complete switch (as is envisioned for the next gen infrastructure) will not work out / carries new risks.

as for the ads-b "in" part, there are many more capable technologies available today that could be used for the datalink into cockpit part. the problem is that aviation seems particularly slow at drafting standards and at the time of implementation, underlying technology is a decade old or even older. xm radio in the u.s. does a great job at all the weather etc... datalink, the same concept epxanded globally and expanded to include notams etc... would work great, completely independent of ads-b. only the traffic aspect would remain to be solved otherwise.

that's why i love experimental avionics/aircraft. however, don't expect to see experimental avionics taking an active role with ads-b out soon. although that could be a great boost at the bottom end of the market if it would be allowed.

my 50cts
bernie
 
don't expect to see experimental avionics taking an active role with ads-b out soon.

Wrong again........its already here. Dynon have it and no doubt many others will soon.

Mode C transponders were probably objected to by many as well once upon a time.

Remote areas......Australia.....yes we have remote areas, and yes the USA has no idea about how remote that is, but its the not so remote but serviced by pax carrying operations that have not even radar coverage let alone a Class D tower that we want it for.

As for the USA and Europe with far more terminal radar, its filling in the rest of the picture.

In my opinion the cost of En Route radar head replacement is where the FAA could make big saings and that could be used to help offset some of the GA installation costs. This is how your GA lobyists should be pushing things.

ADSB is no different to Radio or transponder carriage and use. Its just the cost of doing business. Get used to it. What you need to do is say...."Yep I would love to have it but how about you help fund it with your savings."

Let me ask you this, your wife's new car that she carts the children or grandchildren to school, to sport wherever..... take it back to the dealer and ask them to do this;
1. Remove the seat belts and give me a credit :eek:
2. Remove the ABS and give me a credit :eek:
3. Remove the all round disc brakes and give me drums and give me a credit :eek:
4. Take those really nice tyres off and give me some 1950's tyres :eek:
5. Aircon and heating, windscreen demisting, - don't need em so a credit for that too :eek:
6. Heck those coil over suspension systems are over rated how about leaf springs all round and credit me for that :eek::eek::eek:
7. Those nice Halogen headlamps.....give me those off the old Customline :eek:

Shall I go on, or has your wife divorced you already?

Its the same head in the sand debate. Time to build a bridge and get over it. Why is it we have heated Pito's today.....surely once there was no such thing.

Its the cost of doing business, and flying is a privilege not a right....despite what you may think. We in the western "Free World" have the wonderful democratic life we call free.....that means we have freedom, and not everything about freedom is free!

DB:cool:
 
you are spot on!

I find it ironic the naysayers of our generations NEXTGEN system are still willing to pay for the equipment of the 1950 generation NEXTGEN - the transponder, without complaint but no way should we have to pay for the newer model. Just doesn't add up to me. I guess its all timing. Those of us who recently bought transponders for our new RVs will in relatively few short years be required to purchase ADS-B. Those who have been flying for years will probably feel they received good use of their equipment and be less objectionable to purchasing the new equipment. The future RV builders won't give a hoot cause they'll just be buying ADS-B not both. Am I wrong? I bet if you bought one or two less Starbucks each week you'd have saved enough to purchase the equipment by the time it is mandatory.

What I'd like to know - what is the counter proposal which addresses the recapitalization, operations, maintenance and sustainment costs of the current system if you don't think ADS-B will do the trick? How do you think your proposed solution will be funded? Our tax dollars pay for our highways and road system but the government doesn't buy our cars (well most of us anyway). In fact I'd be interested to know of any government funded public service in which the government funded equipment for private use used for this service? Sure, it would be great if Uncle Sam bought all our ADS-B equipment but how the heck would you propose they do that? What other program are you willing to cut to pay for what most of us use as recreation? Would your non aviator neighbors be ok with your choice? When the equipment breaks and needs repair who pays for that? What about pilots who own more than one airplane? Do they get all their equipment courtesy of some other programs funding? Then of course if the government funds the equipment they will only buy to the lowest bidder at the potential sacrifice of quality and reliability. Our government has in a sense already aided us in procurement of the equipment by having provided R&D money, grants, testing services, etc... which help keep costs to the private sector lower. Don't even try to argue this isn't the case...I sat in the room when money was programmed to do it and in one program in particular I placed the money there myself - so yes Ron, I do believe it!

Ken
 
The future RV builders won't give a hoot cause they'll just be buying ADS-B not both. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. It has been reported recently that Mode C transponders will still be required.

See AOPA Magazine, January 2011, page 12
 
Last edited:
Ron

Yes you are wrong. It has been reported recently that Mode C transponders will still be required.

With all due respect and all........what cr@p!!!!

You will only require the one transponder......it will do the Mode C and mode S....ES1090 all at once.

The simple lay terms are the data string squits out the Mode C data plus the mode S all with GPS position and speed along with aircraft ID and your Baro altitude.

Just think of it as an upgrade, remove one system and replace with an enhanced one.

Maybe you should ask your AOPA to take a look at what our AOPA is doing and saying.

The trouble is far too many folk are running around crying wolf..........and not many folk are taking the educational path.

Bottom line is this.....get educated, get better understanding and get on board.

I recall the guy in One Six Right talking about how you need to tell folk in the community about what is good about GA, and tell them how it benefits the community.......well this is no different.

I can argue the point all day long......if you really want to, I can dig up data till we are all sick of it, but at the end of the day its going to happen and for good reason. The best thing you guys can do is get the FAA to help offset some of the cost.

Nitey Nite! :)
 
I have no problem with ADS-B as long as I am not required to buy an expensive box and install it in my RV-7. I guess it would be OK if the government gave it to me, although I wouldn't be happy about cutting a hole in my panel that is exactly the way I want it right now. If you want to kill General Aviation, go ahead and mandate that every owner has to buy a $2000+ box for their airplane.

Furthermore, it seems to me the whole concept is flawed. They are relying on each aircraft broadcasting its own position for air traffic control. What if airplane doesn't broadcast, for whatever reason: doesn't have the equipment, the equipment doesn't work, the pilot doesn't want to be seen and turns it off? Shouldn't there be a backup like radar and air traffic controllers.

I assume ATC will receive all the aircraft ADS-B signals through satellite. What if the satellite is down? Without radar backup, then ATC has absolutely no idea where everything is. That is not an acceptable situation. There must be a backup.

The FAA has been spending gobs of money on the "next-generation" air traffic control system fmy entire adult life -- I'm 50+ -- with precious little to show for it. This is the best they can do?
 
Last edited:
again..what is your solution? Always easy to poo-poo someone elses idea but why not try a constructive approach and provide a better alternative. Be part of the solution not the problem.

FWIW...
 
again..what is your solution? Always easy to poo-poo someone elses idea but why not try a constructive approach and provide a better alternative. Be part of the solution not the problem.

I am fairly well educated on the system and rationale used to justify it. I would pose to you Ken....What is the problem?

Read the original NPRM. The benefits are geared towards the airlines and the FAA. GA is just a chump in the process. We (GA) get very little for it. About the only possible benefit is improved SAR info in some cases. That is reduced for me due to less than good coverage in the west.

Not only are some of the benefits geared towards the airlines, I am reasonably certain that much of those savings were already used to justify the WAAS system. If true, that is double counting.
 
Solution

My solution? The FAA buys ADS-B for all commercial carriers. To supplement ADS-B coverage and for backup, the FAA upgrades existing ground-based radar to state-of-the-art. Air traffic control centers & staff remain. There has to be a backup. Cut the FAA bureacracy in half to pay for it. Those beautiful business jets they fly into Oshkosh and Sun 'N Fun with: sell them.

Make ADS-B optional for general aviation. For you posters in love with it, pay for it out of your own pocket. Don't saddle those who don't need it and don't want it with an unfunded mandate.

I'm not opposed to ADS-B. But there has to be a backup, and don't make it an unfunded mandate.
 
Last edited:
Conceptually, ADS-B is an outstanding way for the FAA to go - every airplane in the air has a GPS receiver and sends its position to a "Central Computer" that then knows where all the traffic is at any one time. No radar, very accurate positions - and the ability to send data back TO the airplanes can get rid of all that frequency changing. As I said, conceptually, it is outstanding.

But welcome to the real world. it is a government-run operation, which means that the design never gets frozen, money flows to contractors like water, and the "standards' are poorly understood. In order to work, EVERYONE has to participate. Sow me a modern weapon's system that has gotten in to the field on time and on budget within the past thirty years, and I'll say that this might work...transponders have been "required" for thirty years,and there are still lots of airplanes without them!

If they really want it to work, the FAA should count up the current number of registered aircraft. Have an avionics manufacturer design an In/Out box that will work for everyone, and manufacture enough of them for every aircraft. Then GIVE them to every owner. If you do the math, you'll probably come up with a figure which is far below what is wasted in a year of development effort. Come on - you can buy a GPS for less than 100, and satellite transmitters aren't all that bad in quantity.

Just an idea that might make it work in our lifetime!

Paul
 
@RV10inOZ

Dynon does build a mode-s transponder that supports extended squitter, so their transponder is ads-b capable... but think of the transponder as only the "network router" part. it doesn't stop there. there's also a need for a certified gps receiver, which at the moment means a big $$$ panel mount in most cases. that's what i meant where experimental stops...
here in europe, they mandated everyone to move up to mode-s (elementary surveillance only) transponders just recently. technically this was a great development as it helps radar systems, however for ads-b the snake bit its tail. all the owners had to pay up out of their pockets for no perceived gain (although there is, but it's a very abstract one).
the equipment that was retrofitted is mostly non-ads-b capable (as none was ready or at least affordable) so most transponders would have to be swapped out again. this will be a very hard case to make now. they should have at least waited (or developed and produced) until equipment was ready and then mandated that in one big push.

for the individual airplane, other than the costs and available equipment (that's where i agree with paul dye's comments) it's not such a big deal.

on the whole systemic level i do not agree that the concept is very well thought out. of course it's not necessarily a bad idea that each element broadcasts its own position which is then available to form a picture. and this can also be made to work, especially when doing a clean-sheet approach involving each and every element and ideally with a clear standard of equipment.

unfortunately reality looks much bleaker, and as stated, i would not bet on moving the whole system over to the current standard of ads-b.
even more so for light aircraft. therefore i will not pay up for something without benefits. and the car equipment analogy that was brought up does not apply here, sorry!

rgds, bernie
 
Ron Lee said:
would pose to you Ken....What is the problem?
As has been stated before, in Australia at least, there are vast swathes of airspace where the only seperation between aircraft is "see and avoid" - and this is between a Drifter at 50 knots and anythinng upto and including 737. Sure, the US doesn't have as severe a problem as we do down here, but the overriding principle is still the same.

Ron Lee said:
About the only possible benefit is improved SAR info in some cases.
I bet that one person who's *** has been saved doesn't quibble with the extra few grand the system cost...The question then becomes "How do you know you won't be that one person?"

flybill7 said:
For you posters in love with it, pay for it out of your own pocket. Don't saddle those who don't need it and don't want it with an unfunded mandate.
No problems. I don't need anything other than an ASI, Altimeter and a few other VFR instruments. But what I want is dual SkyViews, a GNS430 and an iPod. But I'll also have ADS-B, and I'll pay for it out of my own pocket. Because I feel safer with it there than without it.
 
as to all the SAR arguments:
that's what the 406MHz ELT's are here for. with the newer ones even supplying gps position from any (non certified) gps source) and the regular ones providing accurate.

and as to advantages of datalink (the frequency changing example paul mentioned), you won't get this with ads-b, it's more part of the whole range of nextgen projects:
CPDLC (Controller Pilot Datalink), although it uses somewhat related technologies, is by definition not part of ADS-B and can be used in any environment (and holds great promise for the future). unfortunately the same security concerns apply as with ads-b... so far it's mainly used in oceanic environments and in most cases linking through satcom so it's relatively safe, but the vhf datalink portion over continental areas introduces some new vulnerabilities.

ads-b stands for "Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast" and really mainly covers the "air situation picture" aspect of a possible new air traffic system. mode-s transponders are just one way of getting the position data across, vhf datalink and satcom are the other main channels.

note that i'm in no way aiming at datalink or other true benefits of a new generation system, and i greatly encourage and support developments over current technology. my concern and gripe is simply with completely depending (and funding) the new ads-b air situation picture.

there was just recently a large scale multilateration system put in operation covering an area with many oil rigs in the north sea. so alternatives do exist even for non-radar areas.

and at the end of the day, the advancements will come from e.g. a new digital radio system eliminating the shortcomings of the old radios, datalink technology, better flight plan/separation/prediction tools in the ground system etc... and not from replacing one air picture with another, wich we have to pay for with little benefits.

right now, you're realistically talking 10000-15000$...
if it was just a small box that you get for free and hook up to a 12v pin and put somewhere below the panel most people probably wouldn't even care about the systems' shortcomings...

another 50cts
bernie
 
ADSB Wx Data Examples from 1 Jan2011

I posted this ADSB WX Info piece today on the MGL Forum and thought it kind of fit into this ADSB thread of why anybody might want ADSB including out! I do believe 100% in ADSB out, just wish the general aviation world and FAA would appreciate it enough to make it a requirement someday (by 2020?). Seems simple to me, I have in cockpit precise information of all aircraft in my vicinty, better than TCAS, and those aircraft get to know where I am, its not a game of statistics, its just common sense. I have had enough close encounters through the years to actually believe that Mid-Airs can happen and that the big sky theory is not absolute. What has been mentioned very little in this thread is that the airlines get little safety benefit from Next Gen, maybe some more efficient routing, but there is no weather over Mode-S, and the airlines are not required to install NextGen ADSB technology. The FAA is providing us, the Gen Aviation crowd a Free Service (ADSB Weather) that along with ADSB Out-In enhances safety with only a single upfront cost. The only maintenance cost is an altitude encoder check which is already required for your transponder. You might say you have already paid for this with user taxes and you would be right, but this is a real service your taxes are funding for our benefit, and it works. One of the few really good deals I have ever seen from the FAA or Government. Now onto my discussion about ADSB weather, what it provides in its raw form, and how it apears to work.
I have been collecting WX data to support ADSB integration and wanted to share some actual ADSB WX Pictures & Information to let our (MGL) FORUM compare ADSB WX & NEXRAD Graphics with normal NEXRAD WxServc Graphics. The Text below is actual WX Info sent as text in the ADSB transmission I recorded this morning around 1648UTC and includes METARS, TAFS, PIREPS, SPECIAL WX Observations, and Winds Aloft.
The included WX Pictures are from the WX front that went along the Gulf Coast this morning. Having any real information on what ADSB includes or does not include and how it compares with other WX sources has been hard to come by so doing this data collection has been both fun and educational on what ADSB provides and how it really works. The Raw ADSB WX is black around the actual wx because that is how the data is designed to be sent, the actual ADSB wx should be integrated and displayed overtop of normal EFIS graphical displays. The ADSB datalink WX comes with Location and 5 levels of WX intensity. Obviously NEXRAD has a lot more, and when you look at the graphics you will see for example that a lot of the darker NEXRAD Yellow shows up as ADSB Red! In my observations of the ADSB data update rate it appears that the Regional WX picture is updated completely approximately every 6 minutes, with a partial update every 3 minutes. The national WX picture gets updated approximately every 12 to 15 minutes (no partial updates).
The ADSB Transmission I have been collecting data from is (I believe) being sent from the ADSB site at Choctaw Navy Auxiliary Airfield about 14NM's west of my house. This is part of the Gulf Of Mexico ADSB Network. I am using a NavWorx ADSB 600-B UAT connected to a standard Transponder stubby wire antenna and GPS antenna, the unit is controled via its serial Mntc port and I am collecting the ADSB data via its RS232 serial port at 115200 KBaud. ARINC429 does not work because there is no ARINC message standard for ADSB weather. Only Traffic. The NavWorx serial port supports TIS-A & B (Traffic) and FIS-B (WX).

Raw ADSB WX Graphic with 5 color WX shading for WX intensity.

ADSB_RegionalWx_House_1648UTC.jpg


Natl WX Servc standard NEXRAD WX Graphic with their 15 colors for WX intensity.

RegionalNWS_Wx_1648UTC_House_1048.jpg


Raw ADSB National WX Graphic, they only seem to send out data for areas that actually have weather.
ADSB_National_1648UTC.jpg


NatlWX Servc NATIONAL NEXRAD WX Graphic

NationalWx_1638UTC.jpg


NavWorx Web SIte
http://navworx.com/index.asp

Cecil
-----------------
Selected ADSB RAW WX text included in todays collected data (there is a lot of data, this is a small part of a 30 minute transmission)

Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 8
ID 8
ID 413 TAF KSVN 0113/0213 15005KT 3200 BR SCT005 BKN060 QNH3014INS EBECMG 0116/0117 17009KT 9999 NSW SCT060 BKN150 QNH3006INS EBECMG 0201/0202 18005KT 9000 -SHRA BKN025 BKN150 QNH3004INS
EBECMG 0211/0212 22009KT 9999 NSW BKN040 QNH3005INS T22/0120Z
ET08/0113Z LIMITED METWATCH 0113 TIL 0410=ÿ
PC 20
PC 11
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 8
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 8
ID 413 TAF KNBC 0109/0209 VRB03KT 1600 BR FEW005 BKN025 OVC050 QNH3010INS ETEMPO 0109/0113 0800 FG EBECMG 0112/0114 18008KT 9999 NSW SCT010 BKN030 OVC050 QNH3006INS ETEMPO 0200/0206 8000 -SHRA T11/0109Z T20/0121Z=ÿ
PC 20
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 413 METAR KAUO 011615Z AUTO 16011G21KT 10SM BKN012 BKN017 OVC055 16/14 DA2999 RMK AO1 LTG DSNT W=ÿB
ID 413 METAR KDHN 011553Z 17019G28KT 10SM SCT019 BKN065 20/15 A3007 RMK AO2 DPK WND 16029/1539 SLP178 T02000150=ÿ
PC 20
PC 11
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
PC 20
PC 11
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 413 PIREP ATL 011555Z 47A UA /OV ATL010040/TM 1555/FL180/TP MD88/TA M10/IC LGT RIME 170-180/RM ZTL CWSU= ABQ /OV CIM/TM 1600/FL370/TP B738/TB MODERATE/RM ZAB ÿ
PC 20PC 11
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 413 METAR KLHW 011555Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM OVC044 15/15 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP223 FT01500150= ÿB
ID 413 METAR KNBC 011556Z AUTO 13004KT 10SM OVC065 20/15 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP226 T02000150 $=ÿ
ID 413 METAR KGAD 011615Z AUTO 18005KT 7SM FEW013 SCT046 OVC060 15/14 A2999 DRMK AO1 P0013=ÿ
ID 413 METAR KMAI 011553Z AUTO 16013G19KT 10SM SCT110 22/15 A3005 RMK AO2 DSLP175 T02170150=ÿB
ID 413 METAR KAQV 011556Z AUTO 36012G17KT 10SM BKN060 OVC080 12/M03 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP198 T01171033=ÿ
ID 413 METAR KPOE 011555Z AUTO 36013G23KT 10SM BKN055 OVC070 12/M04 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP198 T01221039=ÿ
ID 413 METAR KESF 011553Z AUTO 02009G17KT 340V050 10SM BKN055 12/M02 A3012 DRMK AO2 SLP200 T01171017=ÿ
ID 413 METAR KLIT 011553Z 32008KT 10SM OVC080 05/M05 A3020 RMK AO2 RAB16E26 DSLP227 P0000 T00501050 $=ÿ
ID 413 METAR KPBF 011553Z AUTO 34007KT 10SM OVC080 07/M04 A3018 RMK AO2 DRAB11E22 SLP217 P0000 T00671039=ÿ
ID 8
ID 413 METAR KNEW 011553Z AUTO 22012KT 3SM BR OVC006 21/20 A2995 RMK AO2 DRAE16 CIG 004V010 SLP136 P0001 T02110200 TSNO=ÿC
ID 413 PIREP BNA 011400Z BNA UA /OV BNA045041 /TM 1400 /FL045 /TP C680 /SK OVC045 /WX -RA /WV 23059KT /TB LGT /IC NEG /RM /TA UNKN ÿC
ID 413 PIREP BNA 011400Z BNA UA /OV BNA045041 /TM 1400 /FL045 /TP C680 /SK OVC045 /WX -RA /WV 23059KT /TB LGT /IC NEG /RM /TA UNKN ÿ
PC 20
PC 11
Ownship lat: N30°24.01, long: W086°37.42
ID 413 SPECI KMGE 011611Z AUTO 29010KT 10SM -DZ BKN009 OVC014 15/14 A3007 FRMK AO2 DZB1611 CIG 007V011 PRESRR SLP180 $=ÿ
ID 413 WINDS DRT 020000Z FT 3000 6000 F9000 C12000 G18000 C24000 C30000 D34000 39000 Y C0405 3605+01 2631+00 2632-03 2549-14 2567-25 257342 257951 248358 ÿ
ID 413 WINDS SHV 021200Z FT 3000 6000 F9000 C12000 G18000 C24000 C30000 D34000 39000 Y C3107 2918-03 2837-01 2741-05 2575-17 2593-26 259942 259951 741157 ÿ
ID 413 WINDS MEM 021200Z FT 3000 6000 F9000 C12000 G18000 C24000 C30000 D34000 39000 Y C3113 2722-05 2638-04 2650-07 2474-19 7506-28 751842 752150 751555 ÿ
 
Last edited:
Cecil, I am glad that you enjoy ADS-B (In/Out). However, it seems that you seems to meld the two (In/Out capabilities). The current FAA mandate is to equip with ADS-B Out in areas that require Mode-C (one mountainous area exception).

My understanding is that the airlines will have to equip with ADS-B Out. And their supposed cost savings may be in efficient routing which was also used to justify WAAS.

As far as mid-airs, it is a very low percentage killer. See the Nall reports at aopa.org. I doubt that you see all traffic. If you are getting radar info from transponder equipped aircraft now, my guess is that those will go away when radars are reduced. So you will still have to maintain visual vigilance or mid-airs may increase.

As for the precip maps, very interesting. I am not sure that I see a lot of difference. In the region of your house, I would not penetrate anywhere based upon either map. I have limited time in rain and those were basically drizzle. Widespread yellow or red and I will wait it out. Perhaps even dark green.
 
Last edited:
Too Expensive.
Not Interested.
Don't want it forced down my throat. :mad:

On the other hand, Experimental Avionics are:
Cost effective,
Ahead of any Government initiative & Technically superior,
Voluntary to install. :D
 
Last edited:
? I do believe 100% in ADSB out, just wish the general aviation world and FAA would appreciate it enough to make it a requirement someday (by 2020?). Seems simple to me, I have in cockpit precise information of all aircraft in my vicinty, ...

Exactly the problem. You THINK you will have info on every aircraft in your vicinity. You are forgetting about all those J-3's, T-craft's, etc. with no electrical system on board, thus not transponder and no way to install one.

Now, many people say that's not a problem because those planes fly low. Well, what about sailplanes? They don't have an electrical system either, can't participate, and they do fly high. Luckily, they fly only on VFR days just like the Cubs so they aren't an issue.

Back to the Cubs, T-crafts, etc. and why they can't or won't add a transponder. First, the C-65 engine has no fitting to add an alternator or starter, thus anything they add will have to be battery powered. This adds weight and weight on a 65 hp aircraft is a big negative. Then there is the problem with their ignition harnesses. Many of those old airplanes don't have shielded ignition harnesses and preclude the possibly of transmitting any kind of signal. However, that doesn't mean the harnesses can't be changed but that significantly increases the total cost of ADSB out participation for those aircraft. Possibly exceeding a significant portion of the value of those planes.

As for the weather, that?s what I have my 496 for.
 
You think this 172 pilot wished he had some sort of collision warning --ADS-B or otherwise?

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Plane_in_Augusta_County_Field_112722099.html

I did a quick work up of what I would need in order to comply with 91.227 and came up with the below. On the Cardinal I would comply with ADS-B out and get traffic. On the RV-10 I would have ADS-B out plus traffic and weather. Since I would be relying on the GNS-430W and encoder for position and altitude, the actual ADS-B box can be very simple. The Navworx units leverage external components. Since the Garmin GDL90 will not be compliant, I think Garmin will shortly offer a simple solution similar to the Navworx offering utilizing existing external components such as the GNS-430W/480.

Bottom line if you already have a GNS-430W and a GTX327 (or GTX-330), your cost for complying with 91.227 will be MUCH lower than the much quoted $10,000-$15,000 or so.

ads-b.jpg
 
Hi William.

You think this 172 pilot wished he had some sort of collision warning --ADS-B or otherwise?

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Plane_in_Augusta_County_Field_112722099.html

I did a quick work up of what I would need in order to comply with 91.227 and came up with the below. On the Cardinal I would comply with ADS-B out and get traffic. On the RV-10 I would have ADS-B out plus traffic and weather. Since I would be relying on the GNS-430W and encoder for position and altitude, the actual ADS-B box can be very simple. The Navworx units leverage external components. Since the Garmin GDL90 will not be compliant, I think Garmin will shortly offer a simple solution similar to the Navworx offering utilizing existing external components such as the GNS-430W/480.

Bottom line if you already have a GNS-430W and a GTX327 (or GTX-330), your cost for complying with 91.227 will be MUCH lower than the much quoted $10,000-$15,000 or so.

ads-b.jpg

The NavWorx unit has a waas GPS build in, you only need to attach an antenna. I bought mine off eBay for about $15. AFS EFIS is being changed to use the TIS-B protocol and will be connected to the NavWorx Display Data port with pins 24 and 5 to one of the AFS serial ports. You still need to feed ALT info so one of the other serial ports on the AFS need to be set to output ALT and hooked to pin 7.
I have my system hooked up this way. I also have the NavWorx output TIS-A on pin 25 and feed this into my Garmin 496. I don't think that the 430 is setup to display TIS- A or B, so you don't need to hook it to the NavWorx, but will want to hook it to the EFIS.

Kent
 
You think this 172 pilot wished he had some sort of collision warning --ADS-B or otherwise?

I have read few facts on this event. But it is hardly justification for mandating ADS-B Out which by the way does not require ADS-B In (the way a pilot may get traffic alerts).

There is a way to possibly avoid this type event.....radio communications.

Until we get facts regarding who, what, when, where, why, this event is hardly the poster child for ADS-B Out. Actually, it never will be.
 
ADS-B

I have read few facts on this event. But it is hardly justification for mandating ADS-B Out which by the way does not require ADS-B In (the way a pilot may get traffic alerts).

There is a way to possibly avoid this type event.....radio communications.

Until we get facts regarding who, what, when, where, why, this event is hardly the poster child for ADS-B Out. Actually, it never will be.

I saw something on AvWeb (I think) the other day where the newest Autopilot coming into the market place, will automatically engage to keep the pilot from banking/Diving Ascending too far/fast. Why not also have it automatically engage to "Avoid" potential traffic.....
We live in the age of computer technology. It doesn't have to replace us old farts, but it sure can help keep us safe....
 
I saw something on AvWeb (I think) the other day where the newest Autopilot coming into the market place, will automatically engage to keep the pilot from banking/Diving Ascending too far/fast. Why not also have it automatically engage to "Avoid" potential traffic.....

Interesting thought. How would it handle formation flights? How would it handle an aircraft cutting in front of you on short final?

Personally, I would rather just have info and suggested action. Is that how TCAS systems work?
 
The NavWorx unit has a waas GPS build in, you only need to attach an antenna. I bought mine off eBay for about $15. AFS EFIS is being changed to use the TIS-B protocol and will be connected to the NavWorx Display Data port with pins 24 and 5 to one of the AFS serial ports. You still need to feed ALT info so one of the other serial ports on the AFS need to be set to output ALT and hooked to pin 7.
I have my system hooked up this way. I also have the NavWorx output TIS-A on pin 25 and feed this into my Garmin 496. I don't think that the 430 is setup to display TIS- A or B, so you don't need to hook it to the NavWorx, but will want to hook it to the EFIS.

Kent,

The ADS-B specification will require an "approved" (TSO-C146a) position source --at least for certified installations today and; I think just like transponders, this will also be the case for experimental aircraft. You can use the Navworx built in GPS, but you really want the position source to be the "certified."

In my configuration this is would be provided by the ARINC 429 FROM the GNS-430W to the ADS-B. TIS is also provide TO the GNS-430W via the ARINC 429.
 
You're right.

Kent,

The ADS-B specification will require an "approved" (TSO-C146a) position source --at least for certified installations today and; I think just like transponders, this will also be the case for experimental aircraft. You can use the Navworx built in GPS, but you really want the position source to be the "certified."

In my configuration this is would be provided by the ARINC 429 FROM the GNS-430W to the ADS-B. TIS is also provide TO the GNS-430W via the ARINC 429.

I just checked NavWorx site and read this:

"Options include an ARINC 429 interface that will allow ADS-B information, including TIS-B traffic, to be displayed on devices such as the Garmin GNS 530/430. The ARINC 429 option also allows an external GPS navigator supporting the ARINC 743A standard to replace the internal GPS source.
"

Kent
 
Navworx external GPS not that simple

According to Bill Moffit at NavWorx the G430 does not have the Arinc Labels (messages) that provide vertical velocity which the FAA requires for Adsb operation. Bill is hoping Garmin will add those as a firmware upgrade but there is no date yet from Garmin. So as of now the G400/500W units can't be used to drive an ADSB unit. Using a G430W is my plan also. Until then the Internal NavWorx GPS will be fine. who really cares if your Nav solution is 5 feet off vs 3 feet for an Adsb unit?

Cecil
 
Two transponders?

Yes you are wrong. It has been reported recently that Mode C transponders will still be required.

See AOPA Magazine, January 2011, page 12

Two transponders working togheter??? As I understand, mode S does everything a Mode C does, only a bit more: it's able to transmit data. Otherwise it works just like A/C, but it does not needs an altitude capsule...
 
Back
Top