FAA ADS-B Propaganda Video

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.

You still need the up front avionics which at this point are
expensive.

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

Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
money.

There is no planned improvement in coverage. I alreday asked that of
the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

Even then I have the option to fly higher to avoid the cost of ADS-B
Out.

As much as people talk about improvements no one has shown a
substantial and quantifiable improvement for me to justify spending
the money on ADS-B Out avionics.

The only possible benefits are for the FAA and maybe to the airlines
but I doubt even that will happen.

Ron Lee

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:29:01 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

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.

You still need the up front avionics which at this point are expensive.

Which? Are you referring to the mandated ADS-B-out, or the Garmin 796
portable?

Yes, there's a cost. And - if you're referring to the portable - this is
why I'm glad that -out isn't mandated. The vast majority of the value
accrued to the population as a whole comes from the -in installation.

But I don't see portables as being all that expensive. And the price is
dropping. Certainly, it's far lower than the number's you'd been citing
earlier in the thread.

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

Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
money.

That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

There is no planned improvement in coverage.

This would be difficult to achieve laugh.

I alreday asked that of
the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

When my airport has an ADS-B received instead of an actual RADAR-based
device, the tower will see the positional information that is now
unavailable.

Now, what that person to whom you spoke might have meant is that there
will be no new ADS-B-in receivers that aren't replacing (or being added
to) RADAR.

But you've made me curious, and I can follow up. To whom did you speak?

[...]

As much as people talk about improvements no one has shown a substantial
and quantifiable improvement for me to justify spending the money on
ADS-B Out avionics.

The only possible benefits are for the FAA and maybe to the airlines but
I doubt even that will happen.

I don't see how the airlines will gain, except for what I write next.
But that applies to all taxpayers.

The FAA will save money (at least, supposedly! {8^). But that's a
possible win for us because we pay for the damned thing. I'd not mind
paying less for it.

- Andrew

You still need the up front avionics which at this point are expensive.

Which? Are you referring to the mandated ADS-B-out, or the Garmin 796
portable?

Yes, there's a cost. And - if you're referring to the portable - this is
why I'm glad that -out isn't mandated. The vast majority of the value
accrued to the population as a whole comes from the -in installation.

This NPRM only will mandate ADS-B Out. Please read it.

But I don't see portables as being all that expensive. And the price is
dropping. Certainly, it's far lower than the number's you'd been citing
earlier in the thread.

There is NO guarantee that Garmin x96 will be able to display ADS-B
In info.

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

Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
money.

That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

You don't know the numbers. Read the NPRM. If the majority of the
supposed benefits go to the airlines...and I question how much of that
is valid, are you still willing to pay $10,000 or more for
questionable savings?


There is no planned improvement in coverage.

This would be difficult to achieve laugh.

I alreday asked that of
the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

Only if you have In capability and I meant ATC coverage. That is
relevant to me for flight following.

The FAA will save money (at least, supposedly! {8^). But that's a
possible win for us because we pay for the damned thing. I'd not mind
paying less for it.

Andrew...have you read the NPRM and my response to it? If not, you
really need to. Otherwise you are making uninformed statements that
are no better than saying you will vote for candidate C because he has
nicer hair.

Ron Lee

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
money.

That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

Where is the evidence that paying $10,000 for an ADS-B out installation
will save me any money?




There is no planned improvement in coverage.

This would be difficult to achieve laugh.

I alreday asked that of
the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

Only to aircraft with ADS-B In on the link (UAT or Mode-S)


When my airport has an ADS-B received instead of an actual RADAR-based
device, the tower will see the positional information that is now
unavailable.

Why does the tower need it?

Why can't the tower get a remote feed?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

You still need the up front avionics which at this point are
expensive.

Which? Are you referring to the mandated ADS-B-out, or the Garmin 796
portable?

Yes, there's a cost. And - if you're referring to the portable - this
is why I'm glad that -out isn't mandated. The vast majority of the
value accrued to the population as a whole comes from the -in
installation.

This NPRM only will mandate ADS-B Out. Please read it.

Sorry; you're right. No need to be snarky about what is obviously a
simple error considering my postings on this thread.


But I don't see portables as being all that expensive. And the price is
dropping. Certainly, it's far lower than the number's you'd been citing
earlier in the thread.

There is NO guarantee that Garmin x96 will be able to display ADS-B In
info.

True. On the other hand, I expect it'll be there. It may not be in the
Garmin itself (which is pretty feature-light), but more likely as an add-
on like the current portable traffic solutions which plug into the
Garmins (and others).

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

Who is "we"? Expecting me to pay thousands to reduce the FAA costs is
wrong. That would be like FORCING you to pay $10,000 to same me some
money.

That's how taxes and government fees work. But if I'm being forced to
pay K$10 to avoid paying K$15, then I mind less than usual.

You don't know the numbers. Read the NPRM. If the majority of the
supposed benefits go to the airlines...and I question how much of that
is valid, are you still willing to pay $10,000 or more for questionable
savings?

You're missing my point. If the government saves money, then my taxes go
down (or, more likely, up more slowly {8^). That's a benefit to me.
This is independent of any benefit to any other population (of which I
may or may not be a member).

[...]

I alreday asked that of
the FAA. There may be some incidental improvement but not enough to
cover all the gaps in the mountainous areas where I fly.

I think you spoke to the wrong person. In fact, the term "coverage"
isn't completely applicable anymore. Anywhere an ADS-B-out transmitting
aircraft is, there's aircraft position information.

Only if you have In capability and I meant ATC coverage. That is
relevant to me for flight following.

It's relevant to me too, both for VFR FF and IFR.


The FAA will save money (at least, supposedly! {8^). But that's a
possible win for us because we pay for the damned thing. I'd not mind
paying less for it.

Andrew...have you read the NPRM and my response to it? If not, you
really need to. Otherwise you are making uninformed statements that are
no better than saying you will vote for candidate C because he has nicer
hair.

I've read the NPRM (although admittedly back before this thread first
started {8^), but not your response. Did you make any points that you've
not made here?

But if you think I'm making statements about nice hair, feel free to
point them out. I see your point about the mandate, but I don't agree
that there's zero value accrued to GA pilots for the mandate. More, I'm
actually *pleased* that the mandate is -out only, in that this forces on
owners only that part of the cost that's necessary to accrue the full ADS-
B benefit. Mandating the -in would have increased the cost for benefit
largely accrued only by the owner or pilot. That should be left to the
owner/pilot to decide.

Perhaps an analogy would help? I view this as similar to the mode C
requirement. Had they mandated -in as well, it would be similar to
requiring not just mode C but also some form of TCAS/TCAD/etc.

I hope that this makes my perspective more clear.

- Andrew

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:24:57 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:



When my airport has an ADS-B received instead of an actual RADAR-based
device, the tower will see the positional information that is now
unavailable.

Why does the tower need it?

Why can't the tower get a remote feed?

That's exactly what my "home" airport's tower has now. For geographic
reasons, though, this doesn't go down to TPA.

As for why the tower needs it...well, it doesn't "need" it. The airport
doesn't really "need" a tower. And I could argue that the fact that the
presence of the tower can adversely impact the traffic situation (ie.
could have contributed to the MACs in the area over the past few years),
in that I know at least some PPLs that defer to the tower for separation
despite regulation, history, and technology.

However, having a view of traffic better than eyeballs from the tower can
contribute to safety.

This idea of pilots deferring is "funny" (in a dark sort of fashion). I
know several pilots that have complained about the "barely controlled"
nature of the traffic here, having spent years flying out of a far more
tightly controlled and busy (albeit also class D) airport. Whine whine
whine laugh.

Yet these same pilots have no problem at nearby untowered fields that are
almost as busy. It's kind of weird.

- Andrew