ADS-B Fleet Installation Progress

[Sandman993]

That’s why everyone thinks there will be an extension... I wouldn’t be surprised if big brother gave a new date for compliance, but it will be hard on their integrity after being so adamant about not doing so.

[ArtVandelay]

Since that's the only Regulation airspace that I frequent, and I am almost always denied entry, I'm not wasting my fuel / maintenance / upgrade money on ADS-B.

You won’t be able to fly over 10,000’.

I’ve never landed a class B airport, but been in Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Phoenix, San Francisco, not to mention class Cs. I would not be able to travel without ADSB. I see not needing it if just using the plane to fly out to practice area or the occasional lunch. But Mooneys are designed to go places.


Tom

[ArtVandelay]

That’s why everyone thinks there will be an extension... I wouldn’t be surprised if big brother gave a new date for compliance, but it will be hard on their integrity after being so adamant about not doing so.

Government only would extend it if THEY weren’t ready.


Tom

[steingar]

Sounds like lots of folks need it to make hay and haven't done it.  If they have sufficient funds to buy a politician I suspect they'll get a pass. If you don't need it to make hay, you'll probably get a pas (waivers) to start.  I expect them to get a bit scarce down the road.

Any old timers around who still recall when they had to outfit with Mode C?  Did it go smoothy?  Did everyone equip on the FAA's timetable?

[RogueOne]

On 9/13/2019 at 9:02 PM, Sandman993 said:

I stopped watching football when they started kneeling. They may never get me back.

That is pro not college...Just sayin’

[Hank]

4 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

But, Hank, you won't be able to fly under it, either.  That cuts a lot of airports with aviation services out of your world.  No FFC (Aircraft Spruce) 6A2 (cheap prices on Av oil) and (drum roll) no Mallards Landing for Mexican food!

Just have to call before I go. Almost never go inside the veil or to Charlie fields anymore. When I went to Yellowstone (traveling for sure, 1320 nm each way from WV), didn't enter any of what will become ADS-B airspace.

Almost never cruised above 10,000 msl the last 12 years--once comes to mind. Not paying 5AMU per flight surcharge . . .

[cliffy]

6 hours ago, steingar said:

Sounds like lots of folks need it to make hay and haven't done it.  If they have sufficient funds to buy a politician I suspect they'll get a pass. If you don't need it to make hay, you'll probably get a pas (waivers) to start.  I expect them to get a bit scarce down the road.

Any old timers around who still recall when they had to outfit with Mode C?  Did it go smoothy?  Did everyone equip on the FAA's timetable?

One has to remember that it was first just a transponder required THEN later they required the Mode C. Both were fought with much the same rhetoric as we have now on ADSB. I actually had one of the first SE airplanes in the LAX Basin that had a transponder and it was in my Cessna 140 with venturi driven gyros that I flew IFR many times back then. It had 1 Escort 110 for nav and one of the first 360 channel comms (Bendix after the Superhomer was removed). I was asked by BUR approach on one rainy day takeoff from KVNY to KSMO- "you really have a transponder, we don't see too many of those?" (Before Mode C). 

[bob865]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:51 PM, ArtVandelay said:

Government only would extend it if THEY weren’t ready

FWIW, they aren't.  Unless something has changed I should add.  The controllers from the Charlotte Bravo were down doing a ATC seminar a while back.  The group asked a lot of questions about ADS-B and per the controllers, they couldn't see any ADS-B traffic on their scopes. I do need to add that this was almost a year ago and a lot can change during that time. 

But to be fair...Having the ATC end setup before the fleet is broadcasting doesn't make much sense either.  At least fleet equipping first there is an immediate use, i.e. we can see traffic in the cockpit now.  If they equipped ATC first, there would be a long period where equiment is upgraded were no one gets a benefit.  Also to be fair, the government side is likely setup more than we know.  They already do re-boradcase and FIS-B so the infrastructure is setup.  It's just not being displayed to controllers yet. 

Makes me wonder, do you really want to see RADAR and ADS-B traffic on the same scope?  I imagine it like a VOR track vs. a GPS track.  They are close and both good for navigation, but they aren't necessarily the same.  Not sure I want a mix of GPS and RADAR separation.  Like seeing traffic cross-eyed, you show up twice in two slightly different locations.

[ArtVandelay]

Last time I picked up flight following, they knew my position, altitude all from nothing but my call sign. Pretty sure that’s ADSB at work.


Tom

[jaylw314]

Just now, ArtVandelay said:

Last time I picked up flight following, they knew my position, altitude all from nothing but my call sign. Pretty sure that’s ADSB at work.


Tom

Some ATC definitely has ADS-B info and is using it.  I was out on a random VFR flight one day, and decided to tune in Cascade Approach just to listen in.  All of a sudden, they called me by my N number and asked if I was on frequency, so they could warn me about approaching traffic.  That kind of freaked me out.

[Hank]

5 hours ago, bob865 said:

If they equipped ATC first, there would be a long period where equiment is upgraded were no one gets a benefit.

You do realize that the primary purpose, the main intention and the whole intention behind ABS-B is to transfer the expense of keeping up radars sites, VORs, NDBs, etc., from the government's budget to ours? The "benefits" that you love so much were added as an enticement due to equippage rates so low they make last year look like a huge rush? When most everyone is using GPS and ADS-B, they won't need near as many radars, navaids, etc.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Last

30 minutes ago, Hank said:

You do realize that the primary purpose, the main intention and the whole intention behind ABS-B is to transfer the expense of keeping up radars sites, VORs, NDBs, etc., from the government's budget to ours?....

The replacement you cite — GPS — is paid for out of the US budget.  No user fees for GPS are collected from any user anywhere in the world.  

 

[SkyTrekker]

I’m equipped. I had an ifd540 w/ axp322 installed a few weeks ago.  Feels good to finally have IFR GPS in the cockpit and the benefit of ads-b out to boot. 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Last

The replacement you cite — GPS — is paid for out of the US budget.  No user fees for GPS are collected from any user anywhere in the world.  

 

The FAA doesn't pay for the satellites, nor for the receiver in my panel. Nor for the ADS-B transmitter they want us to install . . . . The non-approved, non-certified, non-installed receiver to give you the goodies they dreamed up to increase equippage rates to a visible number shows their intent--after all, the transmitter must be approved, installed and hooked up to an approved, installed WAAS GPS unit.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

The FAA doesn't pay for the satellites, nor for the receiver in my panel. Nor for the ADS-B transmitter they want us to install . . . . The non-approved, non-certified, non-installed receiver to give you the goodies they dreamed up to increase equippage rates to a visible number shows their intent--after all, the transmitter must be approved, installed and hooked up to an approved, installed WAAS GPS unit.

ADS-B is largely facilitated by the network of ground towers and infrastructure that goes with them, which the FAA built out (via ITT) and is paying for.    It's a natural progression in gradually eliminating the shortcomings of radar in improving separation services and increasing coverage.   Radar gives no (or limited) altitude information, so many years ago we all got transponders with encoders, so that they could tell us apart vertically and provide improved separation vertically, which the radar couldn't do very well.   Radar resolution is not uniform and sometimes not very good, and radar can't see through things for crap, i.e., shadowing is an issue, ground clutter is problematic, weather can create issues, etc..   So, a good technical solution around all that is to have each aircraft report it's own position as determined by a reasonably accurate (and free to the user) gps/waas signal and low-cost on-board equipment.    The delta in the required cost is probably a lot less in todays relative economic figures than adding Mode-C was back in the day.   Tailbeacons are not very expensive, nor are many of the other possible solutions.

And, IMHO, we get a lot for it.   I've been using the crap out of it since I've been able to, and would not want to go back to not having it available.

[bob865]

10 hours ago, Hank said:

You do realize that the primary purpose, the main intention and the whole intention behind ABS-B is to transfer the expense of keeping up radars sites, VORs, NDBs, etc., from the government's budget to ours? The "benefits" that you love so much were added as an enticement due to equippage rates so low they make last year look like a huge rush? When most everyone is using GPS and ADS-B, they won't need near as many radars, navaids, etc.

I don't see it that way, or not quite like you do anyway.  The purpose is to eliminate radar sites, VORs, and NDBs.  Abosulutely yes!  Without a doubt!  This is all 50+ yr old equiment.  VORs came online in the 1940s.  They added DMEs in the 1950s and 1960s.  All of it is old technology that is difficult, costly, and inefficient to maintain and has been superceeded by sigificantly better methods and equiment to do the same job that are easier to maintain and cost signifcantly less to maintain.  Why would anyone want to keep using it other than the "that's how I learned to do it" or "we didn't need it in my day when I flew to school in the snow uphill both ways" or "back in my day we didn't have all this extra information in the cockpit and we did just fine."  It's not a bad thing, it's just a reluctance to change.  I don't see it as "pushing the cost on us" either.  They didn't pay for your Mode C transponder when it was added, why would they pay for your ADS-B transponder?  They made provisions for everyone to fly without it if you don't want to incur the expense.  They just said you can't fly everywhere without it. 

Just my opinion.  Flame on mooneyspace  

[steingar]

The satellites might be new, but no way are they more facile to repair than the legacy instruments.  Space is corrosive and very hard on materials.  Those satellites will have their day, and no one knows what will come after them.

Edited September 25, 2019 by steingar

[jaylw314]

14 minutes ago, steingar said:

The satellites might be new, but no way are they more facile to repair than the legacy instruments.  Space is corrosive and very hard on materials.  Those satellites will have their day, and no one knows what will come after them.

<blink>?  Space is corrosive?  The only environmental effects would be radiation exposure and debris strikes...  No oxygen/moisture = no corrosion...

[bob865]

30 minutes ago, steingar said:

The satellites might be new, but no way are they more facile to repair than the legacy instruments.  Space is corrosive and very hard on materials.  Those satellites will have their day, and no one knows what will come after them.

Yes, however the FAA doesn't have to maintain them.  Semantics, I know.  A dollar is still a dollar.  However, it is a system that exists outside of the FAA for purposes other than Aviation needs.  The US government owns and maintains them (you’re welcome Canada ).  They have committed to have 24 operational satellites in orbit 95% of the time and as of today they have 31 in orbit to ensure this commitment.

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/

[MBDiagMan]

On 9/20/2019 at 11:49 AM, Sandman993 said:

That’s why everyone thinks there will be an extension... I wouldn’t be surprised if big brother gave a new date for compliance, but it will be hard on their integrity after being so adamant about not doing so.

Integrity?

[steingar]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

<blink>?  Space is corrosive?  The only environmental effects would be radiation exposure and debris strikes...  No oxygen/moisture = no corrosion...

I can't recall the name of the mission, but a satellite was put up to examine the long-term effects of exposure to space.  It wound up in space far longer than its designers had anticipated because of one of the shuttle disasters.  I recall it came back a real mess.

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, steingar said:

The satellites might be new, but no way are they more facile to repair than the legacy instruments.  Space is corrosive and very hard on materials.  Those satellites will have their day, and no one knows what will come after them.

The GPS satellites?   They get replaced regularly.   I think they're on their sixth or seventh generation, depending on how you count, and future generations are already planned.    The world depends on GPS/Glonass/Galileo/et al for all kinds of things that one might not realize.   If the satellite constellations were suddenly disabled an awful lot of secure transactional communications (like banking transactions, even including things like validating your card at an ATM) would stop or be severely degraded.   Many commercial encryption systems rely on both terminals in the transaction agreeing on what time it is within a pretty small margin of error, and that is typically derived from the constellation time, since they're all coordinated atomic clocks in the satellites.   Those constellations are critical for the operation of a pretty large fraction of the modern world economy, so they're not going to be neglected any time soon.

Everybody who sends hardware into space knows what a hostile environment it is and the systems are designed accordingly.   Satellites ain't cheap, because they need to be very reliable in a really, really nasty environment.   There's quite a few decades of experience of doing it successfully now, so it's not a new thing.

 

3 hours ago, bob865 said:

Yes, however the FAA doesn't have to maintain them.  Semantics, I know.  A dollar is still a dollar.  However, it is a system that exists outside of the FAA for purposes other than Aviation needs.  The US government owns and maintains them (you’re welcome Canada ).  They have committed to have 24 operational satellites in orbit 95% of the time and as of today they have 31 in orbit to ensure this commitment.

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/

Yeah, like that.   The Russians have their own, very similar, system, Glonass, and Europe has their own, Galileo, and China has BeiDou.   Japan and India also have independent systems that are somewhat smaller, but functional.   Since these systems facilitate all kinds of things like navigation and encryption enablement and other important stuff, large economies don't want to be at the mercy of or dependent on anybody else's stuff for security reasons.   Hence so many different systems.    For about $20 you can get a USB receiver to plug into your Stratux that gets pretty much all of them:

https://www.amazon.com/Receiver-Antenna-Support-Galileo-GLONASS/dp/B07P8H27CF/

That way if there is some geopolitical conflagration and you're airborne in your Mooney, if there's even just most of one of the constellations still flying you'll be able to navigate with your tablet.  For $20!    Edit:  Awe, bummer...I see they're saying that this one doesn't work on Android.   

So I don't think ADS-B is life-limited or fragile due to the availability of the satellites.

Edited September 25, 2019 by EricJ

[jaylw314]

9 hours ago, steingar said:

I can't recall the name of the mission, but a satellite was put up to examine the long-term effects of exposure to space.  It wound up in space far longer than its designers had anticipated because of one of the shuttle disasters.  I recall it came back a real mess.

I did some Google-fu, and all I could come up with was corrosion from sparse oxygen in low-earth orbit (100-300 miles).  GPS satellites are up around 12,000 miles, so other forms of degradation are probably more significant than corrosion

[Hank]

5 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I did some Google-fu, and all I could come up with was corrosion from sparse oxygen in low-earth orbit (100-300 miles).  GPS satellites are up around 12,000 24,000 miles, so other forms of degradation are probably more significant than corrosion

 

[bob865]

12,000-ish is right. (12,550 is more correct per the US Government)

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/