Interesting Avweb comment

Henning said:
No idea, but how many weather subscriptions can be allowed to expire? You get traffic and weather.
Click to expand...

Not with ADS-B out.

If you want traffic and weather add lots of AMUs.
 
I'll bet there's a lot of us who would be largely unaffected. I probably only have 3-4 trips per year that I really need a transponder. And that's flying IL-GA-TX-KS so I can't agree with the sat morning pancake run comments. The only real detour for us would be cutting a wider swath around fort worth.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm conflicted on the mid-air issue. Due to the infrequency of mid-airs, it seems that it clearly isn't much of an issue. That said, the consequences are very high. As such, having traffic knowwledge is a big nice-to-have.

We're planning on adding TCAS to the 310 at some point in the future. Ironically, my trips up to middle of nowhere Canada are the biggest reason. No radar services, and few airports (so most planes are on the same routes).
Click to expand...

Despite most of my hours being logged in the western lower 48 in both busy and non busy airspace, the closest calls for me have all been in class G or E in Alaska.
 
N801BH said:
And you can bet your sweet bippie when this is all rolled out their ( guvmint) software will accept your -out signal, start the clock and you will be billed a fee... This will lead to pay for play.. I am 100% sure.:yes::eek:
Click to expand...

The way other countries with similar technologies bill user fees is based on flight plans filed. Which reminds me, I still owe Canada money.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Despite most of my hours being logged in the western lower 48 in both busy and non busy airspace, the closest calls for me have all been in class G or E in Alaska.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same for me in Canadia.
 
Henning said:
Because it's the part you use and are responsible for.
Click to expand...

That's a circular argument. The question is, WHY am I responsible for it, given that it purportedly benefits everyone and not just me?
 
Palmpilot said:
That's a circular argument. The question is, WHY am I responsible for it, given that it purportedly benefits everyone and not just me?
Click to expand...

Because you're the one who uses your plane.

The GPS system is free to use (well, comes out of our tax dollars). To utilize it, one most own an appropriate receiver. It is not the government's job to provide us with that.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Because you're the one who uses your plane.

The GPS system is free to use (well, comes out of our tax dollars). To utilize it, one most own an appropriate receiver. It is not the government's job to provide us with that.
Click to expand...

But I have a choice if I want to use the GPS system. I can still navigate fine without it using compass, chart, pilotage, VOR, etc. I CHOSE to have one for convenience, and for redundency.

ADS-B is NOT a choice.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's a circular argument. The question is, WHY am I responsible for it, given that it purportedly benefits everyone and not just me?
Click to expand...

You're not paying for all of it, you're paying for your piece of it. When you get the bill for all the equipment, then YOU are responsible for it. Until then WE are responsible for it.

What is it y'all expect to happen? Do you expect technology to stand still because you don't want to pay for it or think it's worthwhile? Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Do you expect the taxpayer to buy your gear for your plane? It's not enough that they paid the billions of dollars to put the system into place?

Next Gen IS coming and ADS-B is a part of it, no sense bitching.
 
Anthony said:
But I have a choice if I want to use the GPS system. I can still navigate fine without it using compass, chart, pilotage, VOR, etc. I CHOSE to have one for convenience, and for redundency.

ADS-B is NOT a choice.
Click to expand...

That argument only goes so far. With anything in life, there are certain restrictions. For virtually anything, one can choose to perform an activity without it, provided one adheres to certain restrictions. One can even purchase a fully-automatic rifle (legally), provided one goes through the proper purchase process.

You can still choose not to use the GPS system and navigate using a chart, pilotage, etc. But if you do not have ADS-B, then there are limits on where you can fly, and you won't be able to fly instruments.

Since VORs are not items that you personally pay for and come out of the common slush fund (i.e. taxes), that means you don't have personal authority over whether or not they are kept on operation. Now, if you wanted to personally buy up the VORs and keep them operational, I'm sure that'd be doable. That's what railroads have to do, effectively, since they have to pay for the land on which the trains operate.
 
Henning said:
Next Gen IS coming and ADS-B is a part of it, no sense bitching.
Click to expand...

+1...

And for getting the traffic and weather information free with it, it ends up saving money in the long run vs. XM subscriptions.
 
Everskyward said:
Neither is a transponder, when we are talking about the current requirements for the same airspace.
Click to expand...

I know, and a lot of people were upset by that and put through financial hardship to install them. I guess it is just becoming more and more expensive, and restrictive to fly, and we just have to bit the bullet or get out.
 
Anthony said:
I know, and a lot of people were upset by that and put through financial hardship to install them. I guess it is just becoming more and more expensive, and restrictive to fly, and we just have to bit the bullet or get out.
Click to expand...


I don't see where that has changed ever in the history of aviation.
 
Henning said:
I don't see where that has changed ever in the history of aviation.
Click to expand...

Well, a while back during your lack of posting days, I did an analysis from when I started flying 18 years ago and today where fuel cost went from 50% of OPEX to now 72% of OPEX and rising. In addition, other ownershios costs to operate a plane has also gone up annually beyond the rate of inflation. So it is changing.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Because you're the one who uses your plane.

The GPS system is free to use (well, comes out of our tax dollars). To utilize it, one most own an appropriate receiver. It is not the government's job to provide us with that.
Click to expand...

That's not a valid analogy, because with a GPS navigation receiver, the benefit almost exclusively goes to the aircraft operator. With ADS-B equipment, the (supposed) national defense benefit goes to everyone. Furthermore, the government does not mandate installation of GPS navigation receivers in private aircraft. Any owner who does not feel the need for one is free to go without.
 
Henning said:
What is it y'all expect to happen?
Click to expand...

I expect the government to continue to come up with BS unfunded mandates. That doesn't mean I have to approve of them.

Do you expect technology to stand still because you don't want to pay for it or think it's worthwhile? Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Do you expect the taxpayer to buy your gear for your plane? It's not enough that they paid the billions of dollars to put the system into place?
Click to expand...

I was addressing the national security justification, which was offerred as an explanation for installation in private aircraft being made mandatory instead of optional. We're not here to serve the government; the government is here to serve us.

Next Gen IS coming and ADS-B is a part of it, no sense bitching.
Click to expand...

Revolutionary changes have started with somebody bitching about something!
 
Palmpilot said:
I was addressing the national security justification, which was offerred as an explanation for installation in private aircraft being made mandatory instead of optional.
Click to expand...

ADS-B Out has nothing to do with national security. It is to enable better air traffic control surveillance. How does it change anything from a national security point of view? Just use the anonymous feature that is part of the UAT specification and it is just like squawking 1200.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
Anthony said:
Well, a while back during your lack of posting days, I did an analysis from when I started flying 18 years ago and today where fuel cost went from 50% of OPEX to now 72% of OPEX and rising. In addition, other ownershios costs to operate a plane has also gone up annually beyond the rate of inflation. So it is changing.
Click to expand...

Buy a twin. Fuel costs are still less than 50% of my operating expenses. I also budget for upgrades.
 
Henning said:
Next Gen IS coming and ADS-B is a part of it, no sense bitching.
Click to expand...

Next Gen has been coming for decades.

I'll support ADS-B when it's fixed. The current ADS-B architecture is crap.
 
n12365 said:
How does it change anything from a national security point of view?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Nate is the one who suggested that as the real motivation behind the mandate:

denverpilot said:
It ain't about upgrading technology for higher density traffic, or any of the public stories -- it's about putting a data tag up at NORTHCOM on everything moving in the sky.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Noel said:
Next Gen has been coming for decades.

I'll support ADS-B when it's fixed. The current ADS-B architecture is crap.
Click to expand...

When NextGen becomes obsolete, will they change the name to LastGen? :D
 
Henning said:
You're not paying for all of it, you're paying for your piece of it. When you get the bill for all the equipment, then YOU are responsible for it. Until then WE are responsible for it.

What is it y'all expect to happen? Do you expect technology to stand still because you don't want to pay for it or think it's worthwhile? Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Do you expect the taxpayer to buy your gear for your plane? It's not enough that they paid the billions of dollars to put the system into place?

Next Gen IS coming and ADS-B is a part of it, no sense bitching.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it probably does not matter one iota to the government as to whether or not we as GA like or disklike Next Gen. However, if we say nothing expressing our displeasure, or just complian about it among ourselves in forums like this then we have no chance of changing it so it is something that is more palatable to GA. As to the taxpayer putting billions of dollars getting the system into place, I do not feel the system was put into place for the benefit, or even for that matter for the detriment of GA. I would suspect it is ther more for the commercial part of aviation.

Also unless I am interpreting its requirements incorrectly, we will only need ADS-B when flying in controlled airspace. I wonder if pilots complained like we do now when the FAA starting requiring radios, and transponders(which to me is more analogous to the leap to ADS-B today than GPS). If they did it appears to me they did not stop those developments any better than we will.

Doug
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Buy a twin. Fuel costs are still less than 50% of my operating expenses. I also budget for upgrades.
Click to expand...


That is the answer isn't it? Think I'll stick with the Tiger :)

It really does fill its purpose.
 
Anthony said:
That is the answer isn't it? Think I'll stick with the Tiger :)

It really does fill its purpose.
Click to expand...

Of course, as the twin fits its purpose for me. :)

That's an interesting statistic for you, though. When I bought the Aztec initially, my instructor (a lifetime aircraft owner) said the rough estimate was to double the fuel cost and you had the total maintenance cost. I think that would have been accurate if I flew ROP, but since I always flew the Aztec (and now the 310) LOP, I soon realized that fuel was really more along the lines of 40% of the total cost. Even now figuring at $6/gallon fuel on the 310, fuel still represents a bit less than 50% of the total cost for us. A lot of that does come from having two engines/props to maintain and save up reserves for. And, as I said, we do also budget for upgrades in the interest of safety.
 
n12365 said:
ADS-B Out has nothing to do with national security. It is to enable better air traffic control surveillance. How does it change anything from a national security point of view? Just use the anonymous feature that is part of the UAT specification and it is just like squawking 1200.
Click to expand...

You'll still be required to have a Mode-S transponder, won't you? AFAIK, there's no substituting UAT Out for the Mode-S requirement. And every Mode-S is transmitting identification data.

Meanwhile, the radars will still be spinning, "confirming" the ADS-B GPS location data, so the only benefit I can deduce from the Mode-S requirement (for anyone not flying a TCAS equipped aircraft) is positive ID of everything in the air.

Got any other benefits in mind that aren't already in place from forcing Mode-S upgrades and calling it part of this giant thing called "NexGen"?
 
douglas393 said:
I would suspect it is ther more for the commercial part of aviation.
Click to expand...

Name three things significant enough to justify the cost of the system deployment, that commercial aviation will gain from ADS-B deployment that they don't have today in the current system.

ADS-B Out is not built for Aviation's benefit. ADS-B In, is. IMHO. Packaging them together is Marketing to make folks think they're inseparable. Which isn't the truth.
 
This is one of the better explanations I have seen about ADS-B

There are three benefits driving the transition to ADS-B. Firstly, the GPS positions that are reported by ADS-B are more accurate than the current radar positions and are more consistent. This means that in the IFR environment closer spacing can be used than at present, and this provides much-needed capacity improvements in congested airspace. Secondly, ADS-B surveillance is easier and less expensive to deploy than ground radar. This means that airspace which previously had no radar and only procedural separation services can now have the benefits of ATC services. And finally, because ADS-B is a broadcast service that can be received by other aircraft as well as ATC on the ground, ADS-B offers the option for an aircraft to have accurate and inexpensive traffic awareness of other nearby aircraft.
Click to expand...

http://www.trig-avionics.com/adsb.html

Here's another, longer, explanation of the benefits.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/pdfs/AERO_Q2-10_article02.pdf
 
Last edited:
The point has been made several times about insufficient runways, and so spacing doesn't matter. Try flying around the New York Bravo now and then. Aside from JFK, LGA, and EWR (three major airports all close to eachother), you've got a dozen or more small airports. The routings that exist for all of these airports to get planes in and around the airspace to them are insane, and extremely fuel wasting. If ADS-B allows for better routings with closer spacing (which is the intent), then there will be a huge time and fuel savings as a result. I'd suspect the same at most other Bravos.
 
I suspect no closer distances between aircraft will be approved in terminal airspace, just because they're sending down ADS-B Out location data.

There has been ZERO discussion of that level of change beyond Marketing level sales material. RVSM was difficult enough to get into the system.

If that's the only operational benefit to the system, it's not worth it.

What data in ADS-B Out will allow re-routing the airspace around JFK? Suuuuure.
 
denverpilot said:
You'll still be required to have a Mode-S transponder, won't you? AFAIK, there's no substituting UAT Out for the Mode-S requirement. And every Mode-S is transmitting identification data.

Meanwhile, the radars will still be spinning, "confirming" the ADS-B GPS location data, so the only benefit I can deduce from the Mode-S requirement (for anyone not flying a TCAS equipped aircraft) is positive ID of everything in the air.

Got any other benefits in mind that aren't already in place from forcing Mode-S upgrades and calling it part of this giant thing called "NexGen"?
Click to expand...

No mode-s or 1090ES requirement for flights outside of class A airspace. If you use a UAT to meet the ADS-B Out requirement, you can use a mode-C transponder to meet the existing transponder requirements.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
n12365 said:
No mode-s or 1090ES requirement for flights outside of class A airspace. If you use a UAT to meet the ADS-B Out requirement, you can use a mode-C transponder to meet the existing transponder requirements.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I swear someone said there was an upcoming Mode-S requirement in my transponder thread. I will admit to working off of that information and not really giving a crap. :)

Is the UAT transmitter serialized? If not, may change at least my thoughts that ADS-B Out is simply for ID purposes. But probably won't change my mind that ADS-B Out is still a worthless boondoggle.

Cut the price significantly and implement only ADS-In, and you have a winner government system, serves the system users.

Wide-Area Multilateralization is a lot cheaper solution for location data vs ADS-B Out. And works well too. Already deployed just up the road from me.

Seems to work for ZDV...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If ADS-B allows for better routings with closer spacing (which is the intent), then there will be a huge time and fuel savings as a result. I'd suspect the same at most other Bravos.
Click to expand...

Until we see actual plans for this concept of closer spacing in the terminal area, thinking about ADS-B as some miracle cure is just a pipe dream.

If you want closer spacing, think RNP 0.3 or tighter. The last I knew, really tight RNP installations were huge $$$$ compared to small GA aircraft prices.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The point has been made several times about insufficient runways, and so spacing doesn't matter. Try flying around the New York Bravo now and then. Aside from JFK, LGA, and EWR (three major airports all close to eachother), you've got a dozen or more small airports. The routings that exist for all of these airports to get planes in and around the airspace to them are insane, and extremely fuel wasting. If ADS-B allows for better routings with closer spacing (which is the intent), then there will be a huge time and fuel savings as a result. I'd suspect the same at most other Bravos.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's not just about insufficient runways, especially at satellite airports. Anyone who has waited a long time for an IFR release while no one else is using the runway realizes that. This also happens at airports where radar coverage ends at a fairly high altitude. They won't release an airplane until the preceding one is in radar contact.
 
n12365 said:
No mode-s or 1090ES requirement for flights outside of class A airspace. If you use a UAT to meet the ADS-B Out requirement, you can use a mode-C transponder to meet the existing transponder requirements.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, neither the EU or the Canadians have adopted the UAT technology. I believe that is specific to the U.S. So aircraft equipped with only UAT out would presumably not be legal in certain areas of their air spaces.

EU ADS-B final rule:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:305:0035:0052:EN:pDF

Nav Canada ADS-B info:
http://www.navcanada.ca/navcanada.asp?language=en&content=contentdefinitionfiles%5Cservices%5Cansprograms%5Cads-b%5Cdefault.xml
 
Everskyward said:
I agree that it's not just about insufficient runways, especially at satellite airports. Anyone who has waited a long time for an IFR release while no one else is using the runway realizes that. This also happens at airports where radar coverage ends at a fairly high altitude. They won't release an airplane until the preceding one is in radar contact.
Click to expand...

Yeah. New York is especially bad for that, I've also had good delays out of varying airports in PHL area, etc.

If such changes could be implemented, that would make the upgrade very much worthwhile for those who fly in those areas.
 
denverpilot said:
Name three things significant enough to justify the cost of the system deployment, that commercial aviation will gain from ADS-B deployment that they don't have today in the current system.

ADS-B Out is not built for Aviation's benefit. ADS-B In, is. IMHO. Packaging them together is Marketing to make folks think they're inseparable. Which isn't the truth.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of three things that ADS-B does for either GA or commercial aviation that we do not now have. I also do not believe however, that ADS-B was developed for GA.

Doug
 
Palmpilot said:
I expect the government to continue to come up with BS unfunded mandates. That doesn't mean I have to approve of them.



I was addressing the national security justification, which was offerred as an explanation for installation in private aircraft being made mandatory instead of optional. We're not here to serve the government; the government is here to serve us.



Revolutionary changes have started with somebody bitching about something!
Click to expand...

Right, but ADS-B is revolutionary, your point is reactionary. You show me where revolutions have been quashed the same way. I look forward to it being full functional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top