Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
tail number to ATC?

I ask because I thought it did, but recently on flight following the
controller seemed to have difficulty getting my number correct over
the radio.

paul kgyy wrote:
>
> Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
> tail number to ATC?
>


No.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> paul kgyy wrote:
>>
>> Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
>> tail number to ATC?
>>
>
>
> No.

It isn't displayed to controllers, but a ModeS transponder does transmit its
serial number which can be read using tools not available to the controller.
The serial number does translate to the N number so long as the transponder
is correctly registered. As of now this technology hasn't been implemented
to the controller, nor is the serial number recorded in the continuous data
recording archive.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:28:24 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>> paul kgyy wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
>>> tail number to ATC?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>It isn't displayed to controllers, but a ModeS transponder does transmit its
>serial number which can be read using tools not available to the controller.
>The serial number does translate to the N number so long as the transponder
>is correctly registered. As of now this technology hasn't been implemented
>to the controller, nor is the serial number recorded in the continuous data
>recording archive.

Doesn't the system process the flightid field? Or isn't that
transmitted?

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:28:24 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>>> paul kgyy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
>>>> tail number to ATC?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>It isn't displayed to controllers, but a ModeS transponder does transmit
>>its
>>serial number which can be read using tools not available to the
>>controller.
>>The serial number does translate to the N number so long as the
>>transponder
>>is correctly registered. As of now this technology hasn't been
>>implemented
>>to the controller, nor is the serial number recorded in the continuous
>>data
>>recording archive.
>
> Doesn't the system process the flightid field? Or isn't that
> transmitted?

I'm not sure what "system" or "field" you're referring. The computers at
the centers and tracons have no idea if the transponder is ModeS or not.
They only process the beacon code and display the ACID that's in the flight
plan.

In article <Pe%vk.431$Dj1.271@trnddc02>, "Mike" > wrote:

> I'm not sure what "system" or "field" you're referring. The computers at
> the centers and tracons have no idea if the transponder is ModeS or not.
> They only process the beacon code and display the ACID that's in the flight
> plan.

The centers and tracons don't have Mode S radars yet?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On 2008-09-05, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article <Pe%vk.431$Dj1.271@trnddc02>, "Mike" > wrote:
>> I'm not sure what "system" or "field" you're referring. The computers at
>> the centers and tracons have no idea if the transponder is ModeS or not.
>> They only process the beacon code and display the ACID that's in the flight
>> plan.
> The centers and tracons don't have Mode S radars yet?

Some do, some don't. The problem is not the radar or the computer behind it,
bu the computer driving the displays that the controllers see: they don't
get the mode S data.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

Peter,

> Doesn't the system process the flightid field?

Some do. In Europe, more and more do.

> Or isn't that
> transmitted?

It certainly is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Paul,

> Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
> tail number to ATC?
>

Mode S transponder have the option of setting a flight ID or the tail
number in a data field designated for that info. This is broadcast with
the Mode S data packet and is independent of the unique transponder hex
code. In airline operations, the flight crew normally sets the flight ID
for each flight, e.g. UA011 for United flight 011. In GA operations, the
aircraft tailnumber is set by the installer.

Controllers with mode S radar equipment have the option of displaying
this data field next to the "blip". I do not know how common such
equipment is in the US, but it is getting more and more widespread in
Europe.

In central Europe, where Mode S recently became mandatory, ATC does not
yet rely on that data field for aircraft identification, however. They
say the percentage of erroneous (sp?) entries in that data field is so
high that it can't be relied upon. Thus, when I do an IFR pickup, I
still get a squawk and are radar identified by that squawk, even though
the controller would be able to see my call sign directly on his screen.
In fact, the controller DOES see it on his screen, which I have verified
by asking them.

AFAIK, the big database correlating call signs and hex codes inside the
radar equipment is a myth.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Pe%vk.431$Dj1.271@trnddc02>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what "system" or "field" you're referring. The computers at
>> the centers and tracons have no idea if the transponder is ModeS or not.
>> They only process the beacon code and display the ACID that's in the
>> flight
>> plan.
>
> The centers and tracons don't have Mode S radars yet?

The centers never have and never will other than a few terminal radars which
are piped into the centers for low level coverage in some areas. The ModeS
systems themselves are located all over the US, but there's no datalink
capability between the sensor and the automation system. So the only thing
forwarded to the TRACON from the transponder is the 4 digit octal beacon
code and the 3 digit altitude.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Paul,
>
>> Is it normal practice for a Mode S transponder to display the aircraft
>> tail number to ATC?
>>
>
> Mode S transponder have the option of setting a flight ID or the tail
> number in a data field designated for that info. This is broadcast with
> the Mode S data packet and is independent of the unique transponder hex
> code. In airline operations, the flight crew normally sets the flight ID
> for each flight, e.g. UA011 for United flight 011. In GA operations, the
> aircraft tailnumber is set by the installer.
>
> Controllers with mode S radar equipment have the option of displaying
> this data field next to the "blip". I do not know how common such
> equipment is in the US, but it is getting more and more widespread in
> Europe.

It doesn't exist anywhere in the US. I seriously doubt it will ever be
implemented as ADS-B which has a much more robust datalink capability will
be the shape of things to come.

On 2008-09-05, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Mode S transponder have the option of setting a flight ID or the tail
> number in a data field designated for that info. This is broadcast with
> the Mode S data packet and is independent of the unique transponder hex
> code. In airline operations, the flight crew normally sets the flight ID
> for each flight, e.g. UA011 for United flight 011. In GA operations, the
> aircraft tailnumber is set by the installer.

In the US, the tail number is assigned an 8-digit octal number to be used as
the flight ID algorithmically by the FAA. I don't know what other countries
do. Since it's algorithmic, it's possible to go backward from ID 51577524 to
N55ZC.

> Controllers with mode S radar equipment have the option of displaying
> this data field next to the "blip". I do not know how common such
> equipment is in the US, but it is getting more and more widespread in
> Europe.

Apparently, it's not used in the US at all.

> AFAIK, the big database correlating call signs and hex codes inside the
> radar equipment is a myth.

If other countries do it the way the FAA does, there's no need for a
database.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

Jay,

> In the US, the tail number is assigned an 8-digit octal number to be used as
> the flight ID algorithmically by the FAA.
>

Hmm. Do you have a source for that? Since every airline flight using a flight
number rather than a tail number for the flight ID field in the mode S data
packet would break that algorithm, it doesn't make much sense to use it in the
first place.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2008-09-05, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> In the US, the tail number is assigned an 8-digit octal number to be used as
>> the flight ID algorithmically by the FAA.
> Hmm. Do you have a source for that?

Not directly, but I got curious to see how it was assigned, and started
poking at the FAA registration database (which includes the assigned code).
The algorithm winds up assigning 50000001 to N1, 50000002 to N1A, 50000003
to N1AA, 50000004 to N1AB,... 50000032 to N1AZ, 50000033 to N1B, 50000034 to
N1BA,... 50001131 to N1ZZ, 50001132 to N10, 50001133 to N10A, and so on. I
never got to the point of writing C code that would generate the code, but
it would be fairly straightforward. The algorithm depends on the rules for
assigning N numbers, and works left to right, with the letters in order from
A to Z (skipping I and O), then 0-9, taking all of the letter combinations
in order before expanding the number field.

> Since every airline flight using a flight number rather than a tail number
> for the flight ID field in the mode S data packet would break that
> algorithm, it doesn't make much sense to use it in the first place.

It saves having an application process for a code separate from the
registration process. They have to come up with the number from somewhere,
and since they have a block big enough to accommodate every possible N
number, it works out easiest that way.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-09-05, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>> In the US, the tail number is assigned an 8-digit octal number to be
>>> used as
>>> the flight ID algorithmically by the FAA.
>> Hmm. Do you have a source for that?
>
> Not directly, but I got curious to see how it was assigned, and started
> poking at the FAA registration database (which includes the assigned
> code).
> The algorithm winds up assigning 50000001 to N1, 50000002 to N1A, 50000003
> to N1AA, 50000004 to N1AB,... 50000032 to N1AZ, 50000033 to N1B, 50000034
> to
> N1BA,... 50001131 to N1ZZ, 50001132 to N10, 50001133 to N10A, and so on. I
> never got to the point of writing C code that would generate the code, but
> it would be fairly straightforward. The algorithm depends on the rules for
> assigning N numbers, and works left to right, with the letters in order
> from
> A to Z (skipping I and O), then 0-9, taking all of the letter combinations
> in order before expanding the number field.

There's no need as it's already been done and put online.

http://www.airframes.org/

>> Since every airline flight using a flight number rather than a tail
>> number
>> for the flight ID field in the mode S data packet would break that
>> algorithm, it doesn't make much sense to use it in the first place.
>
> It saves having an application process for a code separate from the
> registration process. They have to come up with the number from somewhere,
> and since they have a block big enough to accommodate every possible N
> number, it works out easiest that way.

This is exactly correct. The registration number and the MODES ICAO ID are
one and the same.

The ICAO ID can also be used to selectively address the transponder (the S
in ModeS stands for "select"). So one particular transponder may be
interrogated exclusively by using the unique ICAO ID. Part of the reason
for this is the FAA was concerned about transponder saturation in areas that
have a high density of sensors. The theory was that a ModeS transponder
could be selectively interrogated by one sensor, and that sensor would share
that position data with other sensors within range. This technology was
never implemented in the US for a few reasons, but that capability still
exists within the transponder standard.

On 2008-09-05, Mike > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>> Not directly, but I got curious to see how it was assigned, and started
>> poking at the FAA registration database (which includes the assigned
>> code). The algorithm winds up assigning 50000001 to N1, 50000002 to N1A,
>> 50000003 to N1AA, 50000004 to N1AB,... 50000032 to N1AZ, 50000033 to N1B,
>> 50000034 to N1BA,... 50001131 to N1ZZ, 50001132 to N10, 50001133 to N10A,
>> and so on. I never got to the point of writing C code that would generate
>> the code, but it would be fairly straightforward. The algorithm depends
>> on the rules for assigning N numbers, and works left to right, with the
>> letters in order from A to Z (skipping I and O), then 0-9, taking all of
>> the letter combinations in order before expanding the number field.
> There's no need as it's already been done and put online.
>
> http://www.airframes.org/

Well, it appears he's written the code, but it doesn't appear to be
available...I'd like to see the actual code, just to check if my thoughts on
the programming required to go in the reverse direction are correct. I'd
also like to see if other countries assign their codes algorithmically.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-09-05, Mike > wrote:
>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>> Not directly, but I got curious to see how it was assigned, and started
>>> poking at the FAA registration database (which includes the assigned
>>> code). The algorithm winds up assigning 50000001 to N1, 50000002 to N1A,
>>> 50000003 to N1AA, 50000004 to N1AB,... 50000032 to N1AZ, 50000033 to
>>> N1B,
>>> 50000034 to N1BA,... 50001131 to N1ZZ, 50001132 to N10, 50001133 to
>>> N10A,
>>> and so on. I never got to the point of writing C code that would
>>> generate
>>> the code, but it would be fairly straightforward. The algorithm depends
>>> on the rules for assigning N numbers, and works left to right, with the
>>> letters in order from A to Z (skipping I and O), then 0-9, taking all of
>>> the letter combinations in order before expanding the number field.
>> There's no need as it's already been done and put online.
>>
>> http://www.airframes.org/
>
> Well, it appears he's written the code, but it doesn't appear to be
> available...I'd like to see the actual code, just to check if my thoughts
> on
> the programming required to go in the reverse direction are correct. I'd
> also like to see if other countries assign their codes algorithmically.

The algorithm is part of the ICAO standard, so if other countries aren't
doing this, they are doing so outside the standard.

If you could find the written version of the standard in the ICAO
conventions, it would probably verify your suspicions, but ICAO standards
are a bit hard to find without paying for a copy as ICAO would like you to
do.

On 2008-09-05, Mike > wrote:
> The algorithm is part of the ICAO standard, so if other countries aren't
> doing this, they are doing so outside the standard.

Uhm...since the US algorithm is quite dependent on the US rules for
assigning registration numbers, it would not work at all for, say, the UK.
(Although, in fairness, the UK's algorithm, as well as that for countries
that use all-alphabetic registration systems, would be quite a lot simpler
than the US one.) That either says it's not in the ICAO standard, or else
there's more than one.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-09-05, Mike > wrote:
>> The algorithm is part of the ICAO standard, so if other countries aren't
>> doing this, they are doing so outside the standard.
>
> Uhm...since the US algorithm is quite dependent on the US rules for
> assigning registration numbers, it would not work at all for, say, the UK.
> (Although, in fairness, the UK's algorithm, as well as that for countries
> that use all-alphabetic registration systems, would be quite a lot simpler
> than the US one.) That either says it's not in the ICAO standard, or else
> there's more than one.

I haven't read the standard, but the hard wired serial number in the ModeS
transponder is refered to as the ICAO ID. I'm also quite sure the standard
exists in the ICAO convention.

Peter writes:

> The UK CAA have a public database linking Mode S codes with tail
> numbers (google on G-INFO) so it would be easy enough to trace a
> specific aircraft from the 24-bit ID.

Odd that such a database would be public in a country that forbids listening
to ATC.

Peter,

> which display aircraft
> registrations do it by containing software and database to decode the
> 24-bit code.
>

Why wouldn't they simply use the flight ID data field?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Peter,
>
>> which display aircraft
>> registrations do it by containing software and database to decode the
>> 24-bit code.
>>
>
> Why wouldn't they simply use the flight ID data field?

For one, not all ModeS transponders have that capability as it's implemented
as a level 2 function. I know that many, if not all, areas of western
Europe require a ModeS transponder, but I'm not sure if they require a level
2 ModeS transponder.

Peter wrote:

> You would however get into trouble if you recorded ATC and then openly
> published the recording, e.g. on a website. I don't know why there is
> this sensitivity because UK ATC are generally highly professional;

Maybe a parallel to Germany might help. In Germany, tapping into any
communication not intended by the sender to be heard/read/whatever by
oneself is illegal (regardless of whether there are measures taken to
prevent this) under privacy laws. There are some exceptions, but that's the
general rule. ATC communication is only intended for a limited circle of
recipients. Plane spotters are not the intended recipients, thus, they may
not listen.

It has nothing to do with perceived professionality of the ATC people, and
everything with protecting the privacy of ATC and pilots.

Michael Huber writes:

> Maybe a parallel to Germany might help. In Germany, tapping into any
> communication not intended by the sender to be heard/read/whatever by
> oneself is illegal (regardless of whether there are measures taken to
> prevent this) under privacy laws. There are some exceptions, but that's the
> general rule. ATC communication is only intended for a limited circle of
> recipients. Plane spotters are not the intended recipients, thus, they may
> not listen.

If you take that to its logical conclusion, it should be illegal for pilots to
listen to any ATC transmission that isn't specifically addressed to them.

> It has nothing to do with perceived professionality of the ATC people, and
> everything with protecting the privacy of ATC and pilots.

I'm certain that it has nothing to do with protecting privacy, and everything
to do with protecting incompetence.

Anthony Atkielski said:
> I'm certain that it has nothing to do with protecting privacy, and
> everything
> to do with protecting incompetence.


Finally, Anthony has found something where he has some expertise and
experience- congratulations!

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If you take that to its logical conclusion, it should be illegal for
> pilots to listen to any ATC transmission that isn't specifically addressed
> to them.

*sigh* I'm going to violate my rule against replying to MXS and reply to
this, since I think it's an easy mistake to make. It isn't, as the ATC (and
any transmitting pilots) are fully aware that all pilots are listening in.
Thus, it is not an invasion of their privacy, since the transmitting party
is aware of these listeners. Further, it is actually beneficial and
intended for all pilots to listen, since listening to all transmissions can
enhance the pilots' situational awareness - they know what the other guy is
doing. So, the argument is that while only one plane is specifically
adressed, the intended recipients are really planes on the frequency.

Michael Huber writes:

> I'm going to violate my rule against replying to MXS and reply to
> this, since I think it's an easy mistake to make. It isn't, as the ATC (and
> any transmitting pilots) are fully aware that all pilots are listening in.
> Thus, it is not an invasion of their privacy, since the transmitting party
> is aware of these listeners.

In that case, since pilots and ATC are also generally aware that people on the
ground are listening in, spotters and others listening to the communications
aren't breaking the law, either.

> Further, it is actually beneficial and
> intended for all pilots to listen, since listening to all transmissions can
> enhance the pilots' situational awareness - they know what the other guy is
> doing.

It is beneficial for people on the ground to listen in as well, as it improves
their situational awareness of the state of flights in the air.

> So, the argument is that while only one plane is specifically
> adressed, the intended recipients are really planes on the frequency.

So is it legal for United to have a channel on the aircraft that allows
passengers to listen to ATC? Why, or why not?

Anthony, don't worry, you don't have or need a mode S transponder, or for
that matter a transponder of any kind. These devices are used by people who
actually fly airplanes, and are used in actual airplanes. They are not a
factor for gamers, like yourself. So, don't worry.

If you need to hear any other voices in the dark, you can always communicate
with your imaginary controllers and fellow game players via the net.

Everything will be alright, don't worry. The demons will go away soon.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Peter,
>
>
>>Doesn't the system process the flightid field?
>
>
> Some do. In Europe, more and more do.
>
>
>>Or isn't that
>>transmitted?
>
>
> It certainly is.
>

Not in the U.S.

Sam,

> Not in the U.S.
>

Source? A source that shows a Garmin GTX330 does not transmit flight ID
data in the US would suffice.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> In that case, since pilots and ATC are also generally aware that people on
> the ground are listening in, spotters and others listening to the
> communications aren't breaking the law, either.

That case has been made, but has not stood up in court. If you are really
that interested, you could dig out the court records.

> So is it legal for United to have a channel on the aircraft that allows
> passengers to listen to ATC? *Why, or why not?

It is not legal in Germany, and, in fact, UA turns that channel off here.

Michael Huber writes:

> It is not legal in Germany, and, in fact, UA turns that channel off here.

I wasn't asking about Germany, I was asking about the UK. Does United turn
the channel off there?

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:23:14 +0200, Michael Huber
> wrote:

>It is not legal in Germany, and, in fact, UA turns that channel off here.

This is contrary to my experience on several UA flights (FRA-IAD).

Tobias

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Sam,
>
>> Not in the U.S.
>>
>
> Source? A source that shows a Garmin GTX330 does not transmit flight ID
> data in the US would suffice.

If a tree falls in the woods, but nobody is there to hear it, does it make a
sound?

Michael Huber > writes:
> Peter wrote:
>
> > You would however get into trouble if you recorded ATC and then openly
> > published the recording, e.g. on a website. I don't know why there is
> > this sensitivity because UK ATC are generally highly professional;
>
> Maybe a parallel to Germany might help. In Germany, tapping into any
> communication not intended by the sender to be heard/read/whatever by
> oneself is illegal (regardless of whether there are measures taken to
> prevent this) under privacy laws. There are some exceptions, but that's the
> general rule. ATC communication is only intended for a limited circle of
> recipients. Plane spotters are not the intended recipients, thus, they may
> not listen.
>
> It has nothing to do with perceived professionality of the ATC people, and
> everything with protecting the privacy of ATC and pilots.

The law in the U.S. is/was that it's illegal to intercept
/and reveal/ the content of a transmission. The courts
have repeatedly ruled that intercepting (listening to) a
transmission is not illegal.

It would seem that the German position is rather extreme
in that the people on a given aviation frequency have no
expectation of privacy (and, for the most part, couldn't
care less). Taken to an extreme, it would seem that the
German equivalent of the FAA can't record ATC transmissions
and use them for quality control, training, or violation
proceedings since uninvolved third parties will have been
recorded.

Everett M. Greene writes:

> It would seem that the German position is rather extreme
> in that the people on a given aviation frequency have no
> expectation of privacy (and, for the most part, couldn't
> care less). Taken to an extreme, it would seem that the
> German equivalent of the FAA can't record ATC transmissions
> and use them for quality control, training, or violation
> proceedings since uninvolved third parties will have been
> recorded.

In Germany, everything is forbidden, except that which is permitted.

Anthony, since you don't fly, your comments are again irrelevant. You do not
need a transponder, two way radio, or even a seat belt. You should go back
to the breast feeding forums.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Sam,
>
>
>>Not in the U.S.
>>
>
>
> Source? A source that shows a Garmin GTX330 does not transmit flight ID
> data in the US would suffice.
>
I suspect it transmits some form of the Mode S message, but no one is
listening in the U.S.

My friend's Falcon 900 transmits all the Mode S stuff presently required
by the most stringent requirements in your part of the world.
Eventually, it can transmit heading, IAS, and other types of snitch
data. I don't believe the OEM turns on that stuff in his Falcon 900
until the storm troopers order it turned on.

Mike wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Sam,
>>
>>> Not in the U.S.
>>>
>>
>> Source? A source that shows a Garmin GTX330 does not transmit flight ID
>> data in the US would suffice.
>
>
> If a tree falls in the woods, but nobody is there to hear it, does it
> make a sound?

Good way to put it.

Plus, in the high end gear, the Mode S message data can be implemented
in stages.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Michael Huber writes:
>
>
>>It is not legal in Germany, and, in fact, UA turns that channel off here.
>
>
> I wasn't asking about Germany, I was asking about the UK. Does United turn
> the channel off there?

Are you going to turn it off in MSFS?

Everett M. Greene wrote:

> Michael Huber > writes:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You would however get into trouble if you recorded ATC and then openly
>>>published the recording, e.g. on a website. I don't know why there is
>>>this sensitivity because UK ATC are generally highly professional;
>>
>>Maybe a parallel to Germany might help. In Germany, tapping into any
>>communication not intended by the sender to be heard/read/whatever by
>>oneself is illegal (regardless of whether there are measures taken to
>>prevent this) under privacy laws. There are some exceptions, but that's the
>>general rule. ATC communication is only intended for a limited circle of
>>recipients. Plane spotters are not the intended recipients, thus, they may
>>not listen.
>>
>>It has nothing to do with perceived professionality of the ATC people, and
>>everything with protecting the privacy of ATC and pilots.
>
>
> The law in the U.S. is/was that it's illegal to intercept
> /and reveal/ the content of a transmission. The courts
> have repeatedly ruled that intercepting (listening to) a
> transmission is not illegal.
>
> It would seem that the German position is rather extreme
> in that the people on a given aviation frequency have no
> expectation of privacy (and, for the most part, couldn't
> care less). Taken to an extreme, it would seem that the
> German equivalent of the FAA can't record ATC transmissions
> and use them for quality control, training, or violation
> proceedings since uninvolved third parties will have been
> recorded.

It makes you understand why they launched both World Wars.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>>> Not in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Source? A source that shows a Garmin GTX330 does not transmit flight ID
>>> data in the US would suffice.
>>
>>
>> If a tree falls in the woods, but nobody is there to hear it, does it
>> make a sound?
>
> Good way to put it.
>
> Plus, in the high end gear, the Mode S message data can be implemented in
> stages.

Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS Extended
Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. For GA, I don't think you're
going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B UATs will be
the preferred new technology path for data link.

On 2008-09-08, Peter > wrote:
> Isn't the USA going to implement ADS-B using the 1090MHz Extended
> Squitter - such as can be done with a GTX330?
>
> AIUI, most of the rest of the world (those bits that are planning
> ADS-B) are looking to do it that way.

1090ES is one of two US ADS-B standards; the other is a standalone
transmitter. I was unaware the GTX330 would do 1090ES. If it does, I'm going
to be very happy indeed, as I'd been thinking the extra $2500 or so I spent
on mine was going to be largely wasted. The common wisdom here is that
1090ES is going to be mostly used by the big iron.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

Everett M. Greene wrote:

> Taken to an extreme, it would seem that the
> German equivalent of the FAA can't record ATC transmissions
> and use them for quality control, training, or violation
> proceedings since uninvolved third parties will have been
> recorded.

No, it's not. ATC comms are recorded and that is public knowledge (at least
among those participating). You basically consent to being recorded by
transmitting.

Realize that privacy laws do not protect you against other people listening
in or recording what you are saying. They are however protecting you
against being listened to or recorded *without* *your* *knowledge*.

Sam Spade wrote:

> It makes you understand why they launched both World Wars.

I'm aware that you're trolling, but how does that follow? The rather strict
privacy laws exist to make it harder for a government (or, really, any
organization or individual) to collect too much data on a single person -
and that is exactly to help prevent a dictatorship.

Sadly, though, that lesson seems to have fallen by the wayside, and more and
more privacy is being invaded by the government. We are following the US'
bad example.

Michael Huber writes:

> Realize that privacy laws do not protect you against other people listening
> in or recording what you are saying. They are however protecting you
> against being listened to or recorded *without* *your* *knowledge*.

How are you able to determine who is listening to you when you talk to ATC?

On Sep 8, 12:19*pm, Peter > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote
>
> >On 2008-09-08, Peter > wrote:
> >> Isn't the USA going to implement ADS-B using the 1090MHz Extended
> >> Squitter - such as can be done with a GTX330?
>
> >> AIUI, most of the rest of the world (those bits that are planning
> >> ADS-B) are looking to do it that way.
>
> >1090ES is one of two US ADS-B standards; the other is a standalone
> >transmitter. I was unaware the GTX330 would do 1090ES. If it does, I'm going
> >to be very happy indeed, as I'd been thinking the extra $2500 or so I spent
> >on mine was going to be largely wasted. The common wisdom here is that
> >1090ES is going to be mostly used by the big iron.
>
> I am really not up to date on this (no immediate need to know) but
> AIUI the GTX330 will radiate anything and everything presented to it
> via its RS232 or ARINC inputs and this means that if you install a
> GTX330 and feed it with the normal ex-NMEA data, it will radiate the
> whole lot. Airliners everywhere radiate the whole lot, as a result of
> being Enhanced Mode S (>250kt TAS, >5700kg I think).
>
> So that takes care of the transmitting bit.
>
> Does the GTX330 also *receive* the 1090ES data? I believe so. I do
> have the installation manual, though not to hand.

I think as things currently stand you have to purchase Garmin's GDL90
to receive.

On Sep 8, 12:40*pm, Peter > wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote
> >[...] as the ADS-B UATs will be
> >the preferred new technology path for data link.
>
> Isn't the USA going to implement ADS-B using the 1090MHz [...]

Both (1090 and UAT).

Regards,
Jon

On 2008-09-08, paul kgyy > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 12:19*pm, Peter > wrote:
>> Does the GTX330 also *receive* the 1090ES data? I believe so. I do
>> have the installation manual, though not to hand.
> I think as things currently stand you have to purchase Garmin's GDL90
> to receive.

A Google turns up a PowerPoint from Garmin that the GTX330ES will be
available in the fourth quarter this year, and will talk to the GNS430W/530W
and GNS480 for 1090ES data. It doesn't say if it'll do ADS-B In from 1090ES,
but since it already does mode S uplink (for TIS, at least, in the US), I
would expect that it does. The existing GTX330 fleet, according to that
presentation, will be upgradeable to the ES version for $1200. I couldn't
tell if the GNS430W would also need an upgrade.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote
>
>>Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS
>>Extended
>>Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. For GA, I don't think
>>you're
>>going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B UATs will
>>be
>>the preferred new technology path for data link.
>
> Isn't the USA going to implement ADS-B using the 1090MHz Extended
> Squitter - such as can be done with a GTX330?

The capstone project in Alaska implemented it with UATs and I'm pretty sure
that's the way it's currently being implemented on the east coast working
its way west. As far as extended squitter goes, I know at one time that was
the plan for the airlines because they had already made a large capital
investment in it. I'm not really sure what progress has been made on that
front.

>
> AIUI, most of the rest of the world (those bits that are planning
> ADS-B) are looking to do it that way.

On Sep 8, 9:54*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Peter" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Mike" > wrote
>
> >>Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS
> >>Extended
> >>Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. *For GA, I don't think
> >>you're
> >>going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B UATs will
> >>be
> >>the preferred new technology path for data link.

Indeed. You won't get Mode S on the UAT link. Two completely different
schemes.

As far as providing other services (ok, "features" ;), I believe one
of the things they are looking at, is taking ADS-B In to drive a TCAS
display (ADS-B is *not* currently certified for collision avoidance).

> > Isn't the USA going to implement ADS-B using the 1090MHz Extended
> > Squitter - such as can be done with a GTX330?
>
> The capstone project in Alaska implemented it with UATs and I'm pretty sure
> that's the way it's currently being implemented on the east coast working
> its way west. *

> As far as extended squitter goes, I know at one time that was
> the plan for the airlines because they had already made a large capital
> investment in it. *

Pretty much. Have to be compatible with and continue to support that
big installed base if you want a prayer of it being accepted/adopted.

> I'm not really sure what progress has been made on that
> front.
>
>
>
> > AIUI, most of the rest of the world (those bits that are planning
> > ADS-B) are looking to do it that way.

1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.

1090 only gives you TIS. UAT adds FIS (Weather, NOTAMs).

On 2008-09-09, Jon > wrote:
> 1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
> with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.

A GTX330 doesn't exactly imply "deep pockets". Wasn't a UAT estimated to
cost several thousand bucks?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Mike" > wrote
> >
> > >>Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS
> > >>Extended
> > >>Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. For GA, I don't think
> > >>you're
> > >>going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B UATs
> > >>will
> > >>be
> > >>the preferred new technology path for data link.
>
> Indeed. You won't get Mode S on the UAT link. Two completely different
> schemes.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "get Mode S".

>
> As far as providing other services (ok, "features" ;), I believe one
> of the things they are looking at, is taking ADS-B In to drive a TCAS
> display (ADS-B is *not* currently certified for collision avoidance).

You can count on that as TCAS currently has accuracy limitations which is
why the range is quite limited, but this is more of a recent development.
As far as what I mean by "features", I'm talking about everything that ModeS
was originally intended to be capable of doing. You have to remember that
the technology is over 30 years old now. Much of what was originally
conceived will never be implemented.

> > AIUI, most of the rest of the world (those bits that are planning
> > ADS-B) are looking to do it that way.
>
> 1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
> with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.
>
> 1090 only gives you TIS. UAT adds FIS (Weather, NOTAMs).

1090 is capable of considerably more than TIS. Some of that capability has
already been realized, but it remains to be seen how much more will. The
airlines already get the products you mentioned through ACARS.

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-09-09, Jon > wrote:
>> 1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
>> with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.
>
> A GTX330 doesn't exactly imply "deep pockets". Wasn't a UAT estimated to
> cost several thousand bucks?

It's going to run you considerably north of $10K for a full certified
installation and somewhat less if you already have a MFD.

On 2008-09-09, Mike > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-09-09, Jon > wrote:
>>> 1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
>>> with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.
>> A GTX330 doesn't exactly imply "deep pockets". Wasn't a UAT estimated to
>> cost several thousand bucks?
> It's going to run you considerably north of $10K for a full certified
> installation and somewhat less if you already have a MFD.

Hardly. My airplane already has a GTX330 and a GNS430W. Garmin says that
they'll implement ADS-B on those two boxes; the GTX330 will require a $1200
upgrade, but the PowerPoint I saw was unclear on what the GNS430W would
need.

I doubt that a UAT will be that inexpensive; there's also the minor problem
of needing panel space for it, something that's in short supply in my
airplane.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-09-09, Mike > wrote:
>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2008-09-09, Jon > wrote:
>>>> 1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
>>>> with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.
>>> A GTX330 doesn't exactly imply "deep pockets". Wasn't a UAT estimated to
>>> cost several thousand bucks?
>> It's going to run you considerably north of $10K for a full certified
>> installation and somewhat less if you already have a MFD.
>
> Hardly. My airplane already has a GTX330 and a GNS430W. Garmin says that
> they'll implement ADS-B on those two boxes; the GTX330 will require a
> $1200
> upgrade, but the PowerPoint I saw was unclear on what the GNS430W would
> need.

I was referring to UAT. The GDL 90 costs around $7K, a MFD costs around
$3-4K, and installation adds to the cost.

> I doubt that a UAT will be that inexpensive; there's also the minor
> problem
> of needing panel space for it, something that's in short supply in my
> airplane.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

On Sep 9, 9:45*am, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Jon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > > "Peter" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > "Mike" > wrote
>
> > > >>Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS
> > > >>Extended
> > > >>Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. For GA, I don't think
> > > >>you're
> > > >>going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B UATs
> > > >>will
> > > >>be
> > > >>the preferred new technology path for data link.
>
> > Indeed. You won't get Mode S on the UAT link. Two completely different
> > schemes.
>
> I'm not really sure what you mean by "get Mode S".

What I meant was the UAT datalink is not equipped to receive (or
transmit) Mode S. But I misread what you wrote, so I guess it doesn't
matter.

> > 1090 only gives you TIS. *UAT adds FIS (Weather, NOTAMs).
>
> 1090 is capable of considerably more than TIS. *Some of that capability has
> already been realized, but it remains to be seen how much more will. *The
> airlines already get the products you mentioned through ACARS.

Are those products received over 1090?

"Jon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 9, 9:45 am, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > > > "Peter" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > "Mike" > wrote
> >
> > > > >>Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS
> > > > >>Extended
> > > > >>Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. For GA, I don't
> > > > >>think
> > > > >>you're
> > > > >>going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B
> > > > >>UATs
> > > > >>will
> > > > >>be
> > > > >>the preferred new technology path for data link.
> >
> > > Indeed. You won't get Mode S on the UAT link. Two completely different
> > > schemes.
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you mean by "get Mode S".
>
> What I meant was the UAT datalink is not equipped to receive (or
> transmit) Mode S. But I misread what you wrote, so I guess it doesn't
> matter.
>
> > > 1090 only gives you TIS. UAT adds FIS (Weather, NOTAMs).
> >
> > 1090 is capable of considerably more than TIS. Some of that capability
> > has
> > already been realized, but it remains to be seen how much more will. The
> > airlines already get the products you mentioned through ACARS.
>
> Are those products received over 1090?

1090 ES doesn't have the bandwidth necessary to do much in the way of large
data transfers, however as far as the big airplanes go, there's really not
much need. ACARS gives them far more and would not go away even if it were
possible to put those products on 1090 ES.

On Sep 10, 12:45*am, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Jon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 9:45 am, "Mike" > wrote:
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > > > > "Peter" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > "Mike" > wrote
>
> > > > > >>Some of the ModeS features will never be implemented and the ModeS
> > > > > >>Extended
> > > > > >>Squitter will mainly be used by the airlines. For GA, I don't
> > > > > >>think
> > > > > >>you're
> > > > > >>going to see much in the way of new ModeS features as the ADS-B
> > > > > >>UATs
> > > > > >>will
> > > > > >>be
> > > > > >>the preferred new technology path for data link.
>
> > > > Indeed. You won't get Mode S on the UAT link. Two completely different
> > > > schemes.
>
> > > I'm not really sure what you mean by "get Mode S".
>
> > What I meant was the UAT datalink is not equipped to receive (or
> > transmit) Mode S. But I misread what you wrote, so I guess it doesn't
> > matter.
>
> > > > 1090 only gives you TIS. UAT adds FIS (Weather, NOTAMs).
>
> > > 1090 is capable of considerably more than TIS. Some of that capability
> > > has
> > > already been realized, but it remains to be seen how much more will. The
> > > airlines already get the products you mentioned through ACARS.
>
> > Are those products received over 1090?
>
> 1090 ES doesn't have the bandwidth necessary to do much in the way of large
> data transfers, however as far as the big airplanes go, there's really not
> much need. *ACARS gives them far more and would not go away even if it were
> possible to put those products on 1090 ES.

No doubt. I was mainly commenting on what UAT provides, not about
whether an existing 1090 user could receive those equivalent products
with a 3rd box.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote
>
>>1090 ES doesn't have the bandwidth necessary to do much in the way of
>>large
>>data transfers, however as far as the big airplanes go, there's really not
>>much need. ACARS gives them far more and would not go away even if it
>>were
>>possible to put those products on 1090 ES.
>
> What does ACARS run on? Satellite data, or shortwave radio?

You can read all about it on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS

I don't have that much knowledge about ACARS. All I know is ARINC maintains
that service and ACARS equipped aircraft can receive clearance delivery
service on it at major airports in the US without ever talking to ATC. I've
heard Jet-A burners say they can receive METARs, NOTAMs, and digital ATIS
information on it. I would assume airline dispatchers can send and/or
receive short text messages on it with the aircrews, but I have no idea if
this is the case.

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-09-09, Mike > wrote:
>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2008-09-09, Jon > wrote:
>>>> 1090 if you're one of the bigger operators, or perhaps smaller folks
>>>> with deep pockets. UAT is lower cost.
>>> A GTX330 doesn't exactly imply "deep pockets". Wasn't a UAT estimated to
>>> cost several thousand bucks?
>> It's going to run you considerably north of $10K for a full certified
>> installation and somewhat less if you already have a MFD.
>
> Hardly. My airplane already has a GTX330 and a GNS430W. Garmin says that
> they'll implement ADS-B on those two boxes; the GTX330 will require a $1200
> upgrade, but the PowerPoint I saw was unclear on what the GNS430W would
> need.
>
> I doubt that a UAT will be that inexpensive; there's also the minor problem
> of needing panel space for it, something that's in short supply in my
> airplane.

Dudes, the implementation of ADS-B with an existing GTX 330 system makes
sense for two simple reasons:

1. UATS are currently vaporware, or very costly ($10,000 or more).

2. Even after this "golden child" UAT shows up, you are going to want to
use 1090 to talk directly to airlines, which will be implementing that
only. Unless you believe that the FAA is going to faithfully translate
that information for you, after bouncing that down to a ground station and
back up, perhaps with a mountain in the way or two.

If you search back in this group you will see that I brought this issue up
years ago. The "dual system" will have to go down as one of the most
spectacularly bad ideas the FAA has ever perpetrated, and it WILL result
in the FAA performing a power shrug while trying to explain to the press
why two ADS-B equipped aircraft, a light airplane and a regional heavy,
collide with loss of life.

As for me, Garmin has once again (apparently) saved me from the FAA. I'll
get ADS-B capability long before GA gets it, via the GTX 330, and after
UAT becomes reasonable, the GTX 330 link will make sure that the heavys
know I am flying around, whether the FAA gear is working or not.

Scott Moore