Air Traffic Situational Awareness Enhancement Act

[Daleandee]

Not sure I understand this very well. It seems another tool for ATC:

https://aaae.org/uscta-alerts/lawma...equire-faa-to-install-aprt-at-contract-towers

Sheehy's press release says that ADS-B will be part of this. AOPA jumped on the bandwagon in their comments in his press release saying, "Installing Airborne Position Reference Tools (APRTs) at towers that currently lack them will give controllers greater situational awareness and enhance safety for pilots across the country.”

But in comments on their site the FAA seems to put forth strict limits on the use of this technology by writing, "APRTs may only be used to supplement controllers’ visual observations, and their radio communications with pilots. APRTs may not be used as the basis for maintaining separation between aircraft and they may not connect to FAA networks and/or FAA equipment."

Hopefully those in the know will comment ...

 

[MauleSkinner]

To make a comparison to pilot operations, you’re not authorized to use a terrain awareness map on the MFD to fly down a valley in the clouds, but you are able to use it to add situational awareness and verify that your selected route of flight doesn’t have you flying into terrain.

Hopefully those in the know will comment ...

Hopefully they still will.

 

[murphey]

To make a comparison to pilot operations, you’re not authorized to use a terrain awareness map on the MFD to fly down a valley in the clouds, but you are able to use it to add situational awareness and verify that your selected route of flight doesn’t have you flying into terrain.


Hopefully they still will.

You say po-taa-toe, I say po-taw-toe

 

[Daleandee]

I just wonder why they would spend the money if the full potential for it's use is not going to be implemented. I believe almost every pilot is using ADS-B in the cockpit to assist with separation but the FAA specifically states that APRTs are not to be used as such; "APRTs may not be used as the basis for maintaining separation between aircraft and they may not connect to FAA networks and/or FAA equipment."

With in cockpit use of ADS-B it is understood that it's not a perfect system and that eyeballs outside must be used but admittedly there have been times when ADS-B shows the pilot traffic that he cannot see and likely would not have known about without it. I think every resource available should be part of the see and avoid program. But as a lowly Sport Pilot ... what do I know?

 

[Llewtrah381]

I just wonder why they would spend the money if the full potential for it's use is not going to be implemented. I believe almost every pilot is using ADS-B in the cockpit to assist with separation but the FAA specifically states that APRTs are not to be used as such; "APRTs may not be used as the basis for maintaining separation between aircraft and they may not connect to FAA networks and/or FAA equipment."

With in cockpit use of ADS-B it is understood that it's not a perfect system and that eyeballs outside must be used but admittedly there have been times when ADS-B shows the pilot traffic that he cannot see and likely would not have known about without it. I think every resource available should be part of the see and avoid program. But as a lowly Sport Pilot ... what do I know?

I get what you’re saying. I wonder if it’s a matter of how reliable the equipment is: I think we all realize there’s a difference in latency between the air-to-air vs the TIS stuff and could even be more between a Stratux and a Garmin - not sure. By contrast, a Radar sweep is more “consistent”.

Using even a generic Amazon tab watching FlightRadar24 would be a huge improvement for some of these places. I think the FAA reasonably doesn’t want to risk their business on variables they haven’t fully vetted, especially as the primary means of traffic separation.

In a world where I can’t even get Garmin to tie their non-certified GDL50 to my certified GPS, I can kinda understand their apprehension.

 

[Hang 4]

Not every towered field has radar. I suspect this is to legalize what is being done already.

 

[Half Fast]

Not every towered field has radar. I suspect this is to legalize what is being done already.

And to establish some legal limits on the use.

I’m certain that controllers have been complaining that they get better air traffic information from their phones than from certified ATC antique equipment.

 

[BillTIZ]

Not sure I understand this very well. It seems another tool for ATC:

https://aaae.org/uscta-alerts/lawma...equire-faa-to-install-aprt-at-contract-towers

Sheehy's press release says that ADS-B will be part of this. AOPA jumped on the bandwagon in their comments in his press release saying, "Installing Airborne Position Reference Tools (APRTs) at towers that currently lack them will give controllers greater situational awareness and enhance safety for pilots across the country.”

But in comments on their site the FAA seems to put forth strict limits on the use of this technology by writing, "APRTs may only be used to supplement controllers’ visual observations, and their radio communications with pilots. APRTs may not be used as the basis for maintaining separation between aircraft and they may not connect to FAA networks and/or FAA equipment."

Hopefully those in the know will comment ...

APRTs cannot be used by tower controllers that are not "radar qualified" for aircraft separation standards, only for situational awareness. Plus the display is probably not certified for traffic seperation. This is the same as the old "Bright Scopes" that would be placed in Tower Cabs, a repeater scope from the radar approach control to be used only for situational awareness of arriving aircraft.

In most Class D Towers, the tower controller is not trained and current on radar control. The display will show a call sign, or beacon code, to allow the Tower controller to know where you are on your initial call to the tower. Situational Awarness.

We had an interesting situation that may have changed since I left that area 6yrs ago. A Class D, VFR Tower, did have a display from the local Class B TRACON that provided situational traffic information for aircraft approaching from the south. However, traffic arriving from the north was controlled by a military approach control facility that did not feed information to the same display. So, arriving from the south, the Class D tower could see your call sign and know where you were relative to his other traffic and to his airport. As a pilot, just check in and give the ATIS id.

But arriving from the north, the military approach control would "release you to contact tower". As a Pilot, you had to provide location information to the Class D Tower along with ATIS. He had no idea you were coming or where you were coming from until you called him.

As I stated, I do not know if that situation has been resolved in the last 6 years.

 

[Wrench978]

Yep. It’s been mentioned already, but tower controllers are not radar controllers. They aren’t trained as radar controllers and are not certified to use a radar scope for the separation of aircraft.

I toured one of our contract towers a few years ago and they had flight aware (or flightRadar24) pulled up on one of the computers for situational awareness. We have since been able to give them a radar feed for a scope but nothing has changed operationally. We still have to give them inbound estimates and position reports. It’s just an aid to awareness.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Not sure I understand this very well. It seems another tool for ATC:

https://aaae.org/uscta-alerts/lawma...equire-faa-to-install-aprt-at-contract-towers

Sheehy's press release says that ADS-B will be part of this. AOPA jumped on the bandwagon in their comments in his press release saying, "Installing Airborne Position Reference Tools (APRTs) at towers that currently lack them will give controllers greater situational awareness and enhance safety for pilots across the country.”

But in comments on their site the FAA seems to put forth strict limits on the use of this technology by writing, "APRTs may only be used to supplement controllers’ visual observations, and their radio communications with pilots. APRTs may not be used as the basis for maintaining separation between aircraft and they may not connect to FAA networks and/or FAA equipment."

Hopefully those in the know will comment ...

An electronic system would be vastly superior than human vision.

 

[AV8R_87]

It’s been mentioned already, but tower controllers are not radar controllers. They aren’t trained as radar controllers and are not certified to use a radar scope for the separation of aircraft.

Explain that to the fine contract tower contollers at HPN, who will deny a class D transition because "your ADS-B isn't working". Nobody taught them that anonymous mode is a thing, and their ADS-B screen is too much of a crutch for them to operate any other way.

 

[Clip4]

Explain that to the fine contract tower contollers at HPN, who will deny a class D transition because "your ADS-B isn't working". Nobody taught them that anonymous mode is a thing, and their ADS-B screen is too much of a crutch for them to operate any other way.

Requesting a Class D transition is a request for Air Traffic Control (ATC) service.

Anonymous ADS-B mode (or Privacy ICAO Address - PIA) enables pilots, primarily in the U.S. using 978 MHz UAT equipment, to enhance privacy by broadcasting a randomized temporary ICAO address and flight ID. It requires squawking 1200 (VFR), no flight plan filing, and no ATC services.

Sounds like those contract HPN controllers know the rules.

 

[Ed Haywood]

As a follow up to this, the main sponsor is Sen Tim Sheehy R-MT. He seems to be angling to become the new James Inhofe. Sheehy made his first fortune in aviation with a fire fighting company out west.