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

John Collins said:
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.
Click to expand...

What regulation requires any of us use Certified ADSB In? What rules are violated when I build my own receiver and and integrate it with my tablet computer?

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.
Click to expand...
Only the FCC has authority over the radio spectrum and radio equipment. The FAA would need to go to the FCC and point out the FCC regulation that is being violated.

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. 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.
Click to expand...

See above about appropriate agency authority. At this point I'm trying to figure out the point of certified ADS-B In since no one flying Part 91 is even required to use it anyway. Why would you install or want to use such a thing?

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...
Well correct me if I'm missing something, but as I see it: The airplane has a standard Mode-C transponder that remains active. I'm not clear how my use of a portable ADS-B unit on that same plane inactivates the existing Mode-C transponder, thus making my airplane invisible.

I'm a little confused by what you're claiming in general - will there or will there not be provisions for in situ pre-certfication testing of ADS-B Out equipment?
 
There are a LOT of airplanes that just want to comply, and keep everything else as it is.

They don't have the money to buy a WAAS GPS and make all the changes to the panel that would require. They just want a box and and antenna that replaces the old one and lets them fly in peace. For the least money possible, but keep it under 5k. 4k would be even better.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Intriguing. Seems stupid, but I suppose they want to filter out people who may be screwing it up?
Click to expand...

I am not sure I would have designed the system the way it currently works, but this was pointed out to me by one of the FAA ADS-B people as a concern of his. I would have rather it be pointed out as a target that might not be trustworthy.

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?
Click to expand...

I would prefer that the non compliant aircraft be ignored by the GBT and it be treated as a Mode A/C aircraft. This would have resulted in a TISB for the aircraft being generated, if there was a nearby client. But at least until 2020, non compliant targets are being treated as clients and not as TISB. A TISB is not generated for a client, only for those aircraft identified as not being clients.

According to the FAA, upwards of 80% of the current ADSB Out clients are not compliant today, mostly because they are prior versions of ADSB. Most of the air carriers except the newer aircraft use DO260 or DO260A instead of DO260B. Many are not compliant because they don't use a certified position source and include the integrity data that is used to dynamically determine what position accuracy can be relied on (NACp, NACv, NIC). Many don't transmit a correct transponder code or for that matter, any at all. Same for other mandated data such as Pressure and GPS altitudes.

In most cases, it is relatively easy to pick out a non compliant ADSB Out system from what they broadcast or don't broadcast. Sometime before 2020 comes around, I expect the FAA will start sending warning notices to aircraft owners telling them they are not compliant. It will be a shock to many who think they are, but in fact are not. ForeFlight/Stratus have a capability to identify "Own Ship" and read out the aircraft N number being broadcast. If you tap on the N number, it will display all the broadcast data including items that are required for compliance. If a parameter is green, it is compliant, if not it displays as red.

You can also request a courtesy compliance report from the FAA and they will send it to you via email, often the same day.
 
coloradobluesky said:
There are a LOT of airplanes that just want to comply, and keep everything else as it is.

They don't have the money to buy a WAAS GPS and make all the changes to the panel that would require. They just want a box and and antenna that replaces the old one and lets them fly in peace. For the least money possible, but keep it under 5k. 4k would be even better.
Click to expand...

This is available now in a UAT version from both NavWorx and from FreeFlight. FreeFlight also sells their unit OEM to other manufacturers. Trig or one of its OEM customers is bound to release a transponder version with a built in GPS source in the price range you are suggesting. Appareo has announced their intention to provide a solution as well at Oshkosh as did L3.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Katie, I just don't see how you can be unprepared to comment on ADS-B when the nation's largest newspaper calls. Lots of us AOPA members have opinions about ADS-B-out that are not favorable, and I believe that you should be ready to speak at a moment's notice when the nation's largest newspaper asks what you think about ADS-B.

Just before the AOPA-has-no-comment paragraph in the WSJ story there were three paragraphs that were not about the leaked report, but instead were about general stuff. So the article wasn't just about the report. It also needed to educate the public about ADS-B. You should have been able to contribute to that education and make general comments about ADS-B-out, from our perspective, without seeing a report.
 
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...


This is not true. They've clearly stated that radar will still be primary. There is no written plan to change that.
 
If the press seeks out the largest aviation group in the country asking about the largest change to the NAS in decades, and the reply isn't already written and approved by the attorneys... But instead is, "no comment"...

I bet Boyer could have spoken to the press about any topic they might call about, on a moment's notice.

The organization not being prepared to talk about the largest boondoggle in aviation in my lifetime, has solidified my resolve to terminate my membership.

I'm done waiting on AOPA to advocate for OWNERS, and have said for many years that the O should be removed from the name of the organization.

No more wasting resources on AOPA for me. I'm done. Last straw. I've paid my share since 1991. It isn't working.
 
Katie Pribyl showed up here to make excuses and throw out distractors to obscure her poor performance.

A golden opportunity was placed before her, a chance for millions of influential readers to hear what we thought.

And she punted.

Twiddled her thumbs. No time to think of a response, that was her excuse.

There was leak, that was one of her distractors.

So after she's done with the twiddling and fretting she posts a response on the AOPA website, where exactly zero influential non-pilots will read it. And comes here to boast about this response that nobody will see.

Katie blew it.

Or maybe it was her boss.

I'm still a member, but I sure wish we had a spokesman who can speak, not one who says "no comment" when a golden chance to be heard presents itself.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
Katie Pribyl showed up here to make excuses and throw out distractors to obscure her poor performance.

A golden opportunity was placed before her, a chance for millions of influential readers to hear what we thought.

And she punted.

Twiddled her thumbs. No time to think of a response, that was her excuse.

There was leak, that was one of her distractors.

So after she's done with the twiddling and fretting she posts a response on the AOPA website, where exactly zero influential non-pilots will read it. And comes here to boast about this response that nobody will see.

Katie blew it.

Or maybe it was her boss.

I'm still a member, but I sure wish we had a spokesman who can speak, not one who says "no comment" when a golden chance to be heard presents itself.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm...

I say we can feed them their own medicine..

Next time you guys /gals get a mailer from AOPA,, Just sign it "NO COMMENT" and mail it back using the prepaid envelope...

When they call trying to get you to renew.. Let the person go on and on and after several minutes... just to waste their time, give a simple answer of 'NO COMMENT"....;)........:lol:....:rolleyes2:
 
NoHeat said:
...So after she's done with the twiddling and fretting she posts a response on the AOPA website, where exactly zero influential non-pilots will read it. And comes here to boast about this response that nobody will see...
Click to expand...

If you check the time stamps, you will see that she posted her response here five hours before she posted it on the AOPA board. (And when I first saw her post here, it was not up yet there.)

One can agree or disagree with the position AOPA has taken on ADS-B, but do we really want them shooting from the hip in a VERY public venue?
 
Palmpilot said:
If you check the time stamps, you will see that she posted her response here five hours before she posted it on the AOPA board. (And when I first saw her post here, it was not up yet there.)

One can agree or disagree with the position AOPA has taken on ADS-B, but do we really want them shooting from the hip in a VERY public venue?
Click to expand...

Geez... If all they can say is "NO COMMENT", and the majority of the people here agree that was a BS answer.. then yeah... This public venue is the right place to vent.....

And remember.. You were the one who started the thread on the Red Board directing the attention here...:rolleyes:...:(
 
How about being prepared? Or restating their position of how lovely ADS-B is?
 
Some of you clearly have never worked in a PR arena. How on earth do you expect them to be able to respond to "what is your comment on this report" if they haven't seen it? Once they read it there was a response.

But I know it's much easier to whine.
 
MichiPilot said:
Some of you clearly have never worked in a PR arena. How on earth do you expect them to be able to respond to "what is your comment on this report" if they haven't seen it? Once they read it there was a response.

But I know it's much easier to whine.
Click to expand...
This...
 
MichiPilot said:
Some of you clearly have never worked in a PR arena. How on earth do you expect them to be able to respond to "what is your comment on this report" if they haven't seen it? Once they read it there was a response.

But I know it's much easier to whine.
Click to expand...
They should have said 'Mistakes were made, by us' 'Wanna buy some wine?' Aopa is garbage.
 
N801BH said:
Geez... If all they can say is "NO COMMENT", and the majority of the people here agree that was a BS answer.. then yeah... This public venue is the right place to vent.....
Click to expand...

The "very public venue" I was referring to was the Wall Street Journal.

And remember.. You were the one who started the thread on the Red Board directing the attention here...:rolleyes:...:(
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything? :confused:
 
The degree of whining in this thread is going to require noise canceling headsets pretty soon.

Somebody hear really seems under the delusion that if the AOPA had commented something like "ADS-B SUCKS!" when asked about this unreleased, unread, report that the FAA administrator would read his morning WSJ and immediately slapped himself on the forehead and said 'duh! I never realized that! Lets just cancel the program and invest in more airways beacon lights!'.:mad2:

To the pilot who asked about slide in solutions under $5K, let me be your personal shopper:

King KT-74

Freeflight is just up the road from Austin, and a couple of our club members went up there to chat with them. They have an in/out solution that looks pretty sweet, and we hope will come in about $4K installed. The out is wifi, and the rumor is that Foreflight might support the Freeflight box.
 
JimNtexas said:
...To the pilot who asked about slide in solutions under $5K, let me be your personal shopper:

King KT-74...
Click to expand...

That looks pretty convenient to install, but according to the Q&A page, you still have to have a WAAS certified GPS installed in addition.

Does anyone know if the GPS database has to be kept up-to-date to meet ADS-B requirements?
 
It's not dependant on updates. It's only concerned with position on the earth, not approaches, hazards, etc.
 
MichiPilot said:
Some of you clearly have never worked in a PR arena. How on earth do you expect them to be able to respond to "what is your comment on this report" if they haven't seen it? Once they read it there was a response.



But I know it's much easier to whine.
Click to expand...


And apparently neither have you. This wasn't the National Inquirer looking for a "gotcha" quote. The was the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure they shared with the AOPA the nature of the article, and probably the report itself, even if it was leaked.
 
nddons said:
And apparently neither have you. This wasn't the National Inquirer looking for a "gotcha" quote. The was the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure they shared with the AOPA the nature of the article, and probably the report itself, even if it was leaked.
Click to expand...

You are telling me that any reputable organization is going to provide any quote in response to "what is your stance on this report" having not reviewed it? But I'm dumb so there's that.
 
I think you need GPS and an antenna also, if you dont have a WAAS GPS. Also installation.

What is needed is an equivalent that has its own GPS.

I suspect they are coming.
 
MichiPilot said:
You are telling me that any reputable organization is going to provide any quote in response to "what is your stance on this report" having not reviewed it? But I'm dumb so there's that.
Click to expand...

The answer should never be "no comment". It should be "Provide us a copy to review and we'll be glad to comment once we've digested the report."
 
kyleb said:
The answer should never be "no comment". It should be "Provide us a copy to review and we'll be glad to comment once we've digested the report."
Click to expand...

Agreed....

My first feeling every time I see "NO COMMENT" is, that party is being evasive and does not want to answer... YMMV..
 
kyleb said:
The answer should never be "no comment". It should be "Provide us a copy to review and we'll be glad to comment once we've digested the report."
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the article does it say aopa said 'no comment' it says no comment was provided. My guess would be the conversation went like this.

reporter - "Do you have any comment on this leaked reported that you haven't seen yet?"

aopa - "well we haven't seen the official report yet so we can't comment on a leaked and possibly incorrect/inappropriately released report. Though, we will as soon as it is released"

But, it probably makes alot more sense to fume and drool behind the keyboard assuming somebody (who represents GA) is out to 'get' GA? :confused:
 
MichiPilot said:
Nowhere in the article does it say aopa said 'no comment' it says no comment was provided. My guess would be the conversation went like this.

reporter - "Do you have any comment on this leaked reported that you haven't seen yet?"

aopa - "well we haven't seen the official report yet so we can't comment on a leaked and possibly incorrect/inappropriately released report. Though, we will as soon as it is released"

But, it probably makes alot more sense to fume and drool behind the keyboard assuming somebody (who represents GA) is out to 'get' GA? :confused:
Click to expand...

Aopa has been publicly pushing adsb from the start that is out to get GA. Aopa sucks.
 
kyleb said:
The answer should never be "no comment". It should be "Provide us a copy to review and we'll be glad to comment once we've digested the report."
Click to expand...

Which might be paraphrased by the newspaper as "the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the trade group for general aviation, declined to comment."
 
Palmpilot said:
Which might be paraphrased by the newspaper as "the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the trade group for general aviation, declined to comment."
Click to expand...

Yeah, who would want to comment for a rag like the WSJ. No chance that movers and shakers would ever read that thing. Big missed opportunity.

AOPA should have an "elevator speech" regarding ADS-B that they trot out any time a question is asked. The speech doesn't have to be directly responsive to the particular question(s) being asked. Watch any news show, nobody even listens to the questions being asked, they just hit their own talking points.
 
kyleb said:
Yeah, who would want to comment for a rag like the WSJ. No chance that movers and shakers would ever read that thing. Big missed opportunity.
Click to expand...

You wrote that AOPA should have said "Provide us a copy to review and we'll be glad to comment once we've digested the report." My point was that we don't know that they didn't say that.

AOPA should have an "elevator speech" regarding ADS-B that they trot out any time a question is asked. The speech doesn't have to be directly responsive to the particular question(s) being asked. Watch any news show, nobody even listens to the questions being asked, they just hit their own talking points.
Click to expand...

Politicians answer like that, but I've always felt that it made them look like weasels.
 
MichiPilot said:
Some of you clearly have never worked in a PR arena. How on earth do you expect them to be able to respond to "what is your comment on this report" if they haven't seen it? Once they read it there was a response.



But I know it's much easier to whine.
Click to expand...


"I'sorry, I haven't read the report, but did you say the main topic of the report was ADS-B? We do have a FAQ about ADS-B and a statement of opposition to the expensive mandate that will cost billions for very little results for the american taxpayer and our members, posted on our website. Would you like me to give you the URL? If you can call us back in an hour, we can have a look at the report and provide our initial reaction."

Duh.
 
I installed ADS_B out on one of my planes and I do not regret the installation. I can see weather and traffic on my iPad. The weather display permitted two trips from FDK to Florida that while it could have been done with the storms w cope it was much more comfortable with the 360 weather available on the iPad. Seeing traffic on the display before the controller called it out was another plus. Also, I am more willing to fly VFR with the traffic display which keeps me from talking to ATC. Regardless of whether the mandate is extended or removed, I will add ADS_B outs just for the traffic awareness. There are more reports coming out on ADS_B from other sources so keep your powder dry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top