![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Negative XPDR - under the outer ring of Class C | bcjames | Piloting | 8 | August 30th 04 11:49 PM |