another xpdr op-ed

[Frank Whiteley]

http://tinyurl.com/m89o8l

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jun 8, 5:50*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/m89o8l

Well she's persistant, but seems to lack focus. She also appears to
disregard feedback that transponders would have made no difference in
the fatal accidents she cites.

Now if she could just focus on low cost ADS-B and get that
implemented, I might take out a subscription to her rag.

Andy (I'm this Andy, not that Andy)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 8, 11:18*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:50*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/m89o8l
>
> Well she's persistant, but seems to lack focus. *She also appears to
> disregard feedback that transponders would have made no difference in
> the fatal accidents she cites.
>
> Now if she could just focus on low cost ADS-B and get that
> implemented, I might take out a subscription to her rag.
>
> Andy (I'm this Andy, not that Andy)

Oh here we go again.

And what exactly would low-cost ADS-B solve? And how do you define low-
cost? Current Mode-C and some new Mode-S transponders are already
pretty low cost (for an avionics device), are pretty reasonable on
power consumption and fairly compact.

ADS-B-out UAT devices have issues with needing proper static pressure
sources and certified GPS data, that has been discussed before. The
certified GPS issue alone may keep them much more expensive than
transponders.

But even is those issues were solved would it result in what we really
need for fast jet and airline traffic avoidance? Probably not...

ADS-B-out UAT (the supposed low cost devices) have problems that most
fast jets and airliners are not equipped to receive UAT data or
certainly not to utilize this as a part of TCAS. While ATC will see
that traffic the airliners we especially want to avoid running into
will not. TCAS is critical for these aircraft as its the last part of
the safety net in traffic avoidance. There is no TCAS integration with
ADS-B UAT data and there is no standard to do so - except that an
appropriately equipped TCAS unit will use the ADS-B position data to
minimize it's interrogation of a target. TCAS never issues a TA or RA
based on ADS-B UAT data. That whole world of big fast shiny things we
don't want to run into assumes that traffic is also transponder
equipped.

There is also the whole issue of market demand. it is not clear to me
that that the split UAT/1090-ES idea is going to work. Many GA
aircraft already have or will install a 1090-ES capable transponder
and can get good weather services via XM-WX. If they have Mode-S (with
1090-ES to meet any mandate) why would they add a UAT? Maybe UATs will
take off, but some of the drivers for adoption that the FAA talked
about at the beginning don't seem that compelling. Two different
physical layers (UAT and 1090-ES), confusion between ADS-B data-out,
data-in, TIS-B, FIS-B etc., UAT incompatibility with current TCAS and
PCAS traffic systems, lack of UAT products, competing technology like
XM weather all make this interesting to watch.

And as piece of futureware that can keep people entertained forever
with "what if" dreaming and as a reason to avoid adopting transponders
now (where they are needed in high density airline/fast jet traffic
areas) ADS-B UAT is *great*.

Darryl

[Eric Greenwell]

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:18 am, Andy > wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 5:50 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/m89o8l
>> Well she's persistant, but seems to lack focus. She also appears to
>> disregard feedback that transponders would have made no difference in
>> the fatal accidents she cites.
>>
>> Now if she could just focus on low cost ADS-B and get that
>> implemented, I might take out a subscription to her rag.
>>
>> Andy (I'm this Andy, not that Andy)
>
> Oh here we go again.
>
> And what exactly would low-cost ADS-B solve? And how do you define low-
> cost? Current Mode-C and some new Mode-S transponders are already
> pretty low cost (for an avionics device), are pretty reasonable on
> power consumption and fairly compact.
>
> ADS-B-out UAT devices have issues with needing proper static pressure
> sources and certified GPS data, that has been discussed before. The
> certified GPS issue alone may keep them much more expensive than
> transponders.
>
> But even is those issues were solved would it result in what we really
> need for fast jet and airline traffic avoidance? Probably not...
>
> ADS-B-out UAT (the supposed low cost devices) have problems that most
> fast jets and airliners are not equipped to receive UAT data or
> certainly not to utilize this as a part of TCAS. While ATC will see
> that traffic the airliners we especially want to avoid running into
> will not. TCAS is critical for these aircraft as its the last part of
> the safety net in traffic avoidance. There is no TCAS integration with
> ADS-B UAT data and there is no standard to do so - except that an
> appropriately equipped TCAS unit will use the ADS-B position data to
> minimize it's interrogation of a target. TCAS never issues a TA or RA
> based on ADS-B UAT data. That whole world of big fast shiny things we
> don't want to run into assumes that traffic is also transponder
> equipped.
>
> There is also the whole issue of market demand. it is not clear to me
> that that the split UAT/1090-ES idea is going to work. Many GA
> aircraft already have or will install a 1090-ES capable transponder
> and can get good weather services via XM-WX. If they have Mode-S (with
> 1090-ES to meet any mandate) why would they add a UAT? Maybe UATs will
> take off, but some of the drivers for adoption that the FAA talked
> about at the beginning don't seem that compelling. Two different
> physical layers (UAT and 1090-ES), confusion between ADS-B data-out,
> data-in, TIS-B, FIS-B etc., UAT incompatibility with current TCAS and
> PCAS traffic systems, lack of UAT products, competing technology like
> XM weather all make this interesting to watch.
>
> And as piece of futureware that can keep people entertained forever
> with "what if" dreaming and as a reason to avoid adopting transponders
> now (where they are needed in high density airline/fast jet traffic
> areas) ADS-B UAT is *great*.

I'd add to Darryl's notes that it's not clear when the *ground stations*
required for ADS-B will be in service for all the areas we fly,
especially out west. Without the ground stations, ATC can't tell anyone
in contact with them where you are; without a transponder, detectors
like the Zaon MRX won't work. I'm not aware of any device available to
tell you where the ADS-B equipped aircraft are either, unless you have
the Garmin UAT ($7000 shoebox sized unit).

If anyone has information relating to ADS-B that contradicts what Darryl
and I believe, please contact me about (email, phone, whatever - check
the SSA member locator for if you don't know already). I'm beginning
work on an article on transponders vs ADS-B for a Soaring magazine
article this year.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 5:18*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> Oh here we go again.
>
> And what exactly would low-cost ADS-B solve?

< snip a lot of interesting stuff about ADS-B >

> Darryl

By low cost, I mean $2000-$3000 or so, same price as a current
transponder. I would really like $500 because I could actually afford
to buy one then, but currently, I can not write the check for a
transponder.

A low cost ADS-B would mean that I don't have to pay for a transponder
now, just to throw the damn thing away in 5-10 years.

Todd
3S

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 8, 8:24*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:18*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > Oh here we go again.
>
> > And what exactly would low-cost ADS-B solve?
>
> *< snip a lot of interesting stuff about ADS-B >
>
> > Darryl
>
> By low cost, I mean $2000-$3000 or so, same price as a current
> transponder. *I would really like $500 because I could actually afford
> to buy one then, but currently, I can not write the check for a
> transponder.
>
> A low cost ADS-B would mean that I don't have to pay for a transponder
> now, just to throw the damn thing away in 5-10 years.
>
> Todd
> 3S

Todd

I'd love for it to be true, but we've got to stop the dreaming on
this. I'm almost more worried if the things actually got to market
then we'd have more of a mess of system that just won't work the way
most people seem to assume they will.

A Mode-C will give you many many years of service. I brought a new
Becker Mode-C three years ago and would do the same again. Or I might
look at the Trig.

Anybody want to offer user reports on the Trig?

And back to our opinion writer, she did advocate for UATs in one
commentary. Probalby unaware that story has holes. She is being driven
by concerns from her publisher and a previous near miss with his
corporate jet and a glider (I don't know how close the aircraft got).
But he issues with the UAT story include her publisher's corporate jet
will not be able to use UAT to issue TCAS TA and RA. I have no issue
with the publisher being concerned about air safety or gliders and
transponders etc., but he needs to find somebody with more insight to
write opinion articles about this. Or find a journalist to go and
research and write real articles and give up on the illinformed
opinion pieces.

Darryl

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:18 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>> Oh here we go again.
>>
>> And what exactly would low-cost ADS-B solve?
>
> < snip a lot of interesting stuff about ADS-B >
>
>> Darryl
>
> By low cost, I mean $2000-$3000 or so, same price as a current
> transponder. I would really like $500 because I could actually afford
> to buy one then, but currently, I can not write the check for a
> transponder.
>
> A low cost ADS-B would mean that I don't have to pay for a transponder
> now, just to throw the damn thing away in 5-10 years.

If you need passenger aircraft collision avoidance *now*, a transponder
is the only good choice you have. If you do need one, having one will
help ensure you are still around to "throw it away" in 5 to 10 years.
Frankly, 10 years use is a pretty good life time for safety equipment, I
think.

You can have one installed and doing it's job in a couple of weeks. How
long to install that ADS-B dream? Currently, there are no suitable ADS-B
units for gliders, there are no regulations that would allow low power,
low cost units like the Mitre unit to be used in gliders, there are no
ground stations for ANY kind of ADS-B unit in large parts of the
country, and TCAS systems still require a transponder to function.

If you need the collision avoidance ability of a transponder *now*, at
least get something like the Zaon MRX, but the best solution *now* is
still a transponder. ADS-B is the future, but it's still a wild guess
about when it will be practical for even the typical Cessna with plenty
of space and power for the equipment.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org