ADS-B Threat/Opportunity

Normally, I try to limit my posts to factual/how-to-do-it information, but there is an issue that is really bothering me.

It's the cost of ADS-B.

My figuring is that it will cost about $10,000 +/- to equip an aircraft to be compliant with the new regs, dominated by the TSO'd GPS (Garmin).

Effectively, this means that your aircraft has to be IFR compliant to fly. This is a huge threat/opportunity to General Aviation. If you have built an economical aircraft ($30K for a Sonex to $100K for an RV), this means that 10 to 25% of the cost of an aircraft will be just to comply with the ADS-B regulations.

Add in 406 ELTs and there is even more cost.

Does anyone else not think this is absurd? The solution to this is political, of course.... or is it?

All of the technology to build an ADS-B compliant transceiver with a TSO'd GPS exists today. I'm not referring to companies like NavWorx and Garmin, I'm referring to Apple's iPhone. Short of TSO compliance, I think an iPhone is pretty darn close to being the complete technology package.

Of course, this is not practical for the cockpit, but given the large market to retrofit ADS-B to the fleet, an aggressive avionics company should look at cell phone technology and where it can take us to get the hardware costs down.

My challenge is to the EFIS manufacturers... stop messing around with seldom-used features and focus some R&D on the ADS-B problem. There is a big opportunity here that Garmin's culture probably is incapable of addressing.

I have a $100 APRS tracker in my RV-9A, connected to a handheld GPS. It provides a similar function to "ADS-B Out", so why do I need a $10,000 solution? How about a $1000 solution that contains the TSO'd GPS, UAT and/or mode S transponder in one box? Make it a black box (no panel) to interface with existing EFIS systems, or a slide-replacement for a GTX-class transponder. Spit the GPS data out so it can drive the 406 ELT (which needs TSO'd GPS info) and the Nav software in the EFIS.

Such a box would be very compelling because it gives you ADS-B compliance, plus the benefit of an IFR certified GPS driving your displays and ELT. Keep the cost down and seize huge market share from Garmin.

My R&D budget won't allow this, but Dynon or GRT or AFS or MGL or NavWorx or Trig might be interested.

..end of rant and market feedback.

Vern

Vern

I'm going through the ADS-B decision process now as well. Have a look at the NAVWORX web site. Their website claims that the ADS600-B has a GPS/WAAS receiver built in. Price is $2500. http://www.navworx.com/ads600-b.asp

Right now, I think I will delay the install of ADS-B in the hopes that more products (lower prices) will hit the market. I would like to have a UAT transceiver but not at that price.

Hope this helps

Ahh yes, the fine print:

"The ADS600-B? is a remotely mounted Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) designed to be fully compliant with the TSO-C154c standard. The ADS600-B? displays ADS-B information including TIS-B traffic and FIS-B weather on a variety of EFIS displays and handheld devices.The ADS600-B has a built-in transmitter. Non-TSO'd. "

The non-TSO'd is the issue. That's where the other $7000 comes in for a Garmin 400 series GPS.

Here's an interesting press release from Freeflight: http://freeflightsystems.com/docs/FreeFlight_RANGR_ADS-B.pdf

According to them, Experimental aircraft can use their products because they will "self certify" that their products are identical to the TSO'd units.

This may lower the cost to $3500. Better. but still too much.

Now you know one reason why I was so opposed to the FAA cost saving mandate known as ADS-B (or.....pass the cost to help FAA save money onto GA).

ADS-B

I think the FAA has done a big disservice to GA in mandating ADS-B. When advocacy groups such as AOPA and EAA are asking "Where's the benefit?" I have to wonder if the FAA even considered this before passing the rule.

The Canadian government did a similar negative cost/benefit analysis when they mandated 406 MHz ELTs. Lots of cost to the owner, questionable benefit, and even worse, emerging/available technology such as SPOT does a better job of tracking and alerting.

I agree with Vern, I am sick and tired of having these "requirements" rammed down my throat. Luckily for ADS-B there are a few years before it's mandatory, hopefully enough time for an enterprising company such as GRT, AFS, etc to offer compliance in a transponder box for a current transponder price.

Any takers?

terrye said:

I think the FAA has done a big disservice to GA in mandating ADS-B. When advocacy groups such as AOPA and EAA are asking "Where's the benefit?" I have to wonder if the FAA even considered this before passing the rule.

The Canadian government did a similar negative cost/benefit analysis when they mandated 406 MHz ELTs. Lots of cost to the owner, questionable benefit, and even worse, emerging/available technology such as SPOT does a better job of tracking and alerting.

I agree with Vern, I am sick and tired of having these "requirements" rammed down my throat. Luckily for ADS-B there are a few years before it's mandatory, hopefully enough time for an enterprising company such as GRT, AFS, etc to offer compliance in a transponder box for a current transponder price.

Any takers?

Click to expand...

Actually, in Canada due to a concerted letter-writing campaign (of which I participated in), the Minister of Transport delayed the implementation of the 406 ELT ruling. Score one for the little guys.

I have a friend who works for the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre near Victoria BC. He says that the 406 ELTs have reduced the cost of unecessary SAR operations, so the military has benefitted from this so far. Of course there have several incidents locally of the 406 ELTs not working properly and survivors using cell phones and text messages to guide SAR. Looks like cell phones are more valuable than ELTs.

The problem with 406 ELTs is that they serve no useful function in regular operations, and they have a 25% success rate in assisting SAR when an incedent occurs.

ADS-B, at least, has an ongoing benefit during flight by providing traffic and weather in the cockpit. I'd sooner spend $3500 for ADS-B rather than $1,000 for a 406 ELT. At least when you don't show up, they can look at the ADS-B data to find you last known position.

V

If you have no interest in wx or traffic, than ADS-B is probably something not of interest to you and I can see your point on the expense of it. However, if you want wx & traffic, ADS-B is a great opportunity to get a good service for just the cost of the equipment and no monthly subscription charges. NavWorx's ADS600-(B) is a great buy at $2500 for a FAA certified solution. Yes, it's currently non-TSO, but frankly I don't care as long as it's certified. Personally, I'm going with NavWorx's instead of wasting several $100s on a xm receiver and $35-$50 per month just for wx service and still having to buy yet another product to get traffic. Just my 2 cents worth.

ADS-B in Canada?

Has anyone heard of a timeline for ADS-B in Canada? I assume we'd have to eventually equip to be able to fly into the US.

If the likes of Navworx replaces the transponder and GPS for $2500, seems like it's in the ball park to me. Only good for those that have not already bought transponders and gps I suppose.

Bevan

What I want to know is why I need to have triple, nay quadruple, redundancy of GPS' in my cockpit. Currently I fly with an iPhone, a SPOT, a Garmin Aera, and occasionally a handheld GPS (believe it or not, for "backup"... I'm only realizing now as I write this how silly this sounds).

Bluetooth GPS' exist. Network standards exist. Cables aren't even really a problem in a cockpit, with panel docks and RAM mounts available most cords are hidden anyway. Why aren't we putting a network hub on our subpanel, and wiring in antennae (VHF on bottom, Satellite (GPS and COM) on top?), a screen (or two), and a CPU? Surely we could control all of this from one place?

And don't even get me started about having a full panel capacitive touchscreen... with drag-and-drop digital instruments, overlaid on a full-panel moving map. Oh, and your passenger gets a resizable movie screen. In an emergency, the whole panel could become your Skyview... Clouds? No problem! Switch to the Flight-sim screen inside.

Sorry... Got off on a rant there. But I do hear you Vern... ADS-B is cool, but it's not designed for us in our little planes. There needs to be a way for homebuilders to use the system too, though... There needs to be an uncertified, or non-TSO'd version.

Personally, I think the solution *will* come from the homebuilt community, and it will blow ADS-B out of the water in terms of capabilities. The Commercial guys will look at it and shake their heads in amazement that we can do such things in a small plane. But they'll be stuck with the white elephant ADS-B that they're mandated to use instead. But that day is a long way off, I fear.

Bevan : you might want to go back and do a little more research on the Navworx box. It won't replace your GPS or your transponder.

Rob : I hate to disagree with you but for MY application, ADS-B is for my "little" airplane. If the FAA continues to expand coverage, it is a great solution for me to get free weather and traffic in the cockpit. If you want to read a good write up about ADS-B being used in and RV, have a look here. http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html

marchudson said:

If you want to read a good write up about ADS-B being used in and RV, have a look here. http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html

Click to expand...

And Tim's follow up article here: http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20100801/index.html

I'm with Marc - the only question in my mind is HOW I'm going to get the ADS-B in - as in with which piece(s) of equipment. Whether or not it's going to happen is not a consideration, I WILL have traffic and weather in my cockpit. Personally I don't give a flip about ADSB-out, except that it will be mandated in 2020 (unless something changes). I want ADSB-In, and that gets me ADSB-Out by default.

NavWorx - may not be an option??

Went to the NavWorx site and while the information about the various units are there - the pricing/delivery is unavailable and you get a " Please contact Accounts Receivable at XXX-XXX-XXXX to re-enable this company" message when you open the contact screen.

Hopefully someone will post an update on the company's status.

Bill

Apple

Don't worry, The Ipad app will be $3.99, and it will update you're Facebook page at the same time.

Not really, but I wouldn't be suprised.

marchudson said:

Rob : I hate to disagree with you but for MY application, ADS-B is for my "little" airplane. If the FAA continues to expand coverage, it is a great solution for me to get free weather and traffic in the cockpit.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I agree that it would be great, and would work really well for us. But the price limits it to the commercial/certified crowd, with no affordable options for homebuilders... And with much, much cheaper technology available, it's not clear why that couldn't do an equal (or better) job at lower cost.

Maybe once the certified GA fleet has been equipped, someone will try to go after the remaining homebuilts with a more affordable product (ie. the same product, with the TSO sticker removed). Hope springs eternal...

terrye said:

Luckily for ADS-B there are a few years before it's mandatory, hopefully enough time for an enterprising company such as GRT, AFS, etc to offer compliance in a transponder box for a current transponder price.

Any takers?

Click to expand...

Dynon will take that. We sell a ADS-B compliant transponder for $1,800, basically the same price as a Garmin 327. Fully TSO'd, ready to to, on the shelf and shipping. Buy one today!

The issue that Vern was getting to was that it and ALL other ADS-B out devices REQUIRE a certified, WAAS GPS by 2020. This is where the real expense is. The expense is not in the ADS-B transmitter or receiver, those devices have already been proven to be affordable, and should only get cheaper over the next decade. ADS-B receivers, which don't need to be TSO'd in any way are already down to $1,000.

The problem with a TSO'd GPS is that the TSO requires lots and lots of integrity monitoring, to constantly verify that the GPS solution is accurate. No "cheap" GPS on the planet can meet this requirement, not the one in an iPhone, not the one in a 696, not the one in your car. A GPS that does all of this is a totally different beast than a modern simple receiver. You need custom silicon to do it. We've heard crazy things like a TSO'd GPS receiver takes about 100 man years to develop, or about $20M.

ADS-B out isn't required until 2020 in the USA. I say equip when it makes sense, such as if you are buying a new transponder or want no-subscription weather. It's legal to use a non-TSO gps until 2020, and this will get you traffic. This will cost you $0-$2,500 today. Then keep your fingers crossed that someone with big dollars invests in an affordable TSO GPS receiver, or that the FAA allows simpler GPS devices for simpler aircraft.

...does everyone REALLY understand this?

am I the only guy who doesn't quite 'get' ADS-B? I've read a bunch of stuff, either too vague, or too technical. Anyone got a good link to explain this stuff? Sounds like most of you guys have panels full of Garmin 12345's; what about the simple steam gauge panel VFR guys with a handheld GPS?

Pardon me, but if I'm flying over Deadwood British Columbia, out of radar coverage, like most of Canada, who exactly is going to paint me on their screen? The one WestJet 737 at 18,500'?

...and as Vern says: "I have a friend who works for the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre near Victoria BC. He says that the 406 ELTs have reduced the cost of unecessary SAR operations, so the military has benefitted from this so far."

statistics are misleading....likely, there are less accidental 406 alerts, because so few people have equipped!...sure, if one does go off, it's easier to track before launching searchers.

Here's Dynon's attempt at simple explanation of ADS-B:

http://blog.dynonavionics.com/2010/07/making-sense-of-ads-b-and-tis.html

dynonsupport said:

Here's Dynon's attempt at simple explanation of ADS-B:

http://blog.dynonavionics.com/2010/07/making-sense-of-ads-b-and-tis.html

Click to expand...

Tha'ts more than an attempt, it's an accurately noted & simplified explanation of the entire system as it's planned/working today. Well done.

Cheers,
Stein

dynonsupport said:

The problem with a TSO'd GPS is that the TSO requires lots and lots of integrity monitoring, to constantly verify that the GPS solution is accurate. No "cheap" GPS on the planet can meet this requirement, not the one in an iPhone, not the one in a 696, not the one in your car. A GPS that does all of this is a totally different beast than a modern simple receiver. You need custom silicon to do it. We've heard crazy things like a TSO'd GPS receiver takes about 100 man years to develop, or about $20M.

Click to expand...

Dynon has this part right, or at least most of it

I'd wait on ADS-B. Lots of good stuff may happen.

I think for my airplane, a UAT based system will be best... I want FIS-B and will be happy below FL180

One area where I think there is a lot of misunderstanding -- WAAS + TSO'd does not equal an LPV approach-certified unit. In fact, a WAAS TSO'd GPS does not even imply that it is IFR certified. Lots of GPS's have WAAS receivers, even the lowly Garmin 496 (of course it's not TSO'd).

I expect some company, somewhere to come out with a simple, VFR, TSO'd WAAS GPS that will fulffill the ADS-B requirements.

It has to happen if grass roots GA is to survive. Small time GA owners cannot take a $10K+ hit....Most of us just barely play in this game as it is.

There is absolutely no reason why this technology has to be so costly to us.

If the Feds want to kill GA, this is a good way to do it.

You can read my case against the ADS-B OUT mandate here

http://stopads-b.org/ADS.htm

I am still opposed to it for GA aircraft.

Will ADS-B be required for cropdusters?

Jamie, ADS-B OUT will be mandated, unless my jihad against it prevails, where Mode C transponders are required. There is an AGL exemption in mountainous areas.

Taking the Pendulum up to it's Highest Extreme

FTR: I submit that ADS-B is nothing more than BIG BROTHER continuing his intrusive intervention, as heightened surveillance, into our everyday flying, and keeping records of our every move whilst aloft in a vast database that can and will be used against us at his every/any whim; else, why would the word "surveillance" even be in the title of the "thing?"

I would not have a tracking chip inserted in my person so that I could be tracked everywhere I went; I would not have one in my car; and I sure as **** don't want one in any aircraft that I fly for personal use.

I view ADS-B as a serious violation of my freedom (of movement) that ought to be covered under the Fourth Amendment.

IMO, both AOPA and EAA have let us down by not opposing ADS-B for both GA and experimental aircraft. I have been told recently that the FAA has a letter of agreement with AOPA that AOPA will not oppose the institution of ADS-B (as told to a member of both AOPA & EAA). Of course, AOPA has, although not denied, offered only eye-wash and lip service to the allegation that such a letter of agreement exists, and will not produce such letter. If the FAA has taken the time to arrange such an agreement with AOPA, why would we not wonder if they have also entered into such an agreement with the EAA(?). How many of our "advocates" may have let us down in this matter?

That the "thing" might be as much as a $10,000 (or more) added installation expense in both my RV-4 & RV-3, and is abusive in itself, is secondary IMO to the violation of my freedom and personal privacy.

The argument might arise as to why I would be opposed to BIG BROTHER keeping track of me if I weren't doing anything wrong - I would not entertain such argument - if one wishes to argue that point, do it with someone else.

As stated in the title to this message, I will hold a very strong, extremely strong position against the institution of ADS-B for GA and experimental aircraft, if necessary, until it's a dead horse and beaten into dust!

To all: may you continue to enjoy the freedom(s) of flight, without Big Brother watching over your every move.

Barney, in Memphis
RV-3 flying
RV-4 flying

L'avion said:

FTR: I submit that ADS-B is nothing more than BIG BROTHER continuing his intrusive intervention, as heightened surveillance, into our everyday flying, and keeping records of our every move whilst aloft in a vast database that can and will be used against us at his every/any whim; else, why would the word "surveillance" even be in the title of the "thing?"

Click to expand...

For the exact same reason "surveillance" is used in the term SSR - that would be the Mode A/C code you currently (hopefully?) use...

L'avion said:

I would not have a tracking chip inserted in my person so that I could be tracked everywhere I went; I would not have one in my car; and I sure as **** don't want one in any aircraft that I fly for personal use.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't do the one in the person, but if you think by not having ADS-B you're "invisible" I'd suggest you think again. Very hard.

L'Avion said:

I view ADS-B as a serious violation of my freedom (of movement) that ought to be covered under the Fourth Amendment.

Click to expand...

I think you're taking this a bit too far into the "tin foil hat brigade" mentality. No offence, but you sound like the kind of person who wouldn't run a transponder, nor make radio calls in the circuit, lest someone start surveilling you and breaching your fourth-amendment privacy (whatever the **** that is)...

I have absolutely no problem with ADS-B, indeed, view it as a huge leap in traffic awareness when it is fully implemented. I will cerainly have it in my -9, and expect if it was mandated in Australia, that the rest of the flying community would also have it installed and operating. ADS-B is another link in the chain that will stop me becoming a hood ornament on a 737 - for there are plenty of areas where the only seperation between us is visually.

Afterall, ADS-B is nothing more than a "certified" version of APRS tracking.

KRviator, there is a huge difference between ADS-B Out and a Mode C transponder. No one knows who you are with a transponder if you are not on an assigned code. ADS-B Out is identifiable by aircraft, so in my case it is me.

ADS-B Out is not the end all means of traffic avoidance that you think. If you stay out of areas now that require Mode C, you can avoid ADS-B Out. I suspect that many people will not equip.

So unless equipage is 100%, it is not even close to a perfect solution. Plus to get traffic you must have ADS-B IN. How much will that cost for people with steam gauges?

My multiple conversations with AOPA to voice my opposition have not been very useful. It is almost like they don't care. Thinking about that, I am going to cancel my AOPA membership.

If you think that ADS-B coverage is great for GA..think again.

Oh brother

And here I am trying to figure out a way to get ADS-B IN on my C172 today, rather than waiting for the rest of the world to jump in, and it will be installed from the word go on my 9A.

I want the traffic awareness and the weather in the cockpit, and I know it won't be fully implemented for a few years yet - but I fly a lot of multi-state cross country trips and there will be areas where it will be very useful even now, and expanding rapidly. I'm fortunate enough to have a mostly glass panel in my plane so it's relatively easy and cheap for me - I understand steam gauge planes will have a harder time with it but I can't help that.

The fourth amendment argument pretty much went out the window when transponders became standard equipment. Flight is a privilege, not a right. If you REALLY don't want anyone knowing what you are doing, don't leave the house.

It was my understanding that one of the 'wins' that the AOPA was able to negotiate was a "1200" mode for ADS-B that GA can use when identity is not required. Is that old information?

my $.02

I'm with the group standing against needless and forced cash outlays but consider the following. You don't need an ADS-B system if you:
1. Fly below 10,000 msl (12,000 msl in the Rocky Mt area)
2. Stay outside of the mode C veil surrounding Class B airspace
3. Stay outside of Class C airspace
4. Fly VFR

I'm pretty sure most of us "weekend" flyers fit that profile already. But I'll sure miss those strong tailwinds at 11,500 in my -9A during the annual pilgrimage to OSH.

Steve, I have to fly above 12,000' to go west safely in the Rockies. To effectively ban me from 10,000'-17,999' just to save the FAA money is wrong.

Ron Lee said:

KRviator, there is a huge difference between ADS-B Out and a Mode C transponder. No one knows who you are with a transponder if you are not on an assigned code. ADS-B Out is identifiable by aircraft, so in my case it is me.

Click to expand...

It doesn't take much digging to cross reference calls on the CTAF frequency with the radar tapes. Yes you are slightly less visible with a standard SSR transponder, but you are by no means invisible.

ADS-B Out is not the end all means of traffic avoidance that you think. If you stay out of areas now that require Mode C, you can avoid ADS-B Out. I suspect that many people will not equip.

Click to expand...

That's true, but in Australia, where there is little to no radar coverage at many airports, that also see significant numbers of 737's, it is a **** sight better than nothing at all, which is precisely what you get with your standard transponder. I'll be the first to admit I'm installing ADS-B in my -9. Both -In and -Out, in addition to a Zaon XRX. While its' not a true TCASII system, it's another layer of defence that'll stop me becoming a hood ornament on a 737. Or have me wearing a 152 on the nose with some Indian pilot who's unintelligible on the radio.

So unless equipage is 100%, it is not even close to a perfect solution. Plus to get traffic you must have ADS-B IN. How much will that cost for people with steam gauges?

Click to expand...

Around $2,000 for a NavWorx box and MountainScope.

If you think that ADS-B coverage is great for GA..think again.

Click to expand...

I reckon ADS-B is great for aviation as a whole, the pilots, the regulators, not only GA. If people are genuinely worried about their privacy when airborne, it might be time to lift the tin foil hat and consider exactly how visible you really are when you leave your home. CCTV cameras monitor the roads, airports, ATM's, cities, and whenever you pay with a card there's a paper trail.

And let's not forget - flying is a privilege, not a right. If "they" say you need ADS-B instead of Mode C to go above 10,000, so be it.

KRviator is on the money

KRviator apparently is Australian. What you folks do or allow to have done to you is your decision. I am an American and my response will be different than yours concerning ADS-B Out.