The Other Side of the ADSB coin

[cliffy]

Having read many, many articles on the ADSB situation it has come to mind that we might be giving up a lot to gain what is offered. I'd like to submit this letter in an effort to promote discussion and thought on the other side of the ADSB coin.
I fully realize that this may be controversial and I apologize in advance if it is too strongly worded for some.

WHAT IF YOU RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER IN THE MAIL?


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Dear Fellow Citizen,

The Secretary of Transportation has determined that for purposes of traffic monitoring, control and safety, starting on Jan 1, 2020, in order for you to be allowed to travel by car or truck to, or near, any one of 137 named cities or, to use the Interstate Highway System, you will be required to install on your vehicle, a GPS tracking device (at your expense) that will transmit your position, your instantaneous speed and your travel direction to this department and, simultaneously, to the local law enforcement agency for the area you are traveling through. Your license plate data and vehicle information will be included in such GPS transmissions.

This data will be recorded by the Department of Transportation and law enforcement for future use. The scope of this future use and the retention time of these records are, as yet, undetermined.

If you elect to travel to these cities and install said GPS tracking device as required, you will not be allowed to disable the unit at any time and you must allow us to track your every movement from then on. Whether to the named cities, to the local bank or to the grocery store; we will, after installation, track and record your movements, at all times, any time your vehicle moves, .

Your identification, tracking and travel data will be made available to anyone in the general public, via open dissemination, in real time.

The Department will also provide traffic and weather information to you, as you travel through these areas via another radio receiver if, and only if, you elect to purchase such a unit, again, at your expense.

Both the GPS tracking unit and the Information receiver must meet Department of Transportation design requirements and the installations must be documented and approved by this Department.

The installations may only be accomplished by a “Department Approved” installation facility under penalty of law.

The Department reserves the right to use, record and disseminate the reported and collected data, as it sees fit, for internal use and for use by other governmental entities, law enforcement and the general public.

We thank you for your cooperation in this matter and please-drive safely.

[MyNameIsNobody]

That pretty much sums it up Cliffy.

[animalmover]

Big brother is watching!

[AndyFromCB]

The funniest part is talk to any controller. They will already tell you planes are spaced as closely as they can be in terminal areas and there is no shortage of space outside those areas. So essentially, ADS-B solves nothing and delivers no solution to the problems facing aviation. Want more capacity? Build more runways.

[AndyFromCB]

Not at all true.

 

Well, then correct me. Just spent some quality time discussing this with Chicago approach controller. Cannot get them any closer together and it nothing to do with radar limitations. It's called wake turbulence…At both midway and o'hare they are already landing them as closely together as they can, which is only 2 minutes apart. ADS-B will improve nothing there. Nothing else matters. Spacing on final approach has already reached its physical limits as is and no amount of gadgets will improve it. Reduced aircraft separation in terminal areas is a pipe dream. Outside of terminal areas, space is essentially unlimited, especially with direct routing. Tell me again how ADS-B will prevent one super-heavy from flipping another heavy on final?

[Tommy]

So exactly how much reduction in separation are we talking about here?

[Marauder]

Having read many, many articles on the ADSB situation it has come to mind that we might be giving up a lot to gain what is offered. I'd like to submit this letter in an effort to promote discussion and thought on the other side of the ADSB coin.

I fully realize that this may be controversial and I apologize in advance if it is too strongly worded for some.

WHAT IF YOU RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER IN THE MAIL?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Dear Fellow Citizen,

The Secretary of Transportation has determined that for purposes of traffic monitoring, control and safety, starting on Jan 1, 2020, in order for you to be allowed to travel by car or truck to, or near, any one of 137 named cities or, to use the Interstate Highway System, you will be required to install on your vehicle, a GPS tracking device (at your expense) that will transmit your position, your instantaneous speed and your travel direction to this department and, simultaneously, to the local law enforcement agency for the area you are traveling through. Your license plate data and vehicle information will be included in such GPS transmissions.

This data will be recorded by the Department of Transportation and law enforcement for future use. The scope of this future use and the retention time of these records are, as yet, undetermined.

If you elect to travel to these cities and install said GPS tracking device as required, you will not be allowed to disable the unit at any time and you must allow us to track your every movement from then on. Whether to the named cities, to the local bank or to the grocery store; we will, after installation, track and record your movements, at all times, any time your vehicle moves, .

Your identification, tracking and travel data will be made available to anyone in the general public, via open dissemination, in real time.

The Department will also provide traffic and weather information to you, as you travel through these areas via another radio receiver if, and only if, you elect to purchase such a unit, again, at your expense.

Both the GPS tracking unit and the Information receiver must meet Department of Transportation design requirements and the installations must be documented and approved by this Department.

The installations may only be accomplished by a “Department Approved” installation facility under penalty of law.

The Department reserves the right to use, record and disseminate the reported and collected data, as it sees fit, for internal use and for use by other governmental entities, law enforcement and the general public.

We thank you for your cooperation in this matter and please-drive safely.

I don't think your letter is far from the truth. I think some vehicles today have some form of tracking device on them already. I remember something a few years ago about the insurance companies salivating over the possibility of denying claims if the vehicle speed was found too fast.

Not sure where that all ended up, but at one time they were talking black boxes for cars. Anyone else recall this?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rbridges]

I guess I should be more uptight about it, but for the moment, it doesn't really bother me.  Is flying a right or a privilege?  I remember in drivers ed, they said that driving is a privilege, not a right.  If I have to broadcast my position and info to fly through certain controlled airspace, I really don't have a problem with it.  Maybe it makes flying safer, maybe it doesn't.  Who honestly knows?  If I fly on a commercial airline, there is a ton of paper trail that any govt agency can find.  Maybe it's naivety, and I may eat my words later, but right now it's not a huge concern for me.

[Rhumbline]

I don't think your letter is far from the truth. I think some vehicles today have some form of tracking device on them already. I remember something a few years ago about the insurance companies salivating over the possibility of denying claims if the vehicle speed was found too fast.

Not sure where that all ended up, but at one time they were talking black boxes for cars. Anyone else recall this?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I had read somewhere in the last couple-three years that most, if not all,  late model vehicles produced had some kind of tracking device integrated into the electronics which could be used by local governments should a mileage tax be imposed.  The possibilities for nefarious uses are endless.

 

Regarding the original post, this is and has been my biggest issue with the ADS-B mandate along with the expense dumped in our laps.  Flying represents the pinnacle of freedom and, in this day and age, it still amazes me that I can go out to the airport, hop in the plane and fly wherever without communicating my intentions to anyone if I don't wish to.  Soon, "they" will no where, when, how fast and how high you are if you want or need to equip for the affected airspaces; even if you're just going for a hamburger.  I wonder if the IRS will be able access use of likely cheeseburger routes when evaluating your healthcare participation?

 

I used to be able to take my boat and go fishing any time of the day or year and no one needed to know what I was up to.  Now that the ANS (aquatic nuisance species) issue has made it to western states with the introduction quagga & zebra mussels, you have to jump through all the hoops to get your boat on & of the water.  The need for the program is clear but it's just another bunch of bureaucratic toadies telling when you can and can't go and knowing where you are.  In recent years, a registration and permit program was implemented to enter a nearby wilderness area.  No fees -yet.  Can't even go for a walk in woods without the king's permission.

 

I value little more than my liberty and privacy.  It astonishes me how little others value theirs and simply accept as either acceptable or inevitable the erosion of their own.  That's all I gotta say 'bout that. 

 

        

 

[AndyFromCB]

from 5 miles to 3

terminal facilities can use 3 mile sep within 41nm of a single site radar. Enroute facilities use 5 miles because the radar is a mosaic of several sites and it isn't as accurate. It's not as fast either, 5 to 6 updates a minute where the terminal radar is a few seconds.

Targets can jump a mile or more when transferring from one radar sort box to another.

 

You're selling features, not benefits which is typical of people promoting new technology. You again failed to show how it will benefit anyone. Once again, correct me if I am wrong, but never once in my entire flying career have I "run of airspace" outside of terminal area. It simply does not happen. I have however "run out of airspace" in terminal areas and was placed in a hold. Since it does nothing for where we are already short on airspace, it does nothing to alleviate congestion, other than theoretical congestion outside of terminal areas that does not currently exist. Also, there is no such thing as being outside of radar coverage in lower 48 as far as congestion and airlines are concerned. Radar coverage does not matter for low flying VFR aircraft. All IFR aircraft are already within radar coverage unless we're doing about some backwood areas that might experience 3 IFR flights a week. It solves another problem that does not exist. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

The compliance for Class B may make sense. Class C where I am based? NOPE.

This is ultimately about Government mandated control and a precurser to user-fees. I will simply relocate (at the last possible minute) outside of Class C Airspace and the safety that the longer/wider runways provide. I do not wish to "pay to play". The convenience and safety are trumped by the costs and my desire to not be mandated by the Federal Government.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Great article on the FAA's current bio-screening (code for dumbing down) controller hiring practices. Paul B. Aviation Consumer online blog. Hits keep coming from Big G and the FAA...

[MyNameIsNobody]

How is the elimination of 3rd class medical working out for us?....Crickets.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Big G.

Less IS more.

[FlyDave]

I don't think your letter is far from the truth. I think some vehicles today have some form of tracking device on them already. I remember something a few years ago about the insurance companies salivating over the possibility of denying claims if the vehicle speed was found too fast.

Not sure where that all ended up, but at one time they were talking black boxes for cars. Anyone else recall this?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I know Walter White had one....

[AndyFromCB]

Another example of "what's good for me is good for the system" mentality. Look if you can't afford the 3 or 4 grand, don't do it. I couldn't care less.

 

But what do I know, I just work traffic all day.

 

You might work traffic all day, but you still have not pointed out a single benefit. It's not about the 3 or 4 grand. It's about 30 year technology, taking 20 years to implement, that offers no benefits what so ever to anyone and costing billions and billions. It's about FAA's inability to pull anything off. The systems running amazon's warehouses are considerably more complicated than keeping 4000 or so aircraft apart. It's a total joke.

[peevee]

You might work traffic all day, but you still have not pointed out a single benefit. It's not about the 3 or 4 grand. It's about 30 year technology, taking 20 years to implement, that offers no benefits what so ever to anyone and costing billions and billions. It's about FAA's inability to pull anything off. The systems running amazon's warehouses are considerably more complicated than keeping 4000 or so aircraft apart. It's a total joke.

 

I have provided several examples where it increases efficiency as a whole in the system. Because it doesn't tangibly impact YOU directly, you choose to ignore them.

[AndyFromCB]

 

I have provided several examples where it increases efficiency as a whole in the system. Because it doesn't tangibly impact YOU directly, you choose to ignore them.

 

No, you provided features, not benefits. Features that accomplish nothing for anyone. Reducing separation from 5 to 3 miles outside of terminal areas accomplishes nothing. Same with expanded radar coverage in lower 48. It expands radar coverage where no IFR flights exist. And understanding the technology, I will keep my XM. When terminal areas get busy, bandwidth on UAT becomes limited. Terminal areas get busy when you most likely need updated weather. It's a broken POS and was a broken POS from start.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Hey peevee: Check the use of language. Sign you are losing the debate when you resort to foul language. Police yourself. Remain civil or tune out.

[peevee]

Hey peevee: Check the use of language. Sign you are losing the debate when you resort to foul language. Police yourself. Remain civil or tune out.

if you have a problem with it I'm sure you can find an administrator to contact about it.

[MyNameIsNobody]

My interpretation is that within the Class B veil (confirmed by second hand account of Chicago controller) they have maxed the landing capacity/separation. MAXED. The in-route is for future expansion but reducing spacing there doesn't change the maxed out landing capacity of existing Class B airports.

Right or wrong?

[MyNameIsNobody]

if you have a problem with it I'm sure you can find an administrator to contact about it.

O.K. Mooneyspace Admn. BAN HIM. He asked for it vs. just editing the profanity from his previous post.

[peevee]

O.K. Mooneyspace Admn. BAN HIM. He asked for it vs. just editing the profanity from his previous post.

You might also try whispering candyman into the mirror three times with a candle lit. I'm betting he'll show up!

[AndyFromCB]

Quote from another controller, on another forum, confirming what I heard from my single serving drinking friend:

 

Every new technology that comes about they always say it will make the NAS more efficient by letting them cut the space between aircraft. It never happens. Airplanes are already as close as they're going to get. On a dry runway you are going to need a minimum 2.5 miles between jets. That's an absolute bare minimum and everything has to go right. That also does not allow for any departures. You'll need 5-6 miles in trail for that. That also assumes no extra miles for wake turbulence. Right now all aircraft following a heavy or B757 require extra miles. All jets that are smalls require extra miles not only behind heavys but the larges as well.

You want to increase system capacity? Simple, build runways.

[Marauder]

I guess I should be more uptight about it, but for the moment, it doesn't really bother me. Is flying a right or a privilege? I remember in drivers ed, they said that driving is a privilege, not a right. If I have to broadcast my position and info to fly through certain controlled airspace, I really don't have a problem with it. Maybe it makes flying safer, maybe it doesn't. Who honestly knows? If I fly on a commercial airline, there is a ton of paper trail that any govt agency can find. Maybe it's naivety, and I may eat my words later, but right now it's not a huge concern for me.

I think if you show up in any DMV office you will see people who believe it is their right to drive. On my last DMV visit, I watched an elderly man struggle to understand what the DMV clerk was asking him to do. And then struggle with the eye test. The clerk said to him "That's okay honey, you're good for another 5 years."

How many of us were faced with parents who we needed to convince that it was time to hang up the keys to the Buick?

The reality is that driving is a privilege but it is treated as a right. And because of that treatment, we hear a lot more about "An elderly woman mistaken the gas pedal for the brake as she plowed into the convenience store" or "The driver had a heart attack and lost control of his vehicle and drove into a crowd of people killing 3" than we do "A pilot passed out losing control of his plane and flew into a school".

Personally, as a citizen, I would like have my rights and privileges too. The challenge is balancing these...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk