AOPA and EAA come through on ADS-B Out NPRM

Larry Dighera wrote:

Below are excerpts of comments of some of the key players. It appears
to me, that DoD sees ADS-B as a means to surveil aircraft operations,
and because of the sensitivity of their missions and costs to
implement, they desire noncompliance. Boeing is interested in
assuring that the NPRM is compatible with their grand ATC system. The
air carriers are hoping that ADS-B will provide enhanced NAS capacity
through reduced separation standards and additional routes. And
everyone is concerned about the cost and marginal benefits.


Here's what the DoD has to say:


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...ontentType=pdf
As a user, DoD requires access to all elements of the NAS and
requires Special Use Airspace (SUA) for conducting missions in
support of the National Security Strategy and the National
Military Strategy. Under various circumstances, e.g. age of
aircraft fleet, funding requirements, etc., some DoD aircraft may
not meet equipage requirements and will need accommodation from
the FAA to operate in the designated ADS-B Out airspace....

5) Comment: The FAA needs to continue to work with the DoD and
DHS to ensure that concerns about ADS-B security are adequately
addressed prior to the issuance of the final ADS-B rule.

Rationale: ADS_B is a new standard adopted by many aviation
authorities worldwide which offers a great leap forward in
aircraft surveillance capabilities. More information is made
available than before with conventional primary and secondary
radar technologies. Because AES_B does not require major
conventional radar ground infrastructure, by its nature, it makes
the position of aircraft in flight and intent generally available
to everyone. In this regard, DoD believes there are some
potential security vulnerabilities which need to [be] addressed.
There are several specific concerns noted in FAA planning
documents, including unauthorized use of ADS-B information for
introducing false targets/aircraft spoofing into the system. A
through security assessment involving DoD and DHS is needed to
determine ADS-B risks and appropriate countermeasures.
Additionally, a technique for detecting ADS-B spoofing which is
independent of the ADS-B system is required. ...

6) Comment: The FAA, DHS, DOJ, NSA and DoD will need to develop
operational procedures for special USG flights (such as low
observable surveillance aircraft, combat air patrol missions,
counter=drug missions, counter-terrorism missions, VIP transport,
law enforcement surveillance, etc.), that are inconsistent with
broadcasting their position over a link that can be easily
received and resolved. State aircraft, due to national security
issues, will require special accommodations in ADS-B assigned
airspace.



Of course the DoD is going to want the "take" from any surveillance
system that is in place and they should get it. But from reading the
above it seems they are much more concerned that the system as currently
conceived has some security holes that they are worried about. Overall
it looks like they don't like the plan.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:39:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:

Of course the DoD is going to want the "take" from any surveillance
system that is in place and they should get it.

While I firmly champion freedom from government intrusion in private
matters, I tend to agree with you.

But from reading the above it seems they are much more concerned that
the system as currently conceived has some security holes that they
are worried about. Overall it looks like they don't like the plan.

Oh, I think they like the idea of knowing the exact position of all
the flights in the NAS, but they feel that the military should be
exempt from participation in revealing their positions, and they have
concerns about spoofing and hostile use of ADS-B out information.

Of course the military sees itself as above the populous, and seeks to
assure acceptance of its noncompliance even at the expense of a
foolproof anticollision system. Such is the limited intelligence and
arrogance routinely demonstrated by the military. Hopefully more
enlightened heads will prevail.

What I find pathetic is the air carriers' vain hope that somehow ADS-B
OUT will provide relief from flight delays and the public scorn they
create. I suppose their support for mandatory ADS-B OUT may be thinly
disguised support for Boeing or LockMart operated NextGen ATC, for
surly they must be aware of the true source of airline flight delays:
lack of runway and taxiway concrete and terminal capacity.

And the affect on GA is hardly considered in the NPRM. Remember, it
was John McCain who prevented the president of the AOPA from a seat on
the FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC):

http://www.deafpilots.com/newsletter...000/clyde.html
Boyer snubbed by Senate

I was saddened to learn that Phil Boyer, AOPA president, was not
recommended by the Senate Commerce Committee to serve on the new
FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC). President Clinton had asked
Boyer to serve. Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican and
chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, questioned Boyer's
qualifications because he and Boyer have often been at loggerheads
over the idea of aviation user fees. McCain circulated a draft
agenda to the membership of the Commerce Committee, indicating
Phil Boyer and Debbie Branson's names would not be sent to the
full Senate for confirmation.

This occurred despite the fact that it was Boyer's AOPA who proposed
the MAC!

GA is under siege and we don't even know it. Our champions are feeble
in comparison to the power of the military and large corporations, and
we are envied and thus disliked for the freedom airmen enjoy over the
heads of the lay public. GA had better find some powerful strategists
quickly, conceive a winning plan of action, befriend powerful allies,
and embark on a compelling publicity campaign soon, or face relegation
to small snippets of unwanted airspace, IMO.

/soapbox

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:00:31 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

What I find pathetic is the air carriers' vain hope that somehow ADS-B
OUT will provide relief from flight delays and the public scorn they
create.

I'm sure that they know better than to believe this. But full ADS-B
deployment is years away. This gives them that long to come up with
their next excuse.

What I don't fathom is why they don't simply blame the real issue of
runway availability. Are they afraid this will lead to congestion
pricing or some such thing? Are they sure that it won't lead to the
creation of new runways?

- Andrew

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:27:16 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote in :

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:00:31 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

What I find pathetic is the air carriers' vain hope that somehow ADS-B
OUT will provide relief from flight delays and the public scorn they
create.

I'm sure that they know better than to believe this.

Read their comment:

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc.[1] filed this comment:


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...ontentType=pdf
As FAA is well aware, important sectors of the NAS often approach
– and sometimes exceed – current capacity limits, especially when
weather affects the system, which causes flight delays,
inefficient routings and increased fuel consumption, in order to
maintain the highest level of system safety. ADS-B deployment and
NextGen offer significant improvements over the existing outdated,
radar-based ATC system. These additional reasons drive ATA’s
interest in this rulemaking proceeding.

See what I mean?

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc.[1] filed this comment:


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...ontentType=pdf
As FAA is well aware, important sectors of the NAS often approach
– and sometimes exceed – current capacity limits, especially when
weather affects the system, which causes flight delays,
inefficient routings and increased fuel consumption, in order to
maintain the highest level of system safety. ADS-B deployment and
NextGen offer significant improvements over the existing outdated,
radar-based ATC system. These additional reasons drive ATA’s
interest in this rulemaking proceeding.

See what I mean?


Yet the FAA NPRM does not guarantee that implementation of ADS-B Out
will result in system capacity improvements...particularly en route
separation standards.

Here are words from the NPRM:

"At this time the FAA cannot determine the extent to which separation
standards might be reduced."

"The FAA may examine the possible reduction of separation standards
once ADS-B has been certified to meet existing separation standards
safely and consistently.

Ron Lee

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:34:17 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in :


The Air Transport Association of America, Inc.[1] filed this comment:


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...ontentType=pdf
As FAA is well aware, important sectors of the NAS often approach
– and sometimes exceed – current capacity limits, especially when
weather affects the system, which causes flight delays,
inefficient routings and increased fuel consumption, in order to
maintain the highest level of system safety. ADS-B deployment and
NextGen offer significant improvements over the existing outdated,
radar-based ATC system. These additional reasons drive ATA’s
interest in this rulemaking proceeding.

See what I mean?


Yet the FAA NPRM does not guarantee that implementation of ADS-B Out
will result in system capacity improvements...particularly en route
separation standards.

Here are words from the NPRM:

"At this time the FAA cannot determine the extent to which separation
standards might be reduced."

"The FAA may examine the possible reduction of separation standards
once ADS-B has been certified to meet existing separation standards
safely and consistently.

Ron Lee


Right. It sort of makes one wonder about the competence of the ATAA.