Bob Noel wrote:
one correction: STARS does not require an ASR-11.
This is actually correct, based on some new information I receieved from
my avionics rep today, who spent the better part of the morning calling
around the FAA to figure out what is going on with TIS.
Here's the story:
The FAA has ASR7, 8, and 9 systems deployed. Philadelphia, for example,
which was the site of the first fully-operational STARS system utilizes
mode-s via an ASR9.
Right now there are 125 TIS sites, of which 22 are based on older ASR7
and 8. Those sites are slated to be upgraded to ASR11, but here's the
kicker -- while the ASR11 was designed and tested to support mode-s and
TIS, the 22 site upgrades will be deployed withOUT either feature.
The FAA planned to implement what they called the "Leapfrog Program", in
which they expected to relocate a number of the older (though mode-s
capable) ASR7 and 8 sites to other sites that presently lack mode-s
support. This would have decreased the net loss of sites. Ironically,
the closest radar site to the FAA Technical Center where all this
technology is engineered and evaluated (Atlantic City) is presently
running a non mode-s site and would have benefitted from the Leapfrog
Program (so much for being close to home base, right?). Unfortunately,
the group responsible for funding the mode-s deployment in OK City
killed the budget for the Leapfrog Program, thus the older sites will be
mothballed instead.
So, dare we ask, why is the FAA deploying ASR11 without mode-s? Two
reasons: someone in the FAA budget office had bad data that indicated
no one was using mode-s or TIS, and lacking user support, they decided
to buy the radars without the mode-s option to save money. If there is
any saving grace to this, however, it's that the ASR11's being installed
can be upgraded with mode-s and TIS at a later date. Assuming we are
successful at communicating to the FAA that TIS is presently in use by
more than 10000 aircraft, the question of when the sites will be
upgraded is likely to be decided in the budget office.
A guy at the tech center commented that TIS was a simple and inexpensive
program. It's essentially a software adjunct to the radar site, picking
off data from the radar, processing it to account for the radar sweep
delay, and sending it via datalink to the airborne component. The
technical guys loved the idea of TIS, because it would give
pilots/owners an incentive to throw out their (paraphrased) "junk 1970's
ARTS transponders", which apparently cause all radars -- including the
latest ASR11, lots of problems with ghosting, reply timing, etc. Of
course, we all knew about the motivation for TIS, but it was nice to
hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
A bit of trivia: While we've all been told that "TIS won't work with
center radars", that's not entirely accurate. In fact, center radars
were tested at the Tech Center and found capable of providing TIS data,
but the FAA made a call NOT to support them due to the 12 second radar
sweep delay. They thought that 12 seconds was too long and traffic data
that old would be more of a liability than an an asset to the pilot. In
comparison, approach radars which presently provide TIS revolve once
every four seconds.
Some of the sites on the east coast that will be upgraded to ASR11
without mode-s support, and will thus lose TIS support, are as follows:
Bangor, ME
Roanoke, VA
Wilmington, NC
Tallahassee, FL
Pensacola, FL
So, what can we do? Encourage your avionics shop to send sales data for
both the Garmin GTX330 and the King KT73 mode-s transponders to the
office responsible for Mode-S budgeting in OK City. I actually have a
name and telephone number of the guy responsible as well as the tech rep
at the Tech Center, but I promised NOT to release that info, so you'll
have to ask your avionics shop to track down the appropriate points of
contact on their own.
Also, if you're a member of AOPA (and if you're actively flying, I hope
for your sake you are a member), you can call or write them and let them
know you want the FAA to continue deployment of mode-s radars and to at
least maintain the modest investment we have in TIS.
-Doug
--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA
http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------