FAA ADS-B Propaganda Video

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:10:51 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?

Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.

- Andrew

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:10:51 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?

Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.

Only in areas where air-to-air threats exist and see-and-avoid wouldn't
work.

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

Bob Noel wrote:

Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?

Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.

Only in areas where air-to-air threats exist and see-and-avoid wouldn't
work.

Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will
be very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for
ADS-B Out is even close to correct.

You will never have the case where all GA aircraft have ADS-B Out
installed.

I have yet to see a credible argment for mandating ADS-B Out for GA
aircraft. It is just emotional "we will all be safer" type comments
that are not justified.

Ron Lee

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:56:14 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will be
very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for ADS-B
Out is even close to correct.

It's not necessary to have a "screen". Consider those little portable
traffic avoidance do-dads. Might having access to the ADS-B-out data
stream not make them either/both cheaper or more accurate?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:56:14 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will be
very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for ADS-B
Out is even close to correct.

It's not necessary to have a "screen". Consider those little portable
traffic avoidance do-dads. Might having access to the ADS-B-out data
stream not make them either/both cheaper or more accurate?

- Andrew

I doubt that there is a viable interface without significant mods.
Plus having a graphical display of position, direction of travel and
speed makes more sense.

Another supposed benefit of ADS-N In is having graphical weather.

You need a suitable screen

Ron Lee

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:39:12 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:


I doubt that there is a viable interface without significant mods.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I'm not actually thinking that
the box innards could be modified; I'd expect a new design for most of it
(perhaps all but the UI components).

Plus
having a graphical display of position, direction of travel and speed
makes more sense.

I completely agree. Yet there is a market for these less capable and
less expensive devices. It's apparently a decent trade-off for some.


Another supposed benefit of ADS-N In is having graphical weather.

You need a suitable screen

To get maximum benefit, I agree. But since the "problem" with the screen
is cost, I'm wondering by what paths this could be reduced.

But you've given me another idea. These traffic boxes nowadays plug into
various portables, using the screen of the portables for traffic
display. Other boxes do the same to provide weather.

What about a single ADS-B-in device which plugs into portables that
provides both traffic and weather? Even with the cost of the Garmin 696
(or whatever is around at the time {8^), this would be less expensive
than a certified solution.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

What about a single ADS-B-in device which plugs into portables that
provides both traffic and weather? Even with the cost of the Garmin 696
(or whatever is around at the time {8^), this would be less expensive
than a certified solution.

Andrew, I admire your thinking process. The fact remains that the
ADS-B Out NPRM only mandates the OUT potion of the entire ADS-B
possibile functionality.

The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a
potential huge cost ($17,000).

The fact remains that even if you make the IN part work with a Garmin
X96 (which I do not have), if the cost is as high as suggested then it
is not worth it to me.

This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it
applies to GA.

Of course I have no problem with anyone voluntarily equipping with
anything.

Ron Lee

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:20:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote in :

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:10:51 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you able to list ANY benefits to GA operators that will occur as a
result of implementation of the current FAA ADS-B OUT NPRM?

Any aircraft [owners] that choose to install ADS-B-in will benefit from
all the other aircraft having installed ADS-B-out.


Exactly my point. The NPRM doesn't benefit those to whom it dictates
the expenditure of larges sums of cash; it's for others.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:49:48 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Exactly my point. The NPRM doesn't benefit those to whom it dictates
the expenditure of larges sums of cash; it's for others.

That's approximately correct. Since "others" can include those dictated
to spend that cash, it's not completely correct.

But where's the surprise supposed to be? I rarely need the ATC service
required by the airlines; my taxes pay for it anyway. Even at the
airports I use, think of the waste of my tax money spent on all that
extra runway I don't use (unless I desire several t-n-gs w/o bothering
with the traffic pattern {8^).

There are plenty of other examples, both government and corporate.

In fact, though, I'm not sure you're right at all. If ATC costs drop as
a result of this, then I get to see some savings in my taxes.
Admittedly, the political classes will likely find a new way to spend my
money, but they'd probably do that anyway (so I'm benefiting by having
less taken from me {8^).

Then there's the potential gain in safety in certain places. For
example, there've been a couple of mid-air collisions at my "home"
airport over the not-too-distant years. Most of the traffic pattern is
shadowed from local RADAR by geography.

But if the tower received an ADS-B-out generated "RADAR" display,
controllers might be in a better position to warn even those non-ADS-B-in
aircraft of collision threats.

- Andrew