FAA Awards $1.8 BILLION ADS-B Ground Station Contract

On Sep 4, 9:05 pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:16:03 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
Surly ITT will address that issue.

How? Is that even in their mandate?

Have you any idea how the features of each compare?

Not any more, in detail. I did read a couple of reports on this, and I
also had a chat with a engineer involved in at least one of the systems.
But this was all a while ago, and I never did know more than a little

The mode S based system, if memory and gossip serves, exists only as a
cost-savings device for the airlines (though I admit I don't quite see
how...unless they've already invested in mode S; have they?). The UAT
appeared to be the more generally useful, again if memory serves.

VDL apparently has some advantages over longer range. (ie. oceanic).

I'd welcome someone with more knowledge to provide details. But the fact
remains that we've three mutually incompatible mechanisms in a system a
major advantage of which is peer-peer communication. That seems
counterproductive.

Andrew

I'm not sure if http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-02_ADS-B-
Overview.pdf is still current, but the picture on Page 9 would seem
to indicate that the ground station takes care of interoperability
between different link types. Also, Page 5 indicates that TIS-B will
provide interoperability for aircraft not equipped with ADS-B Out.

I'll ask some colleagues at work tomorrow for more detailed info.

Regards,
Jon

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:18:53 -0700, Jon wrote:

but the picture on Page 9 would seem to
indicate that the ground station takes care of interoperability between
different link types.

But that requires ground stations in sight of both aircraft, and therefore
eliminates one of the stated advantages.

Also, Page 5 indicates that TIS-B will provide
interoperability for aircraft not equipped with ADS-B Out.

The ground stations will broadcast not just what is received via ADS-B but
also what's received via conventional RADAR. I assume that this is what's
meant.

- Andrew

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:18:53 -0700, Jon
wrote in . com:


I'm not sure if http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-02_ADS-B-
Overview.pdf is still current, but the picture on Page 9 would seem
to indicate that the ground station takes care of interoperability
between different link types. Also, Page 5 indicates that TIS-B will
provide interoperability for aircraft not equipped with ADS-B Out.

I'll ask some colleagues at work tomorrow for more detailed info.

Regards,
Jon


Many thanks for that link. That document answers most of the
questions raised in this thread. I don't know if it's still current;
it's dated June 7, 2002.

On Sep 5, 9:49 pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:18:53 -0700, Jon wrote:
but the picture on Page 9 would seem to
indicate that the ground station takes care of interoperability between
different link types.

But that requires ground stations in sight of both aircraft,

I'm not sure I'm following. Isn't that the idea behind Surveillance?

As more ground stations are deployed the service volumes will
increase.

and therefore eliminates one of the stated advantages.

I'm not sure to which advantage you refer? Do you mean the air-to-air
component versus ground-to-air?

If so, I was only referring to the latter. Given the implementation is
phased, the architecture had/has designed to allow for a mixed
equipage environment since the most likely scenario is that a fair
amount of aircraft won't be fully equipped with both ADS-B In and ADS-
B Out right out of the gate. Granted two fully-equipped aircraft are
going to be able to autonomously 'talk' to each other (TANSTAAFL).
About the only 'downside' I can see in the mixed equipage environment
is the minor one of the latency penalty with having to rely on ADS-R
(Re-Broadcast). Given Radar updates are what ~6-seconds, I wouldn't
consider it anywhere near a showstopper just because I couldn't
sustain a 1-second update rate.

The cost factor obviously has been, is, and continues to be the long
pole in the tent, but perhaps economies of scale will help. In
speaking with some of the regional operators, I liked how one of them
phrased his question in regard to the lead times and the equipage
tradespace that he has to consider. He said "What will the well-
dressed plane look like?"

He's got a fairly complex set of issues that he had to bring to his
upper-level mgt./acct. folks. On the one had there's the issue of
retrofitting existing aircraft that may not have much useful life left
by the time the capabilities bear fruit.

The flip side was an issue he termed "forward-fitting" which, as I
understood it (I'm not a businessman), is spec-ing out the package in
a cockpit for a plan that you won't be buying for n (5 in the case
of the discussion at the time) years. Given the moving target (pun
intended), I'm glad I don't have to be in his shoes standing in front
of my superiors having to sell it

The TBD factor is starting to get better, now that the contract has
been let, and with the PRM due out sometime this month, I think it
will allow a lot more folks to make assessments for what the best
strategy is in moving forward.

Also, Page 5 indicates that TIS-B will provide
interoperability for aircraft not equipped with ADS-B Out.

The ground stations will broadcast not just what is received via ADS-B but
also what's received via conventional RADAR. I assume that this is what's
meant.

That's the way I read the block diagram, with TIS-B going outbound
from the ground stations.

- Andrew

Regards,
Jon

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:14:20 -0700, Jon wrote:

But that requires ground stations in sight of both aircraft,

I'm not sure I'm following. Isn't that the idea behind Surveillance?

As more ground stations are deployed the service volumes will increase.

One of the described benefits of ADS-B is that aircraft can detect each
other even out of "sight" of ground-based RADAR (or an ADS-B ground
station).

[...]

About the only
'downside' I can see in the mixed equipage environment is the minor one
of the latency penalty with having to rely on ADS-R (Re-Broadcast).
Given Radar updates are what ~6-seconds, I wouldn't consider it anywhere
near a showstopper just because I couldn't sustain a 1-second update
rate.

But the three model situation isn't transitional (at least as far as I've
read). Airlines are using the mode-S based system while GA is using the
UAT and I don't know what's occurring in between. And then there's the
third system, the intended role I don't know.

- Andrew

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:55:21 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

The UAT appeared to be the more generally useful, again if memory serves.

Have you got a link to information about that system?

VDL apparently has some advantages over longer range. (ie. oceanic).

Have you got a link to information about that system?

No. Someone put the link here (a while ago) and I didn't save it.
Perhaps the original poster will see this and resend it.

It was a description of a series of tests of performance of the different
systems under a wide range of conditions.

- Andrew

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:04:26 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote in :

Pilots won't be required to equip for
it until 2020, and I'm pretty sure that is enough lead time for anyone to
make plans regarding his or her airplane.

It's official:

FAA TO PILOTS: BE READY FOR ADS-B BY 2020
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196268)
The FAA said
(http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...fm?newsId=9632)
on Tuesday it wants all aircraft flying in controlled airspace to
have satellite-based avionics by 2020, so air traffic controllers
can track them using Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
(ADS-B). The agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PDF

(http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...dia/29305.pdf))
that says the equipment will allow controllers to handle more
traffic more safely with less separation. "Aviation must take the
big step into the next generation of technology," said Acting FAA
Administrator Bobby Sturgell. "It's safer and more accurate.
Satellite technology is here to stay." Pilots with ADS-B cockpit
displays can see, in real time, their location in relation to
other aircraft, bad weather and terrain. In Southwest Alaska, the
fatal accident rate for ADS-B-equipped aircraft has dropped by 47
percent, the FAA said. Aircraft that don't fly in controlled
airspace will not be required to have ADS-B avionics, the FAA
said.

Free flight?
GPS?
ADS-B?
NextGen?
Blah blah blah

More FAA Fodder.......

All while they CUT controllers and technicians and REDUCE
redundancy while EXPANDING civil rights staffs and diversity
conferences. Airline delays and losses are the largest IN
HISTORY

The proof of FAA incompetence is in the statistics

I don't believe a damn thing anymore the FAA says or does.
It's all whiz bang BS to avoid exposure of their
incompetence and poor decision making.

Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:04:26 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote in :

Pilots won't be required to equip for
it until 2020, and I'm pretty sure that is enough lead time for anyone to
make plans regarding his or her airplane.

It's official:

FAA TO PILOTS: BE READY FOR ADS-B BY 2020
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196268)
The FAA said
(http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...fm?newsId=9632)
on Tuesday it wants all aircraft flying in controlled airspace to
have satellite-based avionics by 2020, so air traffic controllers
can track them using Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
(ADS-B). The agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PDF

(http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...dia/29305.pdf))
that says the equipment will allow controllers to handle more
traffic more safely with less separation. "Aviation must take the
big step into the next generation of technology," said Acting FAA
Administrator Bobby Sturgell. "It's safer and more accurate.
Satellite technology is here to stay." Pilots with ADS-B cockpit
displays can see, in real time, their location in relation to
other aircraft, bad weather and terrain. In Southwest Alaska, the
fatal accident rate for ADS-B-equipped aircraft has dropped by 47
percent, the FAA said. Aircraft that don't fly in controlled
airspace will not be required to have ADS-B avionics, the FAA
said.