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

Pedals2Paddles said:
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.
Click to expand...


Right. I'd just pick up a Stratus and use my iPad.
 
JimNtexas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most of us trash reporters and news sources for the p**s poor job they do reporting on GA. I'm one of them. Has anyone tried to verify the WSJ article as being any more accurate?
 
This Navworxs one isn't horribly expensive. Keep my mode C transponder. IDK it I have an encoder with RS232 tho, might be a problem since this doesn't appear to be compatible with grey code.

 
I don't get all the complaining about ADSB...it sounds like a bunch of old codgers complaining that "those fancy new CDs are coming out to replace my fancy 45s".

If I can get some traffic alerts for crazies who make their own rules while flying I'm all for it.
 
MichiPilot said:
I don't get all the complaining about ADSB...it sounds like a bunch of old codgers complaining that "those fancy new CDs are coming out to replace my fancy 45s".

If I can get some traffic alerts for crazies who make their own rules while flying I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

The complaining is that it requires every aircraft owner who might enter A/B/C airspace or >10,000ft to purchase$4000-$5000 worth of avionics. Those who don't have cash lying around to burn might be a little miffed. Especially when they don't need or want the additional capabilities it provides.
 
MichiPilot said:
I don't get all the complaining about ADSB...it sounds like a bunch of old codgers complaining that "those fancy new CDs are coming out to replace my fancy 45s".

If I can get some traffic alerts for crazies who make their own rules while flying I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

except it won't. As paddles said, it's only required in A,B,C,&D airspace, where you're likekly under positive control anyway.

It will do nothing to reduce the number of Piper Cub and LSA pilots flying NORDO and sans transponder in BFE.

But, these folks don't "make their own rules." Not now, or after ADS-B comes along.

I'm curious as to who you think "makes their own rules."
 
I'm SURE if we were all forced to buy a 406 ELT, there would be 10x the complaints. On the ELT issue, I'd rather buy a 406 portable an toss in my flight bag next to the fire extinguisher because I don't fly 1 airplane all the time.
 
I would like to start a petition to the FAA to change the rule as follows:

Permit aircraft equipped with Mode A/C to fly underneath a class B shelf and underneath 10,000 MSL when inside the mode C 30 NM veil.

This change to the rule would permit most VFR and IFR flying when below 10,000 MSL (2500 AGL) and to airports under the class B but not inside the class B. The change would lighten the burden for many low hull value aircraft where it is not economical to upgrade and not substantially affect safety.

Anyone interested in signing on to the petition, or would you prefer to just ***** about it?

If I could get 1000 signatures, I would forward the request to the FAA and copy AOPA demanding their support.
 
I think the problem with your proposal is they plan to shut down all the radar facilities that now track transponders, so you wouldn't be seen. I personally don't think it'd be a good idea for FLIBs to be inside the "mode C veil" unseen.
 
John Collins said:
I would like to start a petition to the FAA to change the rule as follows:

Permit aircraft equipped with Mode A/C to fly underneath a class B shelf and underneath 10,000 MSL when inside the mode C 30 NM veil.

This change to the rule would permit most VFR and IFR flying when below 10,000 MSL (2500 AGL) and to airports under the class B but not inside the class B. The change would lighten the burden for many low hull value aircraft where it is not economical to upgrade and not substantially affect safety.

Anyone interested in signing on to the petition, or would you prefer to just ***** about it?

If I could get 1000 signatures, I would forward the request to the FAA and copy AOPA demanding their support.
Click to expand...

Mode C I could agree with, but not mode A only.
 
timwinters said:
I think the problem with your proposal is they plan to shut down all the radar facilities that now track transponders, so you wouldn't be seen.
Click to expand...
The FAA sold this bill of goods when it was justifying the expense of ADS-B during rulemaking. There was NEVER a plan to shut off all RADAR facilities, and I know (without a doubt) that the Class B locations will always (in my lifrtime) have terminal RADAR. Additonally, after the Dept of Homeland Security came into being, the decision was made that many of the RADAR facilities listed in the FAA shutdown plan would be kept alive for DHS purposes.
 
John Collins said:
I would like to start a petition to the FAA to change the rule as follows:

Permit aircraft equipped with Mode A/C to fly underneath a class B shelf and underneath 10,000 MSL when inside the mode C 30 NM veil.

This change to the rule would permit most VFR and IFR flying when below 10,000 MSL (2500 AGL) and to airports under the class B but not inside the class B. The change would lighten the burden for many low hull value aircraft where it is not economical to upgrade and not substantially affect safety.

Anyone interested in signing on to the petition, or would you prefer to just ***** about it?
Click to expand...
John, I would sign your petition, but I would rather see the FAA acknowledge that they did a disservice to the low end of the aircraft spectrum by lumping all users together during the formulation of the policy. The requirements in the MOPS and the TSOs may make sense for a Citation X in the flight levels, but those standards are egregious for the 90 knot cessna that never goes above 10K. We need a relaxed standard for the little guys that are putting around down low beneath the Class B, and not bothering anybody...
Instead of a TSOd box/ positioning source, how about non-TSO unit (available for less than a grand), with an operational reqirement for the pilot to validate the accuracy of the positioning?
For the 40 years that I have been flying IFR, that concept has been good enough for VOR nav...
 
okav8r said:
The FAA sold this bill of goods when it was justifying the expense of ADS-B during rulemaking. There was NEVER a plan to shut off all RADAR facilities, and I know (without a doubt) that the Class B locations will always (in my lifrtime) have terminal RADAR. Additonally, after the Dept of Homeland Security came into being, the decision was made that many of the RADAR facilities listed in the FAA shutdown plan would be kept alive for DHS purposes.
Click to expand...

First post.......

Welcome to POA...:cheers:
 
timwinters said:
except it won't. As paddles said, it's only required in A,B,C,&D airspace, where you're likekly under positive control anyway.
Click to expand...
Actually it will, IF you are in range of a TIS-B ground station, it will provide a bridge between ADSB and radar based ATC systems, so you will see non-equipped (Non ADSB aircraft), I don't know how the radar system handles Mode A/No Xpndr traffic.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I think the problem with your proposal is they plan to shut down all the radar facilities that now track transponders, so you wouldn't be seen. I personally don't think it'd be a good idea for FLIBs to be inside the "mode C veil" unseen.
Click to expand...

Tim,

Your information is wrong, the FAA has no plans to shut down the ATCRBS radar systems and especially in the Class B area. It is still the backup and used when for what ever reason ADS-B system is not operational, including use during WAAS GPS outages. It is also integral to keep both the primary mode radar's and the ATCRBS system in place to protect against spoofing.

When ADS-B is not available, there will be an impact on the separation standards and system throughput, but not on safety. The FAA does not allow under the current rule to eliminate the transponder as it is still the backup and still needed for TCAS.
 
okav8r said:
John, I would sign your petition, but I would rather see the FAA acknowledge that they did a disservice to the low end of the aircraft spectrum by lumping all users together during the formulation of the policy. The requirements in the MOPS and the TSOs may make sense for a Citation X in the flight levels, but those standards are egregious for the 90 knot cessna that never goes above 10K. We need a relaxed standard for the little guys that are putting around down low beneath the Class B, and not bothering anybody...
Instead of a TSOd box/ positioning source, how about non-TSO unit (available for less than a grand), with an operational reqirement for the pilot to validate the accuracy of the positioning?
For the 40 years that I have been flying IFR, that concept has been good enough for VOR nav...
Click to expand...

My proposal would eliminate the requirement in those specific areas and most aircraft currently meet these requirements today.
 
John Collins said:
My proposal would eliminate the requirement in those specific areas and most aircraft currently meet these requirements today.
Click to expand...

I think your proposal is a good idea. I think the exemption should also extend above 10,000 MSL when the aircraft is below 2000 AGL, since IFR aircraft are not allowed below that height in mountainous areas anyway.
 
John Collins said:
I would like to start a petition to the FAA to change the rule as follows:

Permit aircraft equipped with Mode A/C to fly underneath a class B shelf and underneath 10,000 MSL when inside the mode C 30 NM veil.

This change to the rule would permit most VFR and IFR flying when below 10,000 MSL (2500 AGL) and to airports under the class B but not inside the class B. The change would lighten the burden for many low hull value aircraft where it is not economical to upgrade and not substantially affect safety.

Anyone interested in signing on to the petition, or would you prefer to just ***** about it?

If I could get 1000 signatures, I would forward the request to the FAA and copy AOPA demanding their support.
Click to expand...

You're on the right track. I'd suggest that anyone flying above 14k' needs ADS-B and the upper tiers of Class B airspace would extend all the way to 14k'. That way, airliners and the like would have a protective bubble around them all the way into and out of the major airports.

The 14k' number comes from O2 regulations - if you're flying above that altitude, you're in a serious X/C machine, either pressurized or equipped with O2. So, again, the folks who have high end airplanes have a block of altitude they can use and be relatively protected by ADSB.

But, my suggestion is like yours in that non-ADS-B aircraft could use the airspace under the Class B but inside the mode C veil...
 
FAA to address barriers to NextGen mandate at industry summit

“We are pleased that FAA is taking an inclusive approach to addressing the substantial challenges associated with ADS-B equipage,” said AOPA President Mark Baker, who was asked to serve on the steering group for the summit. “The costs associated with purchasing and installing the required avionics are prohibitive for many pilots and aircraft owners, especially in light of the limited benefits they will receive. At the same time, we understand the FAA is facing its own structural challenges and potential delays in implementing the mandate.”
Click to expand...
 
Good morning everyone

First, the IG's report was LEAKED to the Wall Street Journal and they asked AOPA to comment within minutes. It had not yet be publicly released and you can probably guess by reading the article where it came from. Without having time to fully read and digest the report, providing a comment and position to a national media outlet would not have been a smart thing to do.

The report has since been officially released and AOPA has responded. Here are Mark Baker's quotes from a story you'll find online. We also issued a release that went to the national press, Hill press and GA trade press.

“The inspector general’s report highlights the profound problems associated with the 2020 mandate and the FAA’s modernization program, which has seen repeated delays and cost overruns over a period of years,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “The inspector general’s findings raise significant questions about whether the system will be ready by 2020, adding to the aviation community’s confusion about when and how to equip. We look forward to working with the FAA and the aviation community to develop solutions that are cost effective and offer greater flexibility in addressing ADS-B equipage issues.”

“Equipping for ADS-B simply allows pilots to continue flying in the same airspace they use today at an added cost of at least $5,000 to $6,000 to install the required equipment,” said Baker. “We need to look seriously at how the system can be made to deliver on its promises while considering issues like cost and portability.”

Here is the link to the full story: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-mandate?WT.mc_id=140926epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

AOPA will be a key participant in the Summit they've scheduled for late October and we will be pushing for more cost-effective solutions, we will reiterate the serious concerns we have about the integrity of the data, and we will continue to push the FAA about defining clear benefits for general aviation - a drum we've been repeatedly beating - and something the FAA has so far been unable to do.

Katie Pribyl
AOPA Communications
 
bnt83 said:
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/

Click to expand...

It is not compliant and is invisible to certified receivers. A portable may never meet the current regulations, the regulations themselves would need to be amended and that is not going to happen.
 
John Collins said:
It is not compliant and is invisible to certified receivers.
Click to expand...

So what? The aircraft's mode C transponder continues to be visible to ground radar which in turn is supposed to make your aircraft visible to those certified receivers. Also, is there something in the technical requirements that prevents a receiver manufacturer from having a configuration setting that would allow depiction of data coming from direct transmissions tagged as being non-certified?

A portable may never meet the current regulations, the regulations themselves would need to be amended and that is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

The ~$1500 I paid for a Skyguard has an amortized cost of $300/year if I lose use of it in 2020. I pay more than that per year for rental insurance - and unlike insurance, which might pay for my medical expenses (assuming I survive at all) only after-the-fact collision, the Skyguard is an actual aid to preventing the collision.

Furthermore, it isn't clear that I lose use of the Skyguard after 2020. I presume its FCC license would still be valid, so I could still use it in the C-152 rental that I suspect my FBO is never likely to install ADS-B out. The Skyguard transmitter should still trigger transmissions from the nearby towers of nearby traffic. After all, the need to respond to non-certified transmissions shouldn't vanish after the mandate begins because the tower system will forever need to be available for in situ testing of new transmitter models.
 
Katie Pribyl said:
Good morning everyone

First, the IG's report was LEAKED to the Wall Street Journal and they asked AOPA to comment within minutes. It had not yet be publicly released and you can probably guess by reading the article where it came from. Without having time to fully read and digest the report, providing a comment and position to a national media outlet would not have been a smart thing to do.

The report has since been officially released and AOPA has responded. Here are Mark Baker's quotes from a story you'll find online. We also issued a release that went to the national press, Hill press and GA trade press.

“The inspector general’s report highlights the profound problems associated with the 2020 mandate and the FAA’s modernization program, which has seen repeated delays and cost overruns over a period of years,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “The inspector general’s findings raise significant questions about whether the system will be ready by 2020, adding to the aviation community’s confusion about when and how to equip. We look forward to working with the FAA and the aviation community to develop solutions that are cost effective and offer greater flexibility in addressing ADS-B equipage issues.”

“Equipping for ADS-B simply allows pilots to continue flying in the same airspace they use today at an added cost of at least $5,000 to $6,000 to install the required equipment,” said Baker. “We need to look seriously at how the system can be made to deliver on its promises while considering issues like cost and portability.”

Here is the link to the full story: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-mandate?WT.mc_id=140926epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

AOPA will be a key participant in the Summit they've scheduled for late October and we will be pushing for more cost-effective solutions, we will reiterate the serious concerns we have about the integrity of the data, and we will continue to push the FAA about defining clear benefits for general aviation - a drum we've been repeatedly beating - and something the FAA has so far been unable to do.

Katie Pribyl
AOPA Communications
Click to expand...

What a load of self-serving tripe! No wonder I no longer belong to this organization! I could have given them a quote on ADSB off the top of my ugly bald piple-ridden non-aviation expert head! You guys are supposed to be the big experts and this is your bread and butter! You need to see a leaked report to understand what's going on?
 
steingar said:
What a load of self-serving tripe! No wonder I no longer belong to this organization! I could have given them a quote on ADSB off the top of my ugly bald piple-ridden non-aviation expert head! You guys are supposed to be the big experts and this is your bread and butter! You need to see a leaked report to understand what's going on?
Click to expand...

You would want them to respond to a report that hasn't been seen yet? That doesn't mean they don't know whats going on...just that they aren't commenting on something that hasn't been reviewed.
 
MichiPilot said:
You would want them to respond to a report that hasn't been seen yet? That doesn't mean they don't know whats going on...just that they aren't commenting on something that hasn't been reviewed.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. BUT...

AOPA should have been there through the ENTIRE crafting of the bill /legislation to make sure it was not filled with idiotic language.... I just got an email from them asking for a donation to help lobby congress in favor of GA...

YHGTBSM.....:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
What a load of self-serving tripe! No wonder I no longer belong to this organization! I could have given them a quote on ADSB off the top of my ugly bald piple-ridden non-aviation expert head!
Click to expand...

And that's fine speaking as a lone individual. But the AOPA represents many thousands of pilots. They can't just let out a long whiney howl of aggravation about something they haven't even seen.

Even if bitching and whining about the FAA would help the FAA see our side of things.

Which it won't.
 
Wait is aopa now slightly anti adsb? Amazing they were 100% behind cramming adsb down our throats.
 
JimNtexas said:
And that's fine speaking as a lone individual. But the AOPA represents many thousands of pilots. They can't just let out a long whiney howl of aggravation about something they haven't even seen.

Even if bitching and whining about the FAA would help the FAA see our side of things.

Which it won't.
Click to expand...

That's a load of hooey! To listen to their rhetoric they've been in on the process since day 1. Moreover, even dumb fat ugly bald little old me could give them a quote that didn't bash the FAA but did point out the impact on GA pilots. It just isn't that hard. The only people these guys are representing are staring them in the mirror.
 
Would someone please invent a drop in replacement? I personally think it should actually replace the current transponder. Same size. Two versions, one with GPS, one without. Including antennas. No in, this is just so we can comply. Oh, and $5k installed. And certified of course.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Would someone please invent a drop in replacement? I personally think it should actually replace the current transponder. Same size. Two versions, one with GPS, one without. Including antennas. No in, this is just so we can comply. Oh, and $5k installed. And certified of course.
Click to expand...

I hope you're being sarcastic. Because that product has existed for quite some time.
 
Jim Logajan said:
So what? The aircraft's mode C transponder continues to be visible to ground radar which in turn is supposed to make your aircraft visible to those certified receivers. Also, is there something in the technical requirements that prevents a receiver manufacturer from having a configuration setting that would allow depiction of data coming from direct transmissions tagged as being non-certified?



The ~$1500 I paid for a Skyguard has an amortized cost of $300/year if I lose use of it in 2020. I pay more than that per year for rental insurance - and unlike insurance, which might pay for my medical expenses (assuming I survive at all) only after-the-fact collision, the Skyguard is an actual aid to preventing the collision.

Furthermore, it isn't clear that I lose use of the Skyguard after 2020. I presume its FCC license would still be valid, so I could still use it in the C-152 rental that I suspect my FBO is never likely to install ADS-B out. The Skyguard transmitter should still trigger transmissions from the nearby towers of nearby traffic. After all, the need to respond to non-certified transmissions shouldn't vanish after the mandate begins because the tower system will forever need to be available for in situ testing of new transmitter models.
Click to expand...

It will be invisible. I mean that on my certified ADSB In, it will not be displayed as traffic at all. It will be treated as an ADSB equipped aircraft by the GBT and therefore not broadcast as a Mode C target. Unless it is turned off, I won't see it any way.

It will never be able to be used by you in your C152 rental after 2020 without you or the aircraft owner receiving a letter from the FAA indicating it is not compliant. If you fly into one of the airspaces that require it after 2020, you might not be able to gain entry to the airspace.

It is in clear violation of current FAA policy as it transmits as RTCA DO-282B compliant, when in fact it is not. However, I don't think the FAA is going to do anything about it for the time being.
 
What makes you think your certified ADS-B IN gives a hoot about the certification of another ADS-B out unit?? It doesn't know or care.

The Skyguard ADS-B Out 978 UAT (and any other 978 UAT) will show up on yours and everyone else's. It will be received air-to-air by nearby aircraft with a 978 receiver. It will be received by the ground based towers for inclusion in TIS-B. It will activate the TIS-B for his "hockey puck" of airspace. And it will be repeated out on 1090ES via ADS-R.
 
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
I hope you're being sarcastic. Because that product has existed for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Could you give us a parts list for a typical installation? ADSB OUT only. Transponder replaced, same footprint (typical King transponder), antennas and how much allowance for labor?
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
What makes you think your certified ADS-B IN gives a hoot about the certification of another ADS-B out unit?? It doesn't know or care.

The Skyguard ADS-B Out 978 UAT (and any other 978 UAT) will show up on yours and everyone else's. It will be received air-to-air by nearby aircraft with a 978 receiver. It will be received by the ground based towers for inclusion in TIS-B. It will activate the TIS-B for his "hockey puck" of airspace. And it will be repeated out on 1090ES via ADS-R.
Click to expand...

A little education is in order. A certified ADS-B In device is required by the TSO C195A RTCA DO-317A to not display any ADS-B data received from a unit that has a SIL or SDA of zero (A GDL88 for example is TSO C195A RTCA DO-317A). All non certified devices are required to broadcast these values as zero. Claiming any other SIL or SDA indicates the unit has been certified to a specific standard by the FAA, but a portable unit has no FAA certification. If one was not accurate and coded it as being compliant with a standard, but factually it was not, then I would think the FAA could take legal action against the manufacturer.

The GBT treats any ADSB out device as a client, regardless if it is compliant or not. The GBT will therefore not consider the portable as a simple mode A/C transponder unit and will not generate a TISB report for it as it does not generate TISB reports for any aircraft identified as a client, just for non clients.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Could you give us a parts list for a typical installation? ADSB OUT only. Transponder replaced, same footprint (typical King transponder), antennas and how much allowance for labor?
Click to expand...

No. I'm not your personal shopping assistant.

You're never going to get the "same footprint" if you expect it to have a GPS built in. And you're never going to get all the required components, plus install, for $5,000 unless you already happen to have a GPS such as a 430W/530W. If you do have that already, yes, less than $5,000, same footprint, done.
 
John Collins said:
A little education is in order. A certified ADS-B In device is required by the TSO C195A RTCA DO-317A to not display any ADS-B data received from a unit that has a SIL or SDA of zero (A GDL88 for example is TSO C195A RTCA DO-317A). All non certified devices are required to broadcast these values as zero.
Click to expand...
Intriguing. Seems stupid, but I suppose they want to filter out people who may be screwing it up?


John Collins said:
The GBT treats any ADSB out device as a client, regardless if it is compliant or not. The GBT will therefore not consider the portable as a simple mode A/C transponder unit and will not generate a TISB report for it as it does not generate TISB reports for any aircraft identified as a client, just for non clients.
Click to expand...
Now this makes no sense. You're claiming that the GBT will receive an ADS-B out aircraft, and subsequently do nothing with it. Please detail why you think it will not put an ADS-B out aircraft into TIS-B. That is whole point of the system. TIS-B includes radar targets and ADS-B targets. I can understand it not including ME in MY TIS-B output. But you and everyone else getting a TIS-B output would see me because you're not me. Is that what you mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top