ADSB Traffic comes in handy

[kpaul]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

The whole Air Force is going to an electronic flight bag.  I think the major reason being that it’s more expensive to print and send charts every month for the NGA than to just send out wireless updates.

we used iPads for some of our tactical maps on my last cruise in 2011 (when I was flying the F-18) but not for the navigation charts.  I’ve seen paperwork and message traffic about fighter pilots getting iPads for navigation charts for a few years now, but have yet to receive/use one.  I think the hold up for us has to do with the classification of the systems and USAF procedure (we aren’t supposed to fly with personal electronic devices in either of the USAF Jets I’ve flown).

That said, I have seen the heavy pilots walking around with them.  I don’t know if they are personal devices or USAF provided though. 

AETC has started with it in the T-38 so I would think many of the fighter squadrons will follow suite if they are not already there.

While I was in AFSOC, we used EFBs in aircraft running TS/SCI equipment and missions.  The EFBs were even allowed in the SCIFs with caveats of course.  Personal electronics were not allowed in the planes.

[M016576]

2 hours ago, kpaul said:

AETC has started with it in the T-38 so I would think many of the fighter squadrons will follow suite if they are not already there.

While I was in AFSOC, we used EFBs in aircraft running TS/SCI equipment and missions.  The EFBs were even allowed in the SCIFs with caveats of course.  Personal electronics were not allowed in the planes.

Neither the F-15 or F-35 communities (in AETC anyway) have adopted electronic flight books (yet).  Getting them certified to go in our vaults/cockpits has been an issue, that I do know.

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, M016576 said:

It’s surprising how little of a disturbance in the skin of an aircraft can create a huge radar return.  I do agree that ADS-B out on our fighters might be a safety enhancement for GA- but it could also be a safety detractor (at least in MOA’s)- as the fighters tend to navigate at 300-350kts, and can have huge rates of ascent and descent (in excess of 30,000fpm).  Which may cause other ADS-B receivers to alter their courses erroneously based on stale data.

there are certainly cases where ADSB our for a fighter would be very helpful to vfr traffic, though- the tragic midair between the vfr cessna and the F-16 on an ifr approach in South Carolina comes to mind.

I would personally LOVE to have ADS-B In in the F-35, for the weather.  But again- I’d rather not have that if it mean increasing my radar crosssection.

I am sure you are right that it would be tricky to properly shield an extra antenna but I am also sure if properly funded that our good ol American engineers can solve that one too.

i quite understand what you mean by the speed and climb differences between the aircraft.  An analogy is a ga airplane like a Mooney is a canoe and a fighter jet is a jet ski.  The avoid part is almost impossible for the dramatically slower craft so it’s all up the the faster one.  So you could well be right that it may simple be better if we don’t see you esp considering the late view we would see by the time it comes by the adsb system.

[kpaul]

20 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Not sure if you can answer this, see sectional.....  note seppe and the military base to south west (woensdrecht)  by a few miles.  In that base live a lot of dutch f16s.  The amount of times ive had them fly across my path when going to seppe is unreal.  Im assuming that they have seen me on their radar or something, would i be correct or are they all mark one eyeball?  

I am sure the Dutch-mil F-16s have you on radar.  They always seemed to be able to find me in my C-130 for training intercepts.  Once we agreed to being I intercepted it was not long until there was a pair on my wing.

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, M016576 said:

It’s surprising how little of a disturbance in the skin of an aircraft can create a huge radar return.

...
I would personally LOVE to have ADS-B In in the F-35, for the weather.  But again- I’d rather not have that if it mean increasing my radar crosssection.

Totally understandable concern, but probably much easier to overcome than you'd think.    You probably already have one of either a Transponder, DME, or other low L-Band receiver (GPS, etc.), antenna on the aircraft.   That's really all you need to feed a $200 box (e.g., stratux) that'll give you everything you can get from ADS-B-in.   If somebody decided that you could use ADS-B-in, it would probably be practical to add it without a lot of cost using existing infrastructure on the airplane.  Some of the existing devices transmit sometimes, which can complicate the issue but definitely does not make it impossible.   I'd be shocked if it required an additional antenna.   If an additional antenna could be added, a form factor and location likely already exists to accomodate it.

I've done a career of radio comm work which also included radar work.   There are issues, for sure, but they're probably not big ones given that you already need to communicate with the world, so the airplane already has antennas in the relevant bands.

Alternatively, depending on the coatings on the canopy, you might be able to plop one in there somewhere.   The coatings are not always broadband, i.e., a reflective coating to control most radar returns may not block low L-band (where the ADS-B signals live).

Anyway, it might not really be all that difficult if somebody really wanted to make it happen.   I think 

 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Hyett6420 said:

Not sure if you can answer this, see sectional.....  note seppe and the military base to south west (woensdrecht)  by a few miles.  In that base live a lot of dutch f16s.  The amount of times ive had them fly across my path when going to seppe is unreal.  Im assuming that they have seen me on their radar or something, would i be correct or are they all mark one eyeball?  

I love European charts - so colorful!

[M016576]

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Not sure if you can answer this, see sectional.....  note seppe and the military base to south west (woensdrecht)  by a few miles.  In that base live a lot of dutch f16s.  The amount of times ive had them fly across my path when going to seppe is unreal.  Im assuming that they have seen me on their radar or something, would i be correct or are they all mark one eyeball?  

If you are within 60 degrees of either side of their nose, their radar can pick you up, other wise they may have you on their datalink, which is typically tied into the approach radars in the area.  Finally, they have the mark one, mod 0 eyeball.

[M016576]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Totally understandable concern, but probably much easier to overcome than you'd think.    You probably already have one of either a Transponder, DME, or other low L-Band receiver (GPS, etc.), antenna on the aircraft. 

The only antenna on the aircraft is an old antenna in the nose wheel well.  All our transmissions are generated through artificially created waveforms and broadcast through an emulator.  I’m willing to bet we could make an ADS-B out signal, but the GPS isn’t WAAS (despite being far more accurate than a waas GPS), and it would cost money I’m pretty sure the program doesn’t have to spend on things that don’t directly increase the jet’s combat capability.  I would certainly like the “in” for weather, though.  We already see the traffic picture through our datalink and sensors.

to sum it up- yeah- I don’t think it would be difficult to do- and could probably be achieved with a software modification alone.  I just don’t think the program office wants to pay for it.

Edited May 5, 2019 by M016576

[EricJ]

12 hours ago, M016576 said:

The only antenna on the aircraft is an old antenna in the nose wheel well.  All our transmissions are generated through artificially created waveforms and broadcast through an emulator.  I’m willing to bet we could make an ADS-B out signal, but the GPS isn’t WAAS (despite being far more accurate than a waas GPS), and it would cost money I’m pretty sure the program doesn’t have to spend on things that don’t directly increase the jet’s combat capability.  I would certainly like the “in” for weather, though.  We already see the traffic picture through our datalink and sensors.

to sum it up- yeah- I don’t think it would be difficult to do- and could probably be achieved with a software modification alone.  I just don’t think the program office wants to pay for it.

I had to run to an obligation before I finished my last post, but I meant to say I think the technology isn't the hurdle, the gatekeepers are.

Your airplane has lots of antennas, but they're conformal to the skin so they each suck a little bit at what they do.   Algorithmically combining multiple of the conformal antennas from various places on the airplane allows synthesis of a virtual antenna with a more practical radiation pattern than any of the individual antennas.   Maybe that's what they call the "emulator" in your case.   WiFi access points and larger devices, like laptops, do similar things with multiple antennas to improve throughput and coverage through a variety of different algorithms and techniques.

The basic idea is that since the airplane has a functioning transponder it already has an antenna port to send and receive ADS-B traffic, even if it is somewhat virtual.

I think you're right that since the F-35 avionics are largely Software Defined Radios, and since a stratux ADS-B-in device is an SDR running open-source (free) software, it probably wouldn't be a big task to port it or add the functionality, and certainly technically feasible.   The non-technical hurdles through the gatekeepers are pretty large, though, so I ain't holding my breath.

If there ever were a collision and it came out that this simple, relatively low-cost capability may have helped protect the asset, then hindsight will become pretty clear.   Unfortunately this is the way of things. 

[steingar]

I'm just a pinch jealous of those who live far enough out in the styx that they don't need this stuff.  I fly into controlled airspace every other flight, so I needed it.  Don't like the surveillance aspect, but I like the fact that Mrs. Steingar can track my flights if she so chooses.

I still don't know where you can live and fly at Mooney speeds and never hit controlled airspace.  I suppose there are places.  Thankfully I don't have to worry much about military aircraft, they all got moved south long ago.

I think in a few years its going to get really difficult to sell a Mooney without the boxes.

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

I'm just a pinch jealous of those who live far enough out in the styx that they don't need this stuff.  I fly into controlled airspace every other flight, so I needed it.  Don't like the surveillance aspect, but I like the fact that Mrs. Steingar can track my flights if she so chooses.

I still don't know where you can live and fly at Mooney speeds and never hit controlled airspace.  I suppose there are places.  Thankfully I don't have to worry much about military aircraft, they all got moved south long ago.

I think in a few years its going to get really difficult to sell a Mooney without the boxes.

Out here in the west there are a LOT of magenta and blue borders on the sectional  

Edited May 6, 2019 by jaylw314

[bob865]

I'm late to the party and see the discussion has drifted from the original post into debating ADS-B requiements for military aircraft.  Anyway, back to the original topic.  If you haven't see it, there is a recent study that shows an inverse correlation between accidents and ADS-B.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/april/18/study-shows-accidents-less-likely-with-ads-b-in

 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, steingar said:

I'm just a pinch jealous of those who live far enough out in the styx that they don't need this stuff.  I fly into controlled airspace every other flight, so I needed it.  Don't like the surveillance aspect, but I like the fact that Mrs. Steingar can track my flights if she so chooses.

I still don't know where you can live and fly at Mooney speeds and never hit controlled airspace.  I suppose there are places.  Thankfully I don't have to worry much about military aircraft, they all got moved south long ago.

I think in a few years its going to get really difficult to sell a Mooney without the boxes.

Just leave the Industrial North and head for the Agricultural areas . . . Yes, I realize that Columbus is the oddball exception and has little "industry" but is a banking & insurance town. Same still applies.

Here in Lower Alabama, all I have to worry about is staying out of the ATL Bravo. My routes rarely take me near Birmingham, and I usually miss Charlotte and Raleigh, too. Lots of MOAs, but IFR will route me around them if they're hot, and I always ask when VFR and go around if hot. What other airspace do I need ADSB for? My C doesn't really like being above 10,000 msl.