 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: ADS-B: Transfering cost to the owner. |
 |
|
I’m not sure if any of you saw this, but I found it on the EAA’s site this morning. It’s worth reading.
Full Article……
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-06-03_ads-b.asp
---Snip---Snip---
EAA has long favored a satellite-based tracking system, provided that it would benefit aircraft operators as well as the national airspace system. Unfortunately, FAA has only mandated what’s called ADS-B (out), which sends tracking information to the air traffic system.
EAA has long held that the benefit to pilots would be from systems that allow us to receive traffic, weather, and safety information in the cockpit (ADS-B in). Without that element, the new mandate directly serves only FAA air traffic control.
“What this new rule does is shift the cost of aircraft tracking from the government’s mammoth ground-based radar systems to the cockpit and the individual pilot,” said Doug Macnair, EAA’s vice president of government relations. “It makes sense to migrate to new satellite-based technology based on ADS-B, which would replace existing transponders and encoders. But if the aircraft owner has to pay for it, pilots should also receive substantial safety and operational benefits.”
---Snip---Snip---
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:04 am Post subject: ADS-B: Transfering cost to the owner. |
|
|
I think that people are a little more worked up than they
should be. First, a common complaint is that they still
need a transponder. I don't think you'd want to operate
SOLELY on GPS based positioning. GPS isn't 100% reliable,
which is also why at least a certain number of VOR's should
always be kept operational. Also, due to some of the
solar activity and changes we're experiencing and expected
to experience in the next 0-20 years, I don't know that
we'd want to rely on GPS as a sole means, even from that
perspective. So if they want it to be a new SOLE means of
position identification, they should develop it on a
much more foolproof base technology than GPS. Given that,
I think it's reasonable to have a Transponder required
for certain controlled airspace, and also have ADS-B
required.
As far as ADS-B "IN" being mandated, I'm really not
interested in anything being mandated to be used for
IN. Why would you? Don't mandate that someone HAS
to have a MFD or PFD capable of displaying the info.
The benefits already exist for those who equip, to have
the data. I mean, if they give you traffic for free
after hardware purchase, you'd be crazy not to use it,
unless you own active traffic...in which case why
should anyone mandate "IN" for you? Weather? Well,
I personally don't forsee going to FIS-B weather. The
coverage simply will NEVER be as good as WSI weather
is giving me now. I want coverage on the ground,
BEFORE I depart, from any airport, or even (and
especially), if I for some reason am scud running
somewhere (and by that I'm not talking the nasty
viz scud running...but a more reasonable amount of
viz).
They're right that this does shift some of the costs
to the end user, instead of the FAA, but, in the end,
all users who participate will be able to benefit if
in no other way than traffic alerts, as long as they
get some minimal equipment. I think they're also
using the FUD and some unreasonably inflated costs
as part of their information war against anything that
increases our costs. For instance, they keep quoting
$8,000 for a cost per plane. That may be true for
some systems, but just as their ADS-B isn't 100% online
in the U.S. right now, there are systems that are spooled
up ready to be deployed for far less cost than that.
Some for $2400-2600, for instance. They also want to
make it sound like you should wait....but waiting
unnecessarily is only going to mean that the system
as a whole has delayed benefit. It's true that waiting
will probably give you more options, but if you're
flying today and could benefit, it would seem that
waiting is only going to delay some benefit for YOU, too.
If there is something to bitch about with the direction
though, it's a couple of things....
First, they didn't need to cut off UAT as legal option
above 18,000'. So now, our RV-10 flying with ADS-B
and only UAT, would be limited to 18,000' after the deadline.
To me, this doesn't affect me at all, because I find no
benefit in our RV-10 to going that high. But to some
turbocharged fliers it will affect them. They'll
need 1090ES to go there.
Next, they shouldn't have to have any ultra special
requirement for the GPS side of things. We're not talking
about something that needs better than 100' accuracy
here. If you're separating traffic, 100' accuracy should
be plenty, in both altitude and laterally. To me, it
seems that certain large avionics manufacturers probably
lobbied a bit to get the FAA to write the rule so that
it would ensure that they could keep selling THEIR systems.
In the end, I think we'll find though that if they
don't price their system right, it won't sell...and
they'll probably have more competition in the ADS-B
arena than they did in the Transponder category.
One other thing...I see people talk about how the traffic
and weather won't be FREE in the future...or might not be.
Well, given the way the communications protocols are
written and how it started to be implemented, I don't
think we'll see any way for them to NOT make traffic
a free service. Probably not weather, either. The thing
is, they'd have to implement some sort of code based
technology that prevents unauthorized users from using it.
That isn't in there right now, and it's already being
deployed. They certainly aren't likely to be this far
into the game and then do a massive rewrite. ADS-B is
actually many years old already....and making a change
of that magnitude would set everyone back to zero.
So I expect traffic will be free forever...and likely
a certain amount of weather info too. They damn well
better keep TFR info free, because that should
be free for in-cockpit for anyone in this day and age.
So I watch these silly news posts and grumblings
and get a laugh out of them. Lots of people blowing
hot air and making noise about something that isn't that
big of an issue.....especially not for someone building
an RV-10, as our planes were designed to fly in ways
that use the Airspace system....not go low and slow
over the trees on a beautiful sunny afternoon.
Those people won't need to equip with either technology
now, or in the future....but we would still benefit
if they did.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Perry, Phil wrote:
| Quote: | I’m not sure if any of you saw this, but I found it on the EAA’s site
this morning. It’s worth reading.
Full Article……
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-06-03_ads-b.asp
---Snip---Snip---
EAA has long favored a satellite-based tracking system, provided that it
would benefit aircraft operators as well as the national airspace
system. _Unfortunately, FAA has only mandated what’s called ADS-B (out),
which sends tracking information to the air traffic system._
_EAA has long held that the benefit to pilots would be from systems that
allow us to receive traffic, weather, and safety information in the
cockpit (ADS-B in)._ Without that element, the new mandate directly
serves only FAA air traffic control.
*/_“What this new rule does is shift the cost of aircraft tracking from
the government’s mammoth ground-based radar systems to the cockpit and
the individual pilot,”_/* said Doug Macnair, EAA’s vice president of
government relations. “It makes sense to migrate to new satellite-based
technology based on ADS-B, which would replace existing transponders and
encoders. But if the aircraft owner has to pay for it, pilots should
also receive substantial safety and operational benefits.”
---Snip---Snip---
*
*
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:54 am Post subject: ADS-B: Transfering cost to the owner. |
|
|
I don't really care what method is used for navigation. All forms have their own shortcomings.
But the idea of ADS-B (in) not being included in the mandate what's concerning. This means we could install (in) devices in the aircraft but the government has no requirement to broadcast such information.
They need to mandate the broadcast of all ADS-B data, otherwise its money we're spending for no benefit. They're trying to keep their self off the hook by creatively working around mandates.
Phil
---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strasnuts
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 502
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: ADS-B: Transfering cost to the owner. |
|
|
I am buying the gtx330es and the gts800. This setup will allow both out and in to complete the ads-b loop.
It is really too expensive but I figure it will be a little more in the transponder that I am buying anyway. The gts800 is what I want because I am a big wuss and it is one of the few active TCAS systems that interrogate and also has ads-b in.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:28, "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com (Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com)> wrote:
[quote]
I don't really care what method is used for navigation. All forms have their own shortcomings.
But the idea of ADS-B (in) not being included in the mandate what's concerning. This means we could install (in) devices in the aircraft but the government has no requirement to broadcast such information.
They need to mandate the broadcast of all ADS-B data, otherwise its money we're spending for no benefit. They're trying to keep their self off the hook by creatively working around mandates.
Phil
---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
780 Hours
SuperSTOL 60 hours |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:54 am Post subject: ADS-B: Transfering cost to the owner. |
|
|
Other than the cost, I think you'll have it made. In a
perfect world I'd do the bare bones cheapest OUT that
I could do, and have active traffic too. But, active
traffic itself for the real-deal integrated systems
is just too expensive. If it were $4000, I'd buy it
in a heartbeat, as long as i don't have to put those
ugly double-sharkblade antennas on.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Seano wrote:
[quote] I am buying the gtx330es and the gts800. This setup will allow both out
and in to complete the ads-b loop.
It is really too expensive but I figure it will be a little more in the
transponder that I am buying anyway. The gts800 is what I want because I
am a big wuss and it is one of the few active TCAS systems that
interrogate and also has ads-b in.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:28, "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
<mailto:Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com>> wrote:
> I don't really care what method is used for navigation. All forms
> have their own shortcomings.
>
> But the idea of ADS-B (in) not being included in the mandate what's
> concerning. This means we could install (in) devices in the aircraft
> but the government has no requirement to broadcast such information.
>
> They need to mandate the broadcast of all ADS-B data, otherwise its
> money we're spending for no benefit. They're trying to keep their self
> off the hook by creatively working around mandates.
>
> Phil
>
> ---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strasnuts
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 502
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:41 pm Post subject: ADS-B: Transfering cost to the owner. |
|
|
I know the ant. is ugee. I should buy the two antenna tcas which
would be two double shark fin and 8 coax plus every g3x antenna so
three gps antennas also 430w antenna and now add transponder, two
comms and two navs, what else? Oh ya elt.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 7, 2010, at 13:31, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:
[quote]
Other than the cost, I think you'll have it made. In a
perfect world I'd do the bare bones cheapest OUT that
I could do, and have active traffic too. But, active
traffic itself for the real-deal integrated systems
is just too expensive. If it were $4000, I'd buy it
in a heartbeat, as long as i don't have to put those
ugly double-sharkblade antennas on.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Seano wrote:
> I am buying the gtx330es and the gts800. This setup will allow both
> out and in to complete the ads-b loop. It is really too expensive
> but I figure it will be a little more in the transponder that I am
> buying anyway. The gts800 is what I want because I am a big wuss
> and it is one of the few active TCAS systems that interrogate and
> also has ads-b in. Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:28, "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com <mailto:Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
> >> wrote:
>> I don't really care what method is used for navigation. All forms
>> have their own shortcomings.
>>
>> But the idea of ADS-B (in) not being included in the mandate
>> what's concerning. This means we could install (in) devices in
>> the aircraft but the government has no requirement to broadcast
>> such information.
>>
>> They need to mandate the broadcast of all ADS-B data, otherwise
>> its money we're spending for no benefit. They're trying to keep
>> their self off the hook by creatively working around mandates.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> ---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
780 Hours
SuperSTOL 60 hours |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
