The nail in the coffin: TIS and Mode-S

[scott moore]

Mode-S/TIS transponders cost more, turns out, they cost
substantially more to certify for IFR as well. I'm beginning to come
around to the viewpoint of those here who say that any modernization
that comes from the FAA will usually be a costly waste of time. The
FAA is abandoning TIS slowly, and would have done it fast if we and
the AOPA hadn't complained about it.

Now I fully well expect ADS-B to be held hostage to the FAA's funding
scam:

================================================== ===================
FAA: Funding Tied To Modernization

The FAA must implement changes to the way it is funded before it can
afford to embrace the myriad technologies that are envisioned for the
Next Generation Air Transportation System, according to senior FAA
staffers. Appearing before the Senate aviation subcommittee, Charles
Leader, director of the Joint Planning and Development Office, told
committee members that the controversial system of user fees and tax
increases now under consideration by Congress for FAA reauthorization is
a key element of FAA modernization. "Modernization and moving to NextGen
is inextricably linked to changes in the FAA’s financing system," Leader
said.
================================================== ======================

I guess we can expect the FAA to axe or radically slow down ADS-B in
retaliation for not getting what they want. It would not work in any
case. The attempt to shift costs to GA would yield less than the present
system on day one, and rapidly decline as GA users bailed out of
aviation or cut back on operations.

Scott Moore

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 26, 9:33 am, scott moore > wrote:
> Mode-S/TIS transponders cost more, turns out, they cost
> substantially more to certify for IFR as well. I'm beginning to come
> around to the viewpoint of those here who say that any modernization
> that comes from the FAA will usually be a costly waste of time. The
> FAA is abandoning TIS slowly, and would have done it fast if we and
> the AOPA hadn't complained about it.
>
> Now I fully well expect ADS-B to be held hostage to the FAA's funding
> scam:
>
> ================================================== ===================
> FAA: Funding Tied To Modernization
>
> The FAA must implement changes to the way it is funded before it can
> afford to embrace the myriad technologies that are envisioned for the
> Next Generation Air Transportation System, according to senior FAA
> staffers. Appearing before the Senate aviation subcommittee, Charles
> Leader, director of the Joint Planning and Development Office, told
> committee members that the controversial system of user fees and tax
> increases now under consideration by Congress for FAA reauthorization is
> a key element of FAA modernization. "Modernization and moving to NextGen
> is inextricably linked to changes in the FAA's financing system," Leader
> said.
> ================================================== ======================
>
> I guess we can expect the FAA to axe or radically slow down ADS-B in
> retaliation for not getting what they want. It would not work in any
> case. The attempt to shift costs to GA would yield less than the present
> system on day one, and rapidly decline as GA users bailed out of
> aviation or cut back on operations.
>
> Scott Moore

Our 182T has TIS. Its a very nice system but it doesn't seem very
necessary in the face of ADS-B.

-Robert

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"scott moore" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mode-S/TIS transponders cost more, turns out, they cost
> substantially more to certify for IFR as well. I'm beginning to come
> around to the viewpoint of those here who say that any modernization
> that comes from the FAA will usually be a costly waste of time. The
> FAA is abandoning TIS slowly, and would have done it fast if we and
> the AOPA hadn't complained about it.
>
> Now I fully well expect ADS-B to be held hostage to the FAA's funding
> scam:
>
> ================================================== ===================
> FAA: Funding Tied To Modernization
>
> The FAA must implement changes to the way it is funded before it can
> afford to embrace the myriad technologies that are envisioned for the Next
> Generation Air Transportation System, according to senior FAA staffers.
> Appearing before the Senate aviation subcommittee, Charles Leader,
> director of the Joint Planning and Development Office, told committee
> members that the controversial system of user fees and tax increases now
> under consideration by Congress for FAA reauthorization is a key element
> of FAA modernization. "Modernization and moving to NextGen is inextricably
> linked to changes in the FAA’s financing system," Leader said.

Get ahold of Robert Poole's article in the November issues of "Professional
Pilot" if you can(or leave me a note and I'll send you it in PDF form). He
goes into some detail about the issue from the standpoint of User Fee's in
just that manner.

Matt B.

[scott moore]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Mar 26, 9:33 am, scott moore > wrote:
>> Mode-S/TIS transponders cost more, turns out, they cost
>> substantially more to certify for IFR as well. I'm beginning to come
>> around to the viewpoint of those here who say that any modernization
>> that comes from the FAA will usually be a costly waste of time. The
>> FAA is abandoning TIS slowly, and would have done it fast if we and
>> the AOPA hadn't complained about it.
>>
>> Now I fully well expect ADS-B to be held hostage to the FAA's funding
>> scam:
>>
>> ================================================== ===================
>> FAA: Funding Tied To Modernization
>>
>> The FAA must implement changes to the way it is funded before it can
>> afford to embrace the myriad technologies that are envisioned for the
>> Next Generation Air Transportation System, according to senior FAA
>> staffers. Appearing before the Senate aviation subcommittee, Charles
>> Leader, director of the Joint Planning and Development Office, told
>> committee members that the controversial system of user fees and tax
>> increases now under consideration by Congress for FAA reauthorization is
>> a key element of FAA modernization. "Modernization and moving to NextGen
>> is inextricably linked to changes in the FAA's financing system," Leader
>> said.
>> ================================================== ======================
>>
>> I guess we can expect the FAA to axe or radically slow down ADS-B in
>> retaliation for not getting what they want. It would not work in any
>> case. The attempt to shift costs to GA would yield less than the present
>> system on day one, and rapidly decline as GA users bailed out of
>> aviation or cut back on operations.
>>
>> Scott Moore
>
> Our 182T has TIS. Its a very nice system but it doesn't seem very
> necessary in the face of ADS-B.
>
> -Robert
>

Let's go over this right quick. The FAA issued the TIS system, a bunch
of manufacturers (ok, damm few manufacturers) bit the bait and built
such a unit. Then the FAA cancellated it.

Now the FAA is a' saying that in orders to get ADS-B out there, they
needs to get deep, deep into your pockets.

Now tell me exactly why you think the FAA is going to hold ADS-B
sacred.

Now whilst you are thinking about that, think about this. Why would it
matter, to the ADS-B "cause" per sey, if the FAA should suddenly fall
into an economic sink hole and die?

Let's say, just say, that the FAA disappeared. WAAS would die, right?
Why? Well, that there satellite needs operation and maintenence. VORs,
ILSes and the rest would go for the same reason.

What would ADS-B do? Die? Why? Think hard before you answer.

What ADS-B does is give two black boxes, approaching each other,
the ability to see each other. They do this the most direct way
possible, by talking to each other via line of sight. In fact, its
the perfect application for two such boxes, because airplanes that
cannot see each other (have a direct line between them without
intervening obstacle) generally don't collide. In addition, these
boxes get more accurate relative to each other the closer they get,
again, just what you want in a collision avoidance system [1].

Now imagine that while your two airplanes are (or are not) colliding,
the FAA runs out of money. What occurs?

Nothing, right?

Well, that's the basic nature of the system. However, the FAA is not
real big on basic natures of things, so they rigged the system so that
they are between those two black boxes. Now this is a fairly interesting
trick. How could the FAA manage to be between two colliding airplanes?

Well, it works if FAA ground equipment is required to "translate"
between two completely different types of ADS-B. So lets say, just
say, that if you were stupid, greedy or both, you would design the
system so that one group got ADS-B system type "A", and the other
got ADS-B system type "B". Well, then you would have, as the French
say a "voila". There would be no way the system could work unless
you translate system A to system B, and B to A, etc. And you would
need ground stations to do that. Then you would be needed and
loved because you owned them nice ground stations without fer which
them A and B airplane types would be a collidin' all overs the place.

Now that leaves a big what if. If you are a genius A-B system designer
dude, you need to have at least one of them thar A or B folks agree
not to fly out of the range of a ground station, or even the line
of sight thereof. Otherwise, you would get one of those A folks,
and one of them B folks, out of the line of sight, behind a
mountain where they would collide and start blaming the FAA.

And so the pieces to the puzzle all fit together. The FAA designs
ADS-B not to work without them. ADS-B boxes, expensive or cheap are
the pilot's/airplane owners problem to purchase, and the FAA's part in
it was pretty much done after the design of the thing was worked out
(hint: the FAA didn't have much to do with that, either). But those
"required" ground based systems prevent all them ADS-B boxes from
all talking to each other, and cutting the FAA out of the "action".

Of course, isn't the idea ridiculous on it's face? Who would agree
to always fly in line of sight to a FAA ground station? If such a
group exists, why (oh why) would they agree to a system that keeps
the FAA in control, even if it is not only not necessary, but actually
harms the function of ADS-B (by preventing two ADS-B boxes from
contacting each other by direct line of sight)?

Who might this mysterious ADS-B "system A" group be?

I'll leave you with a big hint: They don't have any problem at all
with the proposed FAA funding scheme.

Scott.

[scott moore]

scott moore wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 9:33 am, scott moore > wrote:
>>> Mode-S/TIS transponders cost more, turns out, they cost
>>> substantially more to certify for IFR as well. I'm beginning to come
>>> around to the viewpoint of those here who say that any modernization
>>> that comes from the FAA will usually be a costly waste of time. The
>>> FAA is abandoning TIS slowly, and would have done it fast if we and
>>> the AOPA hadn't complained about it.
>>>
>>> Now I fully well expect ADS-B to be held hostage to the FAA's funding
>>> scam:
>>>
>>> ================================================== ===================
>>> FAA: Funding Tied To Modernization
>>>
>>> The FAA must implement changes to the way it is funded before it can
>>> afford to embrace the myriad technologies that are envisioned for the
>>> Next Generation Air Transportation System, according to senior FAA
>>> staffers. Appearing before the Senate aviation subcommittee, Charles
>>> Leader, director of the Joint Planning and Development Office, told
>>> committee members that the controversial system of user fees and tax
>>> increases now under consideration by Congress for FAA reauthorization is
>>> a key element of FAA modernization. "Modernization and moving to NextGen
>>> is inextricably linked to changes in the FAA's financing system," Leader
>>> said.
>>> ================================================== ======================
>>>
>>> I guess we can expect the FAA to axe or radically slow down ADS-B in
>>> retaliation for not getting what they want. It would not work in any
>>> case. The attempt to shift costs to GA would yield less than the present
>>> system on day one, and rapidly decline as GA users bailed out of
>>> aviation or cut back on operations.
>>>
>>> Scott Moore
>>
>> Our 182T has TIS. Its a very nice system but it doesn't seem very
>> necessary in the face of ADS-B.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
> Let's go over this right quick. The FAA issued the TIS system, a bunch
> of manufacturers (ok, damm few manufacturers) bit the bait and built
> such a unit. Then the FAA cancellated it.
>
> Now the FAA is a' saying that in orders to get ADS-B out there, they
> needs to get deep, deep into your pockets.
>
> Now tell me exactly why you think the FAA is going to hold ADS-B
> sacred.
>
> Now whilst you are thinking about that, think about this. Why would it
> matter, to the ADS-B "cause" per sey, if the FAA should suddenly fall
> into an economic sink hole and die?
>
> Let's say, just say, that the FAA disappeared. WAAS would die, right?
> Why? Well, that there satellite needs operation and maintenence. VORs,
> ILSes and the rest would go for the same reason.
>
> What would ADS-B do? Die? Why? Think hard before you answer.
>
> What ADS-B does is give two black boxes, approaching each other,
> the ability to see each other. They do this the most direct way
> possible, by talking to each other via line of sight. In fact, its
> the perfect application for two such boxes, because airplanes that
> cannot see each other (have a direct line between them without
> intervening obstacle) generally don't collide. In addition, these
> boxes get more accurate relative to each other the closer they get,
> again, just what you want in a collision avoidance system [1].
>
> Now imagine that while your two airplanes are (or are not) colliding,
> the FAA runs out of money. What occurs?
>
> Nothing, right?
>
> Well, that's the basic nature of the system. However, the FAA is not
> real big on basic natures of things, so they rigged the system so that
> they are between those two black boxes. Now this is a fairly interesting
> trick. How could the FAA manage to be between two colliding airplanes?
>
> Well, it works if FAA ground equipment is required to "translate"
> between two completely different types of ADS-B. So lets say, just
> say, that if you were stupid, greedy or both, you would design the
> system so that one group got ADS-B system type "A", and the other
> got ADS-B system type "B". Well, then you would have, as the French
> say a "voila". There would be no way the system could work unless
> you translate system A to system B, and B to A, etc. And you would
> need ground stations to do that. Then you would be needed and
> loved because you owned them nice ground stations without fer which
> them A and B airplane types would be a collidin' all overs the place.
>
> Now that leaves a big what if. If you are a genius A-B system designer
> dude, you need to have at least one of them thar A or B folks agree
> not to fly out of the range of a ground station, or even the line
> of sight thereof. Otherwise, you would get one of those A folks,
> and one of them B folks, out of the line of sight, behind a
> mountain where they would collide and start blaming the FAA.
>
> And so the pieces to the puzzle all fit together. The FAA designs
> ADS-B not to work without them. ADS-B boxes, expensive or cheap are
> the pilot's/airplane owners problem to purchase, and the FAA's part in
> it was pretty much done after the design of the thing was worked out
> (hint: the FAA didn't have much to do with that, either). But those
> "required" ground based systems prevent all them ADS-B boxes from
> all talking to each other, and cutting the FAA out of the "action".
>
> Of course, isn't the idea ridiculous on it's face? Who would agree
> to always fly in line of sight to a FAA ground station? If such a
> group exists, why (oh why) would they agree to a system that keeps
> the FAA in control, even if it is not only not necessary, but actually
> harms the function of ADS-B (by preventing two ADS-B boxes from
> contacting each other by direct line of sight)?
>
> Who might this mysterious ADS-B "system A" group be?
>
> I'll leave you with a big hint: They don't have any problem at all
> with the proposed FAA funding scheme.
>
> Scott.

[1] Because ADS-B provides the other box with the information it
used to arrive at a solution (which satellites). This allows the
other box to run its calculation the same way, and the result is
a "difference" calculation that is very accurate, because it essentially
ignores localized GPS reception errors.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-26 23:13:16 -0700, scott moore > said:

> Let's say, just say, that the FAA disappeared. WAAS would die, right?
> Why? Well, that there satellite needs operation and maintenence. VORs,
> ILSes and the rest would go for the same reason.
>

The FAA is not going to disappear, whether we want it to or not.

Are you sure that the FAA funds GPS satellites?

VORs are on the hit list anyway. Eventually, they will all be shut
down, just like Omega, VAR, and NDB. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Are you sure that the FAA funds GPS satellites?

I don't believe the FAA contributes anything to GPS satellites. They do
contribute to WAAS, but there are no satellites in that.

> VORs are on the hit list anyway. Eventually, they will all be shut
> down, just like Omega, VAR, and NDB. :-)

And then the terrorists can have a field day with just one little box in a
field near busy airspace.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John R. Copeland]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message news:2007032711300622503-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-03-26 23:13:16 -0700, scott moore > said:
>
>> Let's say, just say, that the FAA disappeared. WAAS would die, right?
>
> Are you sure that the FAA funds GPS satellites?
>

He said WAAS.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Are you sure that the FAA funds GPS satellites?
>
>I don't believe the FAA contributes anything to GPS satellites. They do
>contribute to WAAS, but there are no satellites in that.

Wanna bet?
http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/index.htm
"These correction messages are then broadcast through communication
satellites to receivers onboard aircraft using the same frequency as GPS."

But that's just the FAA, what do they know. Obviously you got better
information from your flight simulator manual.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
And the Prime Directive would be a valid excuse to do absolutely nothing
all day. "I can't fix $LUSER's problem, because to do so would interfere
with their development/evolution. Sorry." -- James Turinsky

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:43:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>>C J Campbell writes:
>>
>>> Are you sure that the FAA funds GPS satellites?
>>
>>I don't believe the FAA contributes anything to GPS satellites. They do
>>contribute to WAAS, but there are no satellites in that.
>
>Wanna bet?
>http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/index.htm
>"These correction messages are then broadcast through communication
>satellites to receivers onboard aircraft using the same frequency as GPS."

The only thing I found was slightly different. "These corrections
messages are then broadcast to receivers onboard the aircraft using
the frequency as the GPS". It said nothing about being broadcast
through communications satellites, or I missed it.

IF correction messages can be sent from local areas back to satellites
that would make they very vulnerable to tampering with the data.

>
>But that's just the FAA, what do they know. Obviously you got better
>information from your flight simulator manual.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> Wanna bet?
> http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/index.htm
> "These correction messages are then broadcast through communication
> satellites to receivers onboard aircraft using the same frequency as GPS."

The communication satellites mentioned are not GPS satellites.

> But that's just the FAA, what do they know. Obviously you got better
> information from your flight simulator manual.

No, I got my information from the original GPS specifications, years ago,
along with some later reading to try to keep up on trends. That's one reason
why I'm able to distinguish between communication satellites and navigation
satellites when I read about them, which helps prevent me from saying foolish
things in open discussions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger writes:

> The only thing I found was slightly different. "These corrections
> messages are then broadcast to receivers onboard the aircraft using
> the frequency as the GPS". It said nothing about being broadcast
> through communications satellites, or I missed it.

As I recall, the WAAS correction data are broadcast over large areas by
relaying them through communication satellites. However, these communication
satellites are not part of the GPS system, and they are not GPS satellites.

> IF correction messages can be sent from local areas back to satellites
> that would make they very vulnerable to tampering with the data.

Yes. But the satellites in question are not part of GPS, fortunately.

It _is_ a bit unfortunate that WAAS is using the same frequencies to create
pseudosatellites, which is essentially spoofing GPS, and it's not a good idea
to have spoofing technology in such widespread use, no matter what the
justification.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> Wanna bet?
>> http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/index.htm
>> "These correction messages are then broadcast through communication
>> satellites to receivers onboard aircraft using the same frequency as GPS."
>
>The communication satellites mentioned are not GPS satellites.

Your statement, I quote was "They do contribute to WAAS, but there are no
satellites in that." There *are* satellites in that, so you are wrong.
100% wrong. Admit it and stop weaseling.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Today is a good day. Not because anything wonderful is happening, so
much, but because my definition of a 'bad day' has been revised.
-- Chris Klein

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Roger > said:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:43:48 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>"These correction messages are then broadcast through communication
>>satellites to receivers onboard aircraft using the same frequency as GPS."
>
>The only thing I found was slightly different. "These corrections
>messages are then broadcast to receivers onboard the aircraft using
>the frequency as the GPS". It said nothing about being broadcast
>through communications satellites, or I missed it.

If you were using WAAS, you should get to know the WAAS satellite coverage
areas. I think they fixed the problem, but for a while there the coverage
was **** poor is in New Hampshire and Maine.

>IF correction messages can be sent from local areas back to satellites
>that would make they very vulnerable to tampering with the data.

At one time the FAA was talking about using ground based broadcast
stations, called LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System). (Which, by the
way, used different frequencies than the GPS constellation.) As far as I
know, none have been deployed yet or they dropped the idea.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes
me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country." - Colin Powell (pre-sell out)

[John R. Copeland]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message ...
>
> At one time the FAA was talking about using ground based broadcast
> stations, called LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System). (Which, by the
> way, used different frequencies than the GPS constellation.) As far as I
> know, none have been deployed yet or they dropped the idea.
>
>
That reminds me -- I miss hearing from John "WAAS-is-dead" Tarver.
He was almost as amusing as the manic simmers.
Maybe we ignored John too much and he went away.
Our loss, I guess. :-/

[andrew m. boardman]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>If you were using WAAS, you should get to know the WAAS satellite coverage
>areas. I think they fixed the problem, but for a while there the coverage
>was **** poor is in New Hampshire and Maine.

I don't know if I'd call it "**** poor", but much of Maine and
ocasionally the rest of New England lose LPV coverage often.
Southern California often loses out, too. Here's a real-time
coverage map:

http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/vpl.html

[Jon]

On Mar 27, 9:33 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>
> >Paul Tomblin writes:
> >> Wanna bet?
> >>http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/index.htm
> >> "These correction messages are then broadcast through communication
> >> satellites to receivers onboard aircraft using the same frequency as GPS."
>
> >The communication satellites mentioned are not GPS satellites.
>
> Your statement, I quote was "They do contribute to WAAS, but there are no
> satellites in that." There *are* satellites in that, so you are wrong.
> 100% wrong. Admit it and stop weaseling.

Not to mention "contribute to WAAS" being off the mark.

It's worth pointing out that the GEOs also being used to provide a
separate ranging source (bent pipe) in addition to the information
being supplied (corrections, integrity, etc.) in the WAAS messages.

> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> Today is a good day. Not because anything wonderful is happening, so
> much, but because my definition of a 'bad day' has been revised.
> -- Chris Klein

Regards,
Jon

[scott moore]

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message news:2007032711300622503-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-03-26 23:13:16 -0700, scott moore > said:
>>
>>> Let's say, just say, that the FAA disappeared. WAAS would die, right?
>> Are you sure that the FAA funds GPS satellites?
>>
>
> He said WAAS.
>

Excellent. Someone who reads.

Scott

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> At one time the FAA was talking about using ground based broadcast
> stations, called LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System). (Which, by the
> way, used different frequencies than the GPS constellation.) As far as I
> know, none have been deployed yet or they dropped the idea.

I think there were two deployed. The manufacturer was a Canadian company
that was bought out by Honeywell.

[Barry]

>> At one time the FAA was talking about using ground based broadcast
>> stations, called LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System). (Which, by the
>> way, used different frequencies than the GPS constellation.) As far as I
>> know, none have been deployed yet or they dropped the idea.
>
> I think there were two deployed. The manufacturer was a Canadian company
> that was bought out by Honeywell.

http://gps.faa.gov/programs/laas/currentnews-text.htm

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> It _is_ a bit unfortunate that WAAS is using the same frequencies to create
> pseudosatellites, which is essentially spoofing GPS, and it's not a good idea
> to have spoofing technology in such widespread use, no matter what the
> justification.
>
WAAS does not use pseudolites. It merely uses the L1 frequency to
transmit the WAAS data.