Opensource ADS-B?

I searched around a bit and couldn't seem to find any talk about an
opensource implementation of ADS-B (and maybe some open hardware). Has
anyone heard of such a project?

It sounds like a worthy project to keep the prices from Garmin and the
like in check so a opensource applications can be written to use
utilize the underlying ADS-B implementation.

Thanks.

--Ed

Ed S wrote:
I searched around a bit and couldn't seem to find any talk about an
opensource implementation of ADS-B (and maybe some open hardware). Has
anyone heard of such a project?

It sounds like a worthy project to keep the prices from Garmin and the
like in check so a opensource applications can be written to use
utilize the underlying ADS-B implementation.

Thanks.

--Ed

Have you heard of any FAA certified open-source hardware? Hell the GPS
is going to have to be WAAS certified you aren't going to get that done
via open source.

On Mar 5, 5:38 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
Ed S wrote:
I searched around a bit and couldn't seem to find any talk about an
opensource implementation of ADS-B (and maybe some open hardware). Has
anyone heard of such a project?

It sounds like a worthy project to keep the prices from Garmin and the
like in check so a opensource applications can be written to use
utilize the underlying ADS-B implementation.

Thanks.

--Ed

Have you heard of any FAA certified open-source hardware? Hell the GPS
is going to have to be WAAS certified you aren't going to get that done
via open source.

The specs are out (from what I have heard) so in theory, a reference
implementation from an outside source put out in open source can be
done. I posted this in homebuilt and never mentioned certified.

Headless GPS WAAS units are cheap now (as low as $50-60) and I would
say are a commodity good. All we would need is a DIY schematic to make
the transceiver, a GPS to plugin, and the accompanying software to
build the outgoing data and interpret the incoming data.

Hope to hear useful responses soon.

Thanks.

--Ed

"Ed S" wrote in message ...
On Mar 5, 5:38 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
Ed S wrote:
I searched around a bit and couldn't seem to find any talk about an
opensource implementation of ADS-B (and maybe some open hardware). Has
anyone heard of such a project?

It sounds like a worthy project to keep the prices from Garmin and the
like in check so a opensource applications can be written to use
utilize the underlying ADS-B implementation.

Thanks.

--Ed

Have you heard of any FAA certified open-source hardware? Hell the GPS
is going to have to be WAAS certified you aren't going to get that done
via open source.

The specs are out (from what I have heard) so in theory, a reference
implementation from an outside source put out in open source can be
done. I posted this in homebuilt and never mentioned certified.

Headless GPS WAAS units are cheap now (as low as $50-60) and I would
say are a commodity good. All we would need is a DIY schematic to make
the transceiver, a GPS to plugin, and the accompanying software to
build the outgoing data and interpret the incoming data.

Hope to hear useful responses soon.

Thanks.

--Ed

I am all for an open and inexpensive ADS-B implementation, but I'm confident that we are so deep with FAA muda that
there will never be a reduction in the FAA workforce or budget, so they have to set up some sort of land based person
monitored system. Kinda like saying let's shrink govment spending and personnel 25%. Don't think its ever gonna happen,
sadly.

Ed S wrote:
I searched around a bit and couldn't seem to find any talk about an
opensource implementation of ADS-B (and maybe some open hardware). Has
anyone heard of such a project?

It sounds like a worthy project to keep the prices from Garmin and the
like in check so a opensource applications can be written to use
utilize the underlying ADS-B implementation.

Well I'm not surprised - the comment period for the NPRM just closed. In
fact some of the comments from the Aircraft Electronics Association[1]
seem to indicate not much exists (for light aircraft anyway):

"Because the FAA has established this revolutionary change in basic
ADS-B performance requirements, there isn't any equipment that currently
meets the Minimum Performance Standard for light general aviation
aircraft."

And they point out that the proposal doesn't make clear whether the
equipment must be FAA approved, as noted in this quote:

"The FAA once again publishes the performance requirements of equipment,
but does not require that the equipment be FAA-approved. This
continually causes confusion within the industry.

In the proposed 91.225, the FAA should clarify when the ADS-B equipment
must be "FAA approved" and when the manufacturer simply needs to show
that the ADS-B meets the performance requirements of the respective
TSO."

A "worthy" project? Hmmm. Any requirment that a citizen who has done
nothing wrong must be denied access to a public commons as vast as the
national airspace (which is a right by the way, not a privilege[2])
unless that person broadcasts an ID that uniquely identifies that person
would seem to be grounds for a lawsuit if that requirement appears in
the final rules. Whether it can prevail in the face of ever greater
assumption of state patronization of its citizens seem, alas,
problematic. :-(

[1]
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...ntentType=msw8

[2] "United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
....
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through
the navigable airspace."

"Jim Logajan" wrote

A "worthy" project? Hmmm. Any requirment that a citizen who has done
nothing wrong must be denied access to a public commons as vast as the
national airspace (which is a right by the way, not a privilege[2])
unless that person broadcasts an ID that uniquely identifies that person
would seem to be grounds for a lawsuit if that requirement appears in
the final rules. Whether it can prevail in the face of ever greater
assumption of state patronization of its citizens seem, alas,
problematic. :-(

Identifies a person? Humm, I thought it identified an aircraft.

I guess you must not like N numbers, or license plates and registrations for
your car, either.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote

A "worthy" project? Hmmm. Any requirment that a citizen who has done
nothing wrong must be denied access to a public commons as vast as
the national airspace (which is a right by the way, not a
privilege[2]) unless that person broadcasts an ID that uniquely
identifies that person would seem to be grounds for a lawsuit if that
requirement appears in the final rules. Whether it can prevail in the
face of ever greater assumption of state patronization of its
citizens seem, alas, problematic. :-(

Identifies a person? Humm, I thought it identified an aircraft.

I guess you must not like N numbers, or license plates and
registrations for your car, either.

Not the same thing. License plates and vehicle registrations don't involve
tracking your car's movements. The equivalent (or analogous case) on a car
would be a government requirement that everyone using the interstate
highway system must have a government approved tracking device on their
autos or trucks that allows the government to track (and keep a record for
an indefinite time) all your movements on those roads.

I'm not sure what your position would be on any government mandate
requiring such a thing on any ground vehicles you own. If you are okay with
a law that requires you install a tracking device on your ground vehicles
then that ends the discussion. We see government in different lights.

But if you are not okay with the the government recording all your travels
(at your expense too btw), all I can do is to try to stress the similarity
in the ground and air cases and hope you see the danger that I see.

here.

Happy now?

http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm...te_number/1790

cavelamb himself wrote:
here.

Happy now?

http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm...te_number/1790

I'm aware of similar devices. My wife was part of a startup
(http://www.aeris.net/) several years ago that designed and built equipment
that could be used for such purposes (technically what they originally did
was to piggyback extra data onto the SS7 control channel portion of cell
phone comms to send things like break-in alarms for buildings (i.e. no
phone lines that burglars could cut) and for sending GPS coordinates when
mounted on trucks and other expensive equipment subject to theft).

Of course the users of such devices not only have a choice in the matter,
the tracking information is considered private.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Not the same thing. License plates and vehicle registrations don't involve
tracking your car's movements.

Au contrair, mon ami. Such technology is being tested today in
several locations in the United States with great success. And the
technology is getting better all the time. New IR laser based devices
can record license plates at a rate of better than 20 per second from
moving vehicles. My brother, who works at the Department of Homeland
Security, tells me that within ten years, in order to better protect
the public from criminals and terrorists, there will be a nationwide
network of automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) devices covering
most major cities and highways. Police cars will also be outfitted
with ALPR devices which will continuously read all license plates
within view and automatically radio-in the time, location, and plate
numbers so read. All the data will be networked nationally in real
time to a central location. You won't be able to drive from your home
to the grocery store without being monitored and logged by the
Homeland Security Freedom Network (HSFN). Some people say that HSFN
is an invasion of privacy but not me. I mean, this is about
protecting the public and securing our freedoms! Get real people.
Besides, the only ones who have anything to fear are the ones who are
doing something wrong. I don't know about you but I'm not doing
anything wrong; I never do anything wrong. That's why I'm happy that
the Department of Homeland Security will be so keenly watching over us
and protecting us. Yes, it will be a wonderful, secure, and safe
country. I can't wait!

Manny Goldstein