FAA ADS-B Propaganda Video

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:56:14 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will be
very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for ADS-B
Out is even close to correct.

It's not necessary to have a "screen". Consider those little portable
traffic avoidance do-dads. Might having access to the ADS-B-out data
stream not make them either/both cheaper or more accurate?

- Andrew

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:18:42 -0500, John T wrote:

Agreed. But at least the DNC, unlike the RNC, lacks the hubris to
burglarize the opposition's election headquarters, or worse:

Not a fact in evidence. It just means they haven't been caught.

It reminds me of an old story about dolphins. The evidence that they're
intelligent isn't that they've never attacked a human; it's that they've
never been caught.

Anyway, by your logic the DNC is either less arrogant (to burglarize) or
less foolish (to get caught). I'm not sure it matters which laugh.

- Andrew

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:08:20 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

these people perpetrate the same old RNC dirty Nixon tricks today.

I don't believe that Nixon ever tried what the Bush campaign did to
McCain in 2000. Who'da'thunk that we'd view Nixon as charmingly naive
already laugh?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:56:14 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Plus the cost to implement ADS-B In to include a suitable screen will be
very expensive IF the FAA projected cost of over $17,000 just for ADS-B
Out is even close to correct.

It's not necessary to have a "screen". Consider those little portable
traffic avoidance do-dads. Might having access to the ADS-B-out data
stream not make them either/both cheaper or more accurate?

- Andrew

I doubt that there is a viable interface without significant mods.
Plus having a graphical display of position, direction of travel and
speed makes more sense.

Another supposed benefit of ADS-N In is having graphical weather.

You need a suitable screen

Ron Lee

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote in :

I don't believe that Nixon ever tried what the Bush campaign did to
McCain in 2000.

What was that?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:39:12 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:


I doubt that there is a viable interface without significant mods.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I'm not actually thinking that
the box innards could be modified; I'd expect a new design for most of it
(perhaps all but the UI components).

Plus
having a graphical display of position, direction of travel and speed
makes more sense.

I completely agree. Yet there is a market for these less capable and
less expensive devices. It's apparently a decent trade-off for some.


Another supposed benefit of ADS-N In is having graphical weather.

You need a suitable screen

To get maximum benefit, I agree. But since the "problem" with the screen
is cost, I'm wondering by what paths this could be reduced.

But you've given me another idea. These traffic boxes nowadays plug into
various portables, using the screen of the portables for traffic
display. Other boxes do the same to provide weather.

What about a single ADS-B-in device which plugs into portables that
provides both traffic and weather? Even with the cost of the Garmin 696
(or whatever is around at the time {8^), this would be less expensive
than a certified solution.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

What about a single ADS-B-in device which plugs into portables that
provides both traffic and weather? Even with the cost of the Garmin 696
(or whatever is around at the time {8^), this would be less expensive
than a certified solution.

Andrew, I admire your thinking process. The fact remains that the
ADS-B Out NPRM only mandates the OUT potion of the entire ADS-B
possibile functionality.

The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a
potential huge cost ($17,000).

The fact remains that even if you make the IN part work with a Garmin
X96 (which I do not have), if the cost is as high as suggested then it
is not worth it to me.

This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it
applies to GA.

Of course I have no problem with anyone voluntarily equipping with
anything.

Ron Lee

Andrew, I admire your thinking process. The fact remains that the ADS-B
Out NPRM only mandates the OUT potion of the entire ADS-B possibile
functionality.

Right. But this seems reasonable to me, from a network effects
perspective. The population in general gets a benefit when other
aircraft are ADS-B-out-ing. There is zero (or perhaps slight) benefit to
the population in general when other aircraft are ADS-B-in-ing.

So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
population in general.

The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a potential
huge cost ($17,000).

You're still free to pay more for more value.


The fact remains that even if you make the IN part work with a Garmin
X96 (which I do not have), if the cost is as high as suggested then it
is not worth it to me.

The same could be said for those excessively long runways or density of
ATC that I'll never use yet which are effectively billed to me.

In fact, the same could be said for mode C requirements on GA.

This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it applies
to GA.

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. What if ATC can be made cheaper as a
result of this, for example? Those are my tax dollars that'll be saved
(admittedly to be used elsewhere thanks to our political class {8^).

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Right. But this seems reasonable to me, from a network effects
perspective. The population in general gets a benefit when other
aircraft are ADS-B-out-ing. There is zero (or perhaps slight) benefit to
the population in general when other aircraft are ADS-B-in-ing.

So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
population in general.

Negative. Don't expect the general GA pilot to equip with ADS-B In.


The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a potential
huge cost ($17,000).

You're still free to pay more for more value.

You must not own an aircraft. I see ZERO benefit for ADS-B Out and at
the costs likely to get ADS-B In it is not worth it to me. I do not
need it.

This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it applies
to GA.

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. What if ATC can be made cheaper as a
result of this, for example? Those are my tax dollars that'll be saved
(admittedly to be used elsewhere thanks to our political class {8^).

Let's be realistic. The FAA wants to saddle me with a huge cost that
does not give me any benefit and you really think that taxes will be
lowered? Won't happen.

Ron Lee

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:40:22 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Right. But this seems reasonable to me, from a network effects
perspective. The population in general gets a benefit when other
aircraft are ADS-B-out-ing. There is zero (or perhaps slight) benefit
to the population in general when other aircraft are ADS-B-in-ing.

So the part being mandated is the part that provides value to the
population in general.

Negative. Don't expect the general GA pilot to equip with ADS-B In.

At least some part will, even if with the next generation of those little
portable traffic devices that plug into portable GPSs.

But we still accrue value even if only by reducing the cost, and
increasing coverage, of ATC "RADAR".


The fact remains that I as a GA pilot/owner get nothing for a
potential huge cost ($17,000).

You're still free to pay more for more value.

You must not own an aircraft. I see ZERO benefit for ADS-B Out and at
the costs likely to get ADS-B In it is not worth it to me. I do not
need it.

I'm a 1/45th owner of four aircraft. This also lets me see how I am in
my "spending preferences" as compared to 44 other pilots. I do admit:
I'm typically more willing to spend than most. But traffic appears to be
a fairly high concern amongst our 45 members (though Nall would appear to
indicate it as less of a threat than most seem to perceive).

I do expect we'll do *something* for traffic. There are some members
that want us to get those portable units now, but I'm inclined to wait
since I think that we'll see ADS-B based units sooner rather than later
(and we are in an ADS-B coverage area).


This is a bad proposal by the FAA and needs to be defeated at it
applies to GA.

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. What if ATC can be made cheaper as a
result of this, for example? Those are my tax dollars that'll be saved
(admittedly to be used elsewhere thanks to our political class {8^).

Let's be realistic. The FAA wants to saddle me with a huge cost that
does not give me any benefit and you really think that taxes will be
lowered? Won't happen.

As I wrote above, I don't agree that you get *no* benefit. On the other
hand, I don't expect taxes to go down; merely to rise a little slower
than they otherwise would laugh.

- Andrew