WSJ article on ADS-B rollout - AOPA asleep at wheel

[NoHeat]

There's an article in the WSJ that's about Transportation Dept. Inspector General's report about ADS-B.

Some of the points:
- Costs will exceed benefits by $588 million
- FAA isn't up to speed on training controllers to use NexGen
- Airlines aren't equipping for ADS-B yet because they don't see a benefit until controllers can use it.
- The project to build 634 towers is done. Except that after building them, they discovered coverage gaps that require 200 more towers.
- Here's the part that upset me: "the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the trade group for general aviation, declined to comment."

WTF! AOPA is supposed to be an advocacy group. If the biggest national newspaper calls to interview about something that's big for all its members, AOPA should absolutely be ready to speak for us. Instead, they were asleep. No comment - bah!

 

[kyleb]

There's an article in the WSJ that's about Transportation Dept. Inspector General's report about ADS-B.

Some of the points:
- Costs will exceed benefits by $588 million
- FAA isn't up to speed on training controllers to use NexGen
- Airlines aren't equipping for ADS-B yet because they don't see a benefit until controllers can use it.
- The project to build 634 towers is done. Except that after building them, they discovered coverage gaps that require 200 more towers.
- Here's the part that upset me: "the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the trade group for general aviation, declined to comment."

WTF! AOPA is supposed to be an advocacy group. If the biggest national newspaper calls to interview about something that's big for all its members, AOPA should absolutely be ready to speak for us. Instead, they were asleep. No comment - bah!

"So, why didn't you lie down on the figurative railroad tracks instead of whistling past the graveyard while this boondoggle was foisted upon your members?"

"Um, no comment."

 

[LauraE51]

well, this isn't good news.

 

[NoHeat]

The WSJ called two "trade associations" for their story, AOPA and Airlines for America. They got plenty to quote from the airline association, nothing from us.

On top of losing this opportunity to speak for members like me, AOPA's failure makes it less likely that a newspaper will call them for the next big story.

 

[AcroGimp]

No different than EAA and the Aeronautical Use Hangar NPRM. They initially stated, in public, that it was good for us.

Unfortunately, our 'advocacy' groups are utter failures when it comes to advocating, but we did have a wine of the month club. rolleyes....

'Gimp

 

[jnmeade]

No different than EAA and the Aeronautical Use Hangar NPRM. They initially stated, in public, that it was good for us.


'Gimp

Yeah, EAA at first focused on the idea that the guy renting the hangar to store his travel trailer would now be urged to move out so an airplane on the ramp could move in. What a short-sighted view. The airport should instead be urged to build more hangars. I asked our local airport about that and they claim they don't have the money for a new hangar.

When the news media publish stories that the FAA and pilots support the local community building hangars to serve as workshops, the people will of course rally behind the general aviation community.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Aopa has been vocally pro ads-b. Which makes them not an advocacy org but the enemy of GA freedom in the nas.

 

[nddons]

AOPA was too busy processing their dues increase and sending out 75th anniversary hats to us late payers to worry about a call from the WSJ.

 

[Badger]

AOPA really screwed this one up (again)

 

[Ted]

I've had the GDL88 in for about 2 months now, and I really like it.

 

[timwinters]

Yeah, EAA at first focused on the idea that the guy renting the hangar to store his travel trailer would now be urged to move out so an airplane on the ramp could move in. What a short-sighted view.

Not at all, IMO. Not if the hangar is subsidized and there is no airplane in that hangar, but only the travel trailer. The Federal Government subsidizes airports and the improvements thereon for moving airplanes. Just like they subsidize highways for moving vehicles. Take your bass boat out and store it under an overpass on the highway and see how well that goes over.

i.e. hangars are for airplanes and I agree that the airplane should be airworthy and/or close to it. 10 year construction projects can be done in one's basement or garage. Or maybe under that same highway overpass!

As far as the original topic. Someone needs to post this over on Red and see what kind of official reaction there is, if any. It's a disgrace (IMO) that AOPA chose not to comment.

 

[steingar]

Haven't been member for some time and don't see joining back up any time soon. Definitely dropped the ball. If they wanted to advocate they could have. Cite benefits of ADSB-in for pilot safety, for instance. What's a half billion to saving lives?

I only state that rhetorically, by the way. I don't think anyone's worth a half billion, except maybe the guy who fixes my computer.

 

[dcotton]

 

[frfly172]

AOPA should be doing more to get more ADSB in .delivred in the cockpit. They don't seem to be worried about the cost to the average aircraft owner.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

AOPA should be doing more to get more ADSB in .delivred in the cockpit. They don't seem to be worried about the cost to the average aircraft owner.

ADS-B IN is not a requirement for 2020. It is getting ADS-B out delivered to the cockpit. Either by way of a UAT or an ES Transponder. It's $3,000 - $5,000 worth of equipment. I'm not sure what the AOPA can do to make that cheaper. It's either required or it's not.

 

[yetti]

And then there is the leave the base transmitter on all the time vs. only when it is pinged.

 

[petrolero]

ADS-B IN is not a requirement for 2020. It is getting ADS-B out delivered to the cockpit. Either by way of a UAT or an ES Transponder. It's $3,000 - $5,000 worth of equipment. I'm not sure what the AOPA can do to make that cheaper. It's either required or it's not.

The only thing they can do is to lobby the FAA to ease certification and STC procedures. More products, more competition, slightly lower prices, etc.

This is preaching to the choir, I know, but certification is a large part of what makes aviation so expensive. And yet despite the FAA's benevolent oversight, accidents continue to happen. The FAA is necessary to an extent, but not to this extent.

In its overcautious attempts to avoid products that arguably cause a crash (c'mon, it's never one thing), the FAA simultaneously makes it harder to bring new products to market that could improve safety. I dare say that if the free market were allowed to work in aviation the fleet would be newer, the avionics would be far ahead of what we have now, and we'd all be safer.

Does anyone believe that pilots, manufacturers, airlines, passengers don't have a huge vested interest in safety? The FAA's vested interest is in not being seen as directly culpable for something bad that happened. Never mind that it is indirectly culpable in many such bad things.

Some FAA oversight is necessary, but the degree of oversight in aviation today (and for decades past) asymptotically approaches outright control.

The FAA is the sand between the gears of improvement when we need it to be the grease.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

And then there is the leave the base transmitter on all the time vs. only when it is pinged.

The FIS-B data (weather, TFRs, etc) is always on. Broadcasting it's data all the time, regardless of someone being there to hear it. I think this is the most important and useful thing anyway. And it can be had with a $500 receiver connected to whatever device you want. That's all super. But that isn't what is required in 2020.

The TIS-B traffic is only transmitted when an ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft asks for it. And it only transmits targets for a 30 mile by 3000ft radius around that aircraft aircraft. This is very much on purpose for two reasons. First is bandwidth. There is only so much network and RF bandwidth to go around. If every tower was broadcasting every target all the time, it would probably not be able to keep up in a timely manner. They could probably expand it some, but I doubt it could handle everything all the time. They won't expand it "some" because they want to encourage you to get ADS-B out.

The only thing they can do is to lobby the FAA to ease certification and STC procedures. More products, more competition, slightly lower prices, etc.

This is preaching to the choir, I know, but certification is a large part of what makes aviation so expensive. And yet despite the FAA's benevolent oversight, accidents continue to happen. The FAA is necessary to an extent, but not to this extent.

In its overcautious attempts to avoid products that arguably cause a crash (c'mon, it's never one thing), the FAA simultaneously makes it harder to bring new products to market that could improve safety. I dare say that if the free market were allowed to work in aviation the fleet would be newer, the avionics would be far ahead of what we have now, and we'd all be safer.

Exactly. This is why a fuel sender costs $40, unless you buy the one with a certification label on it, in which case it costs $400.

 

[wsuffa]

There's an article in the WSJ that's about Transportation Dept. Inspector General's report about ADS-B.

Some of the points:
- Costs will exceed benefits by $588 million
- FAA isn't up to speed on training controllers to use NexGen
- Airlines aren't equipping for ADS-B yet because they don't see a benefit until controllers can use it.
- The project to build 634 towers is done. Except that after building them, they discovered coverage gaps that require 200 more towers.
- Here's the part that upset me: "the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the trade group for general aviation, declined to comment."

WTF! AOPA is supposed to be an advocacy group. If the biggest national newspaper calls to interview about something that's big for all its members, AOPA should absolutely be ready to speak for us. Instead, they were asleep. No comment - bah!

Given the number of airliners I'm able to see with ADSB-out on 1090 & the number of new planes being delivered, I don't think that the statement "Airlines aren't equipping for ADS-B yet" isn't completely accurate.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

I believe you're seeing the old school Mode-S on that. Not full ADS-B compliant Extended Squitter.

 

[petrolero]

Given the number of airliners I'm able to see with ADSB-out on 1090 & the number of new planes being delivered, I don't think that the statement "Airlines aren't equipping for ADS-B yet" isn't completely accurate.

Agree. I think a lot of them have 1090ES already.

If I weren't a pilot who knows the system in discussion to a greater degree than 99.9999% of the public, i would be very misled by that article.

For example:

The report also noted that the FAA has warned "general aviation" pilots—mostly private pilots—they shouldn't rely on ADS-B information to separate their planes from others in the airspace. Some general-aviation pilots relying on this data "inadvertently flew their aircraft into restricted airspace that was either unmarked or incorrectly located on their ADS-B devices," the report said. The FAA subsequently cited these pilots with violations.

So it is ADS-B's fault that we are busting TFRs? No.

The mass media has extreme difficulty reporting on anything technical or specialized. If it isn't politics or world events they don't bother to understand it. That said, WSJ is better than any other in my experience. But still.

 

[bnt83]

The only thing they can do is to lobby the FAA to ease certification and STC procedures. More products, more competition, slightly lower prices, etc.

This is preaching to the choir, I know, but certification is a large part of what makes aviation so expensive. And yet despite the FAA's benevolent oversight, accidents continue to happen. The FAA is necessary to an extent, but not to this extent.

In its overcautious attempts to avoid products that arguably cause a crash (c'mon, it's never one thing), the FAA simultaneously makes it harder to bring new products to market that could improve safety. I dare say that if the free market were allowed to work in aviation the fleet would be newer, the avionics would be far ahead of what we have now, and we'd all be safer.

Does anyone believe that pilots, manufacturers, airlines, passengers don't have a huge vested interest in safety? The FAA's vested interest is in not being seen as directly culpable for something bad that happened. Never mind that it is indirectly culpable in many such bad things.

Some FAA oversight is necessary, but the degree of oversight in aviation today (and for decades past) asymptotically approaches outright control.

The FAA is the sand between the gears of improvement when we need it to be the grease.

Skygaurd is pushing to get an ADS-B transceiver approved. Wonder if AOPA has even heard of this company before.


(IDK if it will still be portable for certified installs it's not clear)

http://adsb.skyguardtwx.com/uat-transceivers/

 

[wsuffa]

I believe you're seeing the old school Mode-S on that. Not full ADS-B compliant Extended Squitter.

No, the planes I can see on 1090 includes position, identification, and other info carried on ES. These are ES equipped. Almost all Southwest planes are trackable, and a fair number from other carriers. Many international flights are also equipped.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Given the number of airliners I'm able to see with ADSB-out on 1090 & the number of new planes being delivered, I don't think that the statement "Airlines aren't equipping for ADS-B yet" isn't completely accurate.

For the majors this is probably true, but what about all commuter airliners?

 

[JimNtexas]

Were it not for the AOPA I doubt if we would be getting free weather from our Stratus boxes.

You guys seem to think the AOPA could lay on the tracks in front of the ADS-B express and derail that train.

You're wrong about that.

As far as not commenting on that particular article, I wonder who the reporter contacted and how much time that person was given to reply.

Because for sure if the person contacted had just given an answer off the top of her head that turned out to be less than clear then the usual AOPA haters would have a field day for sure.

 

[ryoung99]

Nice Tiger!!!

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Now rotate around 180 degrees and you'll see our little 150 on the ramp behind you too

 

[coloradobluesky]

Yes, but you have to be able to install it and have it neat and reliable. What is really needed in a drop in replacement for our current mode C transponder.

Does the ADSB use the same antennae as the current mode C transponder?
Does the ADSB requre its own GPS antennae also (if no Wass GPS is available from an onboard Wass GPS)?

 

[Unit74]

I've had the GDL88 in for about 2 months now, and I really like it.

Had mine for two weeks and I'm like....

Loving the traffic and weather. And, traffic display on my foreflight now too!

 

[John Collins]

I believe you're seeing the old school Mode-S on that. Not full ADS-B compliant Extended Squitter.

Probably over 50% of air carrier aircraft are equipped with ADS-B Out although a smaller percent is equipped with the version 2 defined by RTCA DO260B. All are equipped with Mode S. All the air carrier ADS-B are ES, although some will be at DO-260, most at DO-260A, and newer aircraft at DO-260B.

 

[John Collins]

Yes, but you have to be able to install it and have it neat and reliable. What is really needed in a drop in replacement for our current mode C transponder.

Does the ADSB use the same antennae as the current mode C transponder?
Does the ADSB requre its own GPS antennae also (if no Wass GPS is available from an onboard Wass GPS)?

For GA that operate below 18000, the Mode S transponder with ES is not the way to go. Keep your Mode C transponder. Install a UAT ADS-B Out system as it is likely to be the lowest cost and provide the most capability.

A position source will require a GPS antenna. If you have an existing WAAS GPS, it will be able to provide the position source information. If not, then most of the UAT systems are offering an optional built in WAAS GPS.

If you decide to go the mode S transponder route (a mistake in my opinion unless you have an operational need to fly at and above 18000 MSL) it can reuse the existing transponder antenna. If you go the UAT route, it uses the same type of transponder antenna mounted on the belly. They typically cost in the vicinity of $150.

 

[James331]

This is why I'm not a AOPA member.

This should be their #1 flight right now.

 

[dans2992]

If you already have a GTX330 though, in thinking upgrading to the 1090 "ES" version is a no-brainer though...?

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Yes but....

Just remember, a 1090ES Mode-S transponder is not going to give you TIS-B traffic or FIS-B flight information and weather data. You meet the 2020 requirement for ADS-B out, without any of the cool free stuff you could have if you got an ADS-B IN UAT on 978.

If you already have the GTX330, it may be economical to upgrade it, then just get a 978 UAT receiver-only for that free stuff.

 

[N801BH]

I just went over to the Red Board....

Not a peep about it over there.... Unless there was and it got censored.

 

[John Collins]

If you already have a GTX330 though, in thinking upgrading to the 1090 "ES" version is a no-brainer though...?

I owned a GTX330 and a GNS530W already. The upgrade path to ES was the least expensive, but not very satisfying as it did me no good in my panel other than obtain compliance. I still have not updated my GTX330 to ES and installed a GDL88 instead. It was 3000 more going this route, but my GNS530W now displays traffic and weather. So my choice was $1500 for nothing other than compliance or $4500 for compliance plus weather and traffic. I chose the latter, it was a no brainer for me.

Edit: I should have traded my GTX330 for a GTX327 and saved another $1000. This would have enabled me to have anonymous mode as well.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

If you go the UAT route, it uses the same type of transponder antenna mounted on the belly. They typically cost in the vicinity of $150.

So you need a second antenna, is there a requirement they have to be so far apart, since they are both broadcasting?

 

[John Collins]

So you need a second antenna, is there a requirement they have to be so far apart, since they are both broadcasting?

20 inches or more separation between the transponder, DME and the UAT antennas.

 

[kyleb]

I've had the GDL88 in for about 2 months now, and I really like it.

There is nothing wrong with you choosing to spend your money on a product you want. But this mandate effectively forces many of us to spend a large sum of $$ with no choice or appreciable benefit. AOPA standing on the sidelines while the regulations were written is hard to understand.

 

[coloradobluesky]

The GPS antenna has to go on top and the UAT antennae goes on the bottom right?