FAA ADS-B Out NPRM needs your input

Many pilots, if they have heard about ADS-B, think that it means free
weather.

IT DOES NOT

This proposal will mandate potentially costly avionics that in my
analysis provide little or nothing to the GA pilot. You will still
have to keep your Mode C transponder.

You won't get free weather.

You won't get traffic alerts in your cockpit.

You only get to pay thousands (TBD but possibly over $7000 per plane)
for something that only helps the airlines.

The official link to read the NPRM and submit comments is he

http://tinyurl.com/2raefd

My analysis (which is still in work and may not be done until November
or later) is he

http://tinyurl.com/2wem8j

My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
reflect your views (possibly shorter).

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Many pilots, if they have heard about ADS-B, think that it means free
weather.

IT DOES NOT

This proposal will mandate potentially costly avionics that in my
analysis provide little or nothing to the GA pilot. You will still
have to keep your Mode C transponder.

You won't get free weather.

You won't get traffic alerts in your cockpit.

You only get to pay thousands (TBD but possibly over $7000 per plane)
for something that only helps the airlines.

The official link to read the NPRM and submit comments is he

http://tinyurl.com/2raefd

My analysis (which is still in work and may not be done until November
or later) is he

http://tinyurl.com/2wem8j

My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
reflect your views (possibly shorter).

Ron Lee

Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?

"S Green" wrote:

My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
reflect your views (possibly shorter).

Ron Lee

Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?


You are free to disagree with anything I wrote. I would be surprised
if you did not concur with my views if you read everything provided.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
"S Green" wrote:
My suggestion is that you read what I have written then read the NPRM.
If you agree with my analysis, please reply to the FAA and AOPA. You
may use any or all of my reply but I strongly suggest changing it to
reflect your views (possibly shorter).
Shall we still write to the FAA if we don't agree with your analysis?
You are free to disagree with anything I wrote. I would be surprised
if you did not concur with my views if you read everything provided.

Around 1985, I attended an RTCA meeting where this transponder mode was
discussed. (S-mode?). What has happened since, other than 20 years ago
positional (GPS) information was not available, but barometeric,
velocity and heading were, along with acft identification. My
recollection was that the degree of acft identification was a sticky
point then, and that transponder signal clutter could be intense in
termial areas.

My attitude then and now was and is that, I would not stand in the way
of pormulgating it gradually (is 20+ years gradual enough?). Clearly,
the data processing and sensors are now all in place.

So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
aspects of this specific NPRM?

Angelo Campanella (Flying IFR since 1965).

Angelo Campanella wrote:

So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
aspects of this specific NPRM?

Read the NPRM. Read my response. Does the mandate of a multi thousand
dollar piece of equipment that provides little or no benefit to you
matter?

The FAA needs more PRIMARY radars...not reliance on ADS-B or
transponders.

Ron Lee

Angelo Campanella wrote:

So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
aspects of this specific NPRM?

Read my writeup. One biggie is having to pay lots of money for no
benefit (I don't consider the SAR related possible benefit as worth
anything to me).

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Angelo Campanella wrote:

So, other than the possibly that the FAA can make terribly inefficient
actions while wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money in the process if
we don't maintain a close rein on the matter, what are the negative
aspects of this specific NPRM?

Read my writeup. One biggie is having to pay lots of money for no
benefit (I don't consider the SAR related possible benefit as worth
anything to me).

What was the link for your write-up, again, please?

One comment off the top of my head, (before I have read more of your info
about the issue) is that if the feds want us to all change to a GPS
reporting type of traffic surveillance and control, is that they should pay
to put the technology in each plane.

A box could be contracted (to be designed and built) that would have a GPS
in it linked to the reporting transmitter, in a all in one unit. To save
cost and complexity, it would not need to have any display of the GPS data
available to the pilot.

The government is going to be doing a similar type of purchase of technology
for the public to make the change from standard definition TV to high
definition TV, by allowing all households to get two coupons free of charge
to be exchanged for a set top box that changed high definition signals to
standard definition signal for the old TV's.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:



The government is going to be doing a similar type of purchase of
technology for the public to make the change from standard definition
TV to high definition TV, by allowing all households to get two
coupons free of charge to be exchanged for a set top box that changed
high definition signals to standard definition signal for the old
TV's.

Those coupons for a DTV to analog converter are only worth $40 each.
Wednesday, Fry's Electronics was selling this converter for $179. The Feds
are NOT giving the consumer a free converter.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marty Shapiro" wrote

Those coupons for a DTV to analog converter are only worth $40 each.
Wednesday, Fry's Electronics was selling this converter for $179. The
Feds
are NOT giving the consumer a free converter.

40 bucks is way too low, and 179 bucks is way too high.

I hope the price of the converters come down, a lot.
--
Jim in NC

http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Reply...S-BOutNPRM.doc