Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

Full details at:

http://stopads-b.org/ADS.htm

Comments due by 3 March 2008. It does not have to be multiple pages.
Read some of the comments on pages 4-7 and a simple paragraph will
suffice.

Ron Lee

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:02:20 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Full details at:

http://stopads-b.org/ADS.htm

This document is incorrect in at least one way. It claims that there's
no benefit to GA because there's no mandated IN functionality. But this
proposal makes a benefit available to GA because of the mandated OUT
functionality.

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality, this
benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.

What is true is that this mandates the least possible cost w/o giving up
the aforementioned benefit. Personally, I *like* that. While the OUT
mandate is required for benefit to everyone, the IN benefit accrues only
to the owner/pilot. We should be free to choose that - or not -
ourselves since only we are impacted by this choice.

- Andrew

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 18:14:59 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote in :


A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft.

Unfortunately that is incorrect. Military aircraft will not be
equipped with ADS-B at all, and I'm not sure what the situation is
with aircraft that lack an electrical system. So while some benefit
may accrue to GA operators who choose to invest in ADS-B IN, it is
unclear if the FAA intends to immediately provide weather and other
services via ADS-B, but rest assured, that ALL aircraft will not be
depicted on ADS-B IN displays.

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality, this
benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.

exactly what is the cost of that benefit? Shouldn't the GA pilot
(alledgedly) benefiting from ADS-B Out not fund the equippage of
those aircraft with ADS-B Out?

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

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:23:12 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality,
this benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.

exactly what is the cost of that benefit? Shouldn't the GA pilot
(alledgedly) benefiting from ADS-B Out not fund the equippage of those
aircraft with ADS-B Out?

Did you write "out" where you'd meant to write "in"? Otherwise, I'm
afraid that I'm not understanding your question.

GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are, however,
funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all aircraft
(excluding military? Nasty, that!) are announcing their positions. It's
not all that different from transponders, in the sense that putting a
transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft, and not just the
aircraft footing the bill.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:23:12 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality,
this benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.

exactly what is the cost of that benefit? Shouldn't the GA pilot
(alledgedly) benefiting from ADS-B Out not fund the equippage of those
aircraft with ADS-B Out?

Did you write "out" where you'd meant to write "in"? Otherwise, I'm
afraid that I'm not understanding your question.

GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are, however,
funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all aircraft
(excluding military? Nasty, that!) are announcing their positions. It's
not all that different from transponders, in the sense that putting a
transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft, and not just the
aircraft footing the bill.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

The problem with all this is the (currently) insane cost of the equipment.

If the cost of the required equipment were in the ballpark of a new
transponder and the optional equipment in the ballpark of a decent
handheld GPS, I doubt you would see much objection.

While the equipment costs will eventually probably fall to those levels,
the current outlook is about an order of magnitude greater than that,
which makes the cost a very significant fraction of the value of the
existing GA fleet.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Andrew Gideon wrote:
GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are,
however, funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all
aircraft (excluding military? Nasty, that!)

I just did a quick scan of the DoD comments posted today (FAA-2007-29305-
0154.1) and it looks like they are complaining about the cost or
unlikelyhood of retrofitting some of their aircraft to be in compliance.
Hmmm.

are announcing their
positions. It's not all that different from transponders, in the
sense that putting a transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft,
and not just the aircraft footing the bill.

Nit: I'm not clear how transponders in two otherwise NORDO aircraft stops
either from bumping into each other. Or to what extent transponder (or ADS-
B Out) equipped aircraft prevent MACs near or at non-towered airports.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend
the extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

My understanding is that if they want to fly VFR above 10,000 MSL they will
be required to have ADS-B Out. This is a _new_ cost requirement for using
that portion of the airspace - even to VFR flights. Not only is it a new
cost, it provides the VFR pilot no benefit. I believe that two fully
compliant ADS-B Out aircraft flying VFR in that space can still bump into
each other. Hence the conclusion by some (such as myself) that the mandate
costs and benefits are not equitable nor reasonable. (I also dislike the
technology because it relies on GPS.)

Anyway, finally got around to submitting my comments (hopefully in time).
They weren't terribly coherent or compelling, but what the heck.

Did you write "out" where you'd meant to write "in"? Otherwise, I'm
afraid that I'm not understanding your question.

GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are, however,
funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all aircraft
(excluding military? Nasty, that!) are announcing their positions. It's
not all that different from transponders, in the sense that putting a
transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft, and not just the
aircraft footing the bill.

Incorrect. Without ADS-B In capability...or talking to ATC,
broadcasting ADS-B Out does nothing for you. Mode-C does just as
good.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

Do look into it and determine if the high cost is worth it to you. It
is not to me

Ron Lee

- Andrew

Nit: I'm not clear how transponders in two otherwise NORDO aircraft stops
either from bumping into each other. Or to what extent transponder (or ADS-
B Out) equipped aircraft prevent MACs near or at non-towered airports.

Without ADS-B In and a display...or talking to ATC....there is no
added ability to prevent a mid-air. That assumes ADS-B groujnd
reception of the ADS-B Out broadcast.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend
the extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

My understanding is that if they want to fly VFR above 10,000 MSL they will
be required to have ADS-B Out. This is a _new_ cost requirement for using
that portion of the airspace - even to VFR flights. Not only is it a new
cost, it provides the VFR pilot no benefit. I believe that two fully
compliant ADS-B Out aircraft flying VFR in that space can still bump into
each other. Hence the conclusion by some (such as myself) that the mandate
costs and benefits are not equitable nor reasonable. (I also dislike the
technology because it relies on GPS.)

Anyway, finally got around to submitting my comments (hopefully in time).
They weren't terribly coherent or compelling, but what the heck.

Apparently you may need a GPS/WAAS (TSOd) receiver as well. Add in
that cost if you don't have one.

Ron Lee

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:31:05 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

I just did a quick scan of the DoD comments posted today
(FAA-2007-29305- 0154.1) and it looks like they are complaining about
the cost or unlikelyhood of retrofitting some of their aircraft to be in
compliance. Hmmm.

And those are real issues. I wish there was some magic wand to wave to
drop the price.

[...]
Nit: I'm not clear how transponders in two otherwise NORDO aircraft
stops either from bumping into each other. Or to what extent transponder
(or ADS- B Out) equipped aircraft prevent MACs near or at non-towered
airports.

You're right that the benefit is limited to the owner that chooses to do
the minimum. That's the bad side of this. But it's the "cost" of having
owners foot the bill for building this "network", I'm afraid.

One alternative to this would be to mandate -IN as well as -OUT. I'm
glad that that's not being done, in that it gives the owner more choice.
To my mind, the mandate covers the minimum necessary to build the network
that makes the benefits available to anyone taking the next step. W/o
the mandate, that benefit would be far more limited.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

My understanding is that if they want to fly VFR above 10,000 MSL they
will be required to have ADS-B Out. This is a _new_ cost requirement for
using that portion of the airspace - even to VFR flights. Not only is it
a new cost, it provides the VFR pilot no benefit.

That is true. But as I've written, this mandate is necessary so that the
benefit of ADS-B-IN be available. That's why I compare this to
transponders: it provides benefit to aircraft participating in
transponder-in (ie. taking to ATC {8^) but an aircraft can choose to not
participate.

- Andrew