Violation due to ADS-B

W

woxof

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
155
Display Name
woxof
I read this in an article...

" some pilots and controllers are using current but unmonitored and imprecise ADS-B feeds for traffic separation and navigation. As a result, unlucky users have inadvertently flown into restricted airspace and been violated by the FAA while others have found themselves in unexpected traffic conflicts".

Anybody have anything like this happen to them?
 
ADS-B is way more precise than radar.

Center controllers are able to see me now in places without radar coverage - I like that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IIRC, Phil Boyer's wife was hit with an infraction for violating the SFAR airspace in the DC area (it might have been the ADIZ at the time). ADS-B is what proved she was in the right and cleared her record.
 
woxof said:
I read this in an article...

" As a result, unlucky users have inadvertently flown into restricted airspace and been violated by the FAA
Click to expand...

Let's look at this statement....as quoted.

If you laugh....you get a a thumbs up.....

Hmmm let me think.....I've been using charts....and now glass with even more situational awareness than I have ever imagined in my lifetime.(with paper backups along with 3 other digital thingamaggiers)

And my airplane has ADS-B in and out.......

So in my conclusion...."unlucky" users are either untrained beyond belief....or are trying to use ADS-B for an excuse for their mistakes.

I understand the haters out there...with good reason.

Not sure how ADS-B "makes you fly" into something you should already know about??????
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
Let's look at this statement....as quoted.

If you laugh....you get a a thumbs up.....

Hmmm let me think.....I've been using charts....and now glass with even more situational awareness than I have ever imagined in my lifetime.(with paper backups along with 3 other digital thingamaggiers)

And my airplane has ADS-B in and out.......

So in my conclusion...."unlucky" users are either untrained beyond belief....or are trying to use ADS-B for an excuse for their mistakes.

I understand the haters out there...with good reason.

Not sure how ADS-B "makes you fly" into something you should already know about??????
Click to expand...

Giving benefit of the doubt to the quoted statement, I would suspect that it meant the ADS-B data was erroneous. With one exception, which was a bug that has long been fixed, I don't recall ever hearing about erroneous information being broadcast by ADS-B.

*The one exception: I don't know all the details, but during the Capstone testing in central Alaska, a bug was discovered where two aircraft at the same latitude somehow swapped data on the radar scopes. It was an aircraft in the Bethel area swapping with one in Anchorage area. Apparently the FAA (or whoever was dealing with the software end) could replicate the error and managed to get the bug fixed.
 
Anymouse said:
Giving benefit of the doubt to the quoted statement, I would suspect that it meant the ADS-B data was erroneous. With one exception, which was a bug that has long been fixed, I don't recall ever hearing about erroneous information being broadcast by ADS-B.

*The one exception: I don't know all the details, but during the Capstone testing in central Alaska, a bug was discovered where two aircraft at the same latitude somehow swapped data on the radar scopes. It was an aircraft in the Bethel area swapping with one in Anchorage area. Apparently the FAA (or whoever was dealing with the software end) could replicate the error and managed to get the bug fixed.
Click to expand...

Point being....this is from an anti ADS-B crowd....and the "flown into restricted airspace" is laughable.

I get the anti ADS-B crowd.....cost is going to be more than some can absorb. Which stinks....and personally I don't think ADS-B will ever justify the cost for GA and will never justify for major airliners.(they already have better technology than ADS-B)

ADS-B is coming.....like it or not....and it's not going to be much better than what is in place currently. But ignore the rumors of ADS-B leading you into places you shouldn't be.
 
I'm confused by the original statement. Is the claim that an un-certificated GPS source lead someone to fly into some airspace they didn't know they were in? If so, what does that have to do with ADS-B? If the GPS position was inaccurate and showed someone outside the airspace they were actually in, how was that bust detected? Not via the ADS-B reported position obviously. Were they busted for a bug in the transmitted position that didn't match the position displayed inside the airplane (like if your encoder is off compared to your altimeter)?

'splain please.
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
Let's look at this statement....as quoted.

If you laugh....you get a a thumbs up.....
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever been violated by the FAA but I can't speak for everyone.
 
Anymouse said:
IIRC, Phil Boyer's wife was hit with an infraction for violating the SFAR airspace in the DC area (it might have been the ADIZ at the time). ADS-B is what proved she was in the right and cleared her record.
Click to expand...
that's interesting....here I thought it was the bread crumb trails from a hand held GPS that was able to prove they never entered that airspace?:confused:
 
Isn't it true that one is supposed to use ALL available information when conducting a flight. If true, then that does not aleiviate see and avoid, nor allow for GPS errors when in fact, you should have alternate methods of determining where you are. The key to VFR is VISUAL. All else is extra information.
 
silver-eagle said:
Isn't it true that one is supposed to use ALL available information when conducting a flight. If true, then that does not aleiviate see and avoid, nor allow for GPS errors when in fact, you should have alternate methods of determining where you are. The key to VFR is VISUAL. All else is extra information.
Click to expand...

I thought the "all available information" requirement was stated in regard to preflight planning.
 
Anymouse said:
Giving benefit of the doubt to the quoted statement, I would suspect that it meant the ADS-B data was erroneous. With one exception, which was a bug that has long been fixed, I don't recall ever hearing about erroneous information being broadcast by ADS-B.

*The one exception: I don't know all the details, but during the Capstone testing in central Alaska, a bug was discovered where two aircraft at the same latitude somehow swapped data on the radar scopes. It was an aircraft in the Bethel area swapping with one in Anchorage area. Apparently the FAA (or whoever was dealing with the software end) could replicate the error and managed to get the bug fixed.
Click to expand...

Is ADS-B what transmits the boundaries of TFRs to glass panel aircraft? The reason I ask is that on a recent flight in a Skycatcher, which comes with a G300 glass panel, the location of a TFR was erroneously displayed. (In this case, the error was several hundred miles.)
 
Palmpilot said:
Is ADS-B what transmits the boundaries of TFRs to glass panel aircraft? The reason I ask is that on a recent flight in a Skycatcher, which comes with a G300 glass panel, the location of a TFR was erroneously displayed. (In this case, the error was several hundred miles.)
Click to expand...

The G300 is fed by XM sat.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I'm confused by the original statement. Is the claim that an un-certificated GPS source lead someone to fly into some airspace they didn't know they were in? If so, what does that have to do with ADS-B? If the GPS position was inaccurate and showed someone outside the airspace they were actually in, how was that bust detected? Not via the ADS-B reported position obviously. Were they busted for a bug in the transmitted position that didn't match the position displayed inside the airplane (like if your encoder is off compared to your altimeter)?

'splain please.
Click to expand...
I guess there the possibility that "erroneous information" was ADS-B NOTAMs not reporting an intermittent restricted area as "hot."
 
I recently chatted with a pilot who is also a controller at KSAT. I asked him if ADS-B was part of his world yet.

He gave an emphatic YES. He said he really likes the fact that ADS-B out airplanes update at one second intervals on his traffic display (guess we can't call it a 'radar display' any longer) and that the position information is more accurate.
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
Point being....this is from an anti ADS-B crowd....and the "flown into restricted airspace" is laughable.

I get the anti ADS-B crowd.....cost is going to be more than some can absorb. Which stinks....and personally I don't think ADS-B will ever justify the cost for GA and will never justify for major airliners.(they already have better technology than ADS-B)

ADS-B is coming.....like it or not....and it's not going to be much better than what is in place currently. But ignore the rumors of ADS-B leading you into places you shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

The article was in Business & Commercial Aviation a few moths back.
 
ADS-B-In doesn't tell the pilot where he is. The GPS does that. And if the GPS is wrong, it's usually off by States, not miles.
I would think that if the GPS position was erroneous, it would be obvious to the pilot (assuming not flying IFR, in which case I would revert space violation responsibility to ATC)
Any GPS that I've worked with is at least 1000% more accurate than the VORs that they "replaced"
 
oldShar said:
ADS-B-In doesn't tell the pilot where he is. The GPS does that. And if the GPS is wrong, it's usually off by States, not miles.
I would think that if the GPS position was erroneous, it would be obvious to the pilot (assuming not flying IFR, in which case I would revert space violation responsibility to ATC)
Any GPS that I've worked with is at least 1000% more accurate than the VORs that they "replaced"
Click to expand...
Not always. Pilots do manage to screw up their clearances. They head in the wrong direction, at the wrong altitude and into areas they were not cleared to traverse.
 
If your worrying about a violation,why not talk to atc and then you'll both be on the same page. Love my ADSB in for traffic.
 
dans2992 said:
ADS-B is way more precise than radar.

Center controllers are able to see me now in places without radar coverage - I like that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Hello user fees......:mad2::mad2::mad:......
 
N801BH said:
Hello user fees......:mad2::mad2::mad:......
Click to expand...


Well, there's always the "off" button.

That and "oh, your charging for IFR now? Looks like VMC to me.... ;)"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There's no doubt whatsoever that per-use user fees are anti-safety.
 
Palmpilot said:
There's no doubt whatsoever that per-use user fees are anti-safety.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. If they absolutely have to have more money, raise the fuel tax (just don't send it into the general fund).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment is already installed in your aircraft but isn’t functioning properly, you may receive some unwanted attention from the FAA.

Once ADS-B Out equipment is installed, it must be operational and broadcast the required information at all times. While FAR 91.225 provides that aircraft must have ADS-B out equipment installed to operate in designated airspace “after January 1, 2020,” the regulation also affects present-day operations by requiring that “each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times.”

The FAA’s ADS-B Compliance Monitoring System is already operational and is capable of detecting each flight of an aircraft with ADS-B Out equipment that is failing to broadcast the information required by FAR 91.227. The information required by the FAR includes 19 different indications such as the aircraft's latitude and longitude, barometric pressure altitude, and transponder identification code.

The AOPA Legal Services Plan is aware of several cases in which aircraft owners have received a “Letter of Finding” from the FAA’s Avionics Branch in Washington, DC, notifying the owner of the date of the flight in question and the nature of the ADS-B Out equipment’s deficiency. The letter also provides a point of contact to call within 30 days to discuss a plan of corrective action. As with any potential FAR violation, aircraft owners and pilots are advised to contact an attorney prior to discussing the matter with anyone.

How can you confirm that your ADS-B equipment is functioning properly? According to the FAA’s website, you can send an email to the agency at [email protected] with your aircraft’s registration number and request an ADS-B Out equipment check. However, consult with your attorney or the AOPA Legal Services Plan before you do so, as both the aircraft owner and the pilot of the aircraft could be liable for any regulatory violations discovered.

http://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/News/2016/February/FAA-Monitoring
 
Wasn't there a push for ADSB type systems years ago in AK, as I recall the FAA said they would never bust someone off of ADSB, due to concerned that if they did fleet wise ADSB the system might end up "inop"
 
As far as I can tell, until Jan 2, 2020, most of the ADS-B regulations are not in effect. The only regulations that are in effect now are 91.217(b) requiring the pressure altitude be from the same source as the transponder and 91.225 (f) requiring that ADS-B be operated at all times. So I think it would be very difficult to be found in violation of one of these regulations until they come into effect.
 
dans2992 said:
Well, there's always the "off" button.

That and "oh, your charging for IFR now? Looks like VMC to me.... ;)"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Using the off button on an ADS-B Out system that is installed is a violation of the regulations, 91.225(f).
 
The Navworx box literature says that it removes the 'N' number from display when sqwaking 1200. I find this feature attractive but I typically either file or get FF so it might not matter that much. I do not have a big need/desire, at present to land at any class C or B's, so it may be awhile before I buy into it. Until I do, I can easily fly around them. Like an approved gps, nice, but a lot of $$$ for not much actual return, at least for me. If I flew CA or FL I would be more interested.
 
Navworxs box is like 2k, in and out, built in WAAS, uses existing transponder, I've been looking at that vs ESing my GTX330 due to the ability to not transmit my identity when 1200.
 
John Collins said:
Using the off button on an ADS-B Out system that is installed is a violation of the regulations, 91.225(f).
Click to expand...
If one going to pretend the weather is VMC even though it's not, I doubt violating the requirement to have ADS-B on at all times is much of a concern.
 
midlifeflyer said:
If one going to pretend the weather is VMC even though it's not, I doubt violating the requirement to have ADS-B on at all times is much of a concern.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't encouraging that, I was just inferring what some might do. After all, we do occasionally get some IMC scofflaws now. I am assuming if they started charging for clearances, the rate of these might go up....
 
I installed the EXP version of the Navworx box in both our planes. Install was very easy. Setup after install using a laptop connected via wifi was very easy. Yes, in the setup menu there is a check box option to transmit anonymous N number when squaking 1200. Cost for the 2020 compliant ads-b in/out was $695 per plane. The price has increased since I bought when first advertised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top