A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 2nd 08, 04:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Lee[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

Full details at:

http://stopads-b.org/ADS.htm

Comments due by 3 March 2008. It does not have to be multiple pages.
Read some of the comments on pages 4-7 and a simple paragraph will
suffice.

Ron Lee
  #2  
Old March 2nd 08, 07:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthlessFAA mandate on ADS-B

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:02:20 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Full details at:

http://stopads-b.org/ADS.htm


This document is incorrect in at least one way. It claims that there's
no benefit to GA because there's no mandated IN functionality. But this
proposal makes a benefit available to GA because of the mandated OUT
functionality.

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality, this
benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.

What is true is that this mandates the least possible cost w/o giving up
the aforementioned benefit. Personally, I *like* that. While the OUT
mandate is required for benefit to everyone, the IN benefit accrues only
to the owner/pilot. We should be free to choose that - or not -
ourselves since only we are impacted by this choice.

- Andrew
  #3  
Old March 2nd 08, 08:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 18:14:59 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote in :


A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft.


Unfortunately that is incorrect. Military aircraft will not be
equipped with ADS-B at all, and I'm not sure what the situation is
with aircraft that lack an electrical system. So while some benefit
may accrue to GA operators who choose to invest in ADS-B IN, it is
unclear if the FAA intends to immediately provide weather and other
services via ADS-B, but rest assured, that ALL aircraft will not be
depicted on ADS-B IN displays.



  #4  
Old March 3rd 08, 03:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality, this
benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.


exactly what is the cost of that benefit? Shouldn't the GA pilot
(alledgedly) benefiting from ADS-B Out not fund the equippage of
those aircraft with ADS-B Out?

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

  #5  
Old March 3rd 08, 05:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthlessFAA mandate on ADS-B

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:23:12 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality,
this benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.


exactly what is the cost of that benefit? Shouldn't the GA pilot
(alledgedly) benefiting from ADS-B Out not fund the equippage of those
aircraft with ADS-B Out?


Did you write "out" where you'd meant to write "in"? Otherwise, I'm
afraid that I'm not understanding your question.

GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are, however,
funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all aircraft
(excluding military? Nasty, that!) are announcing their positions. It's
not all that different from transponders, in the sense that putting a
transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft, and not just the
aircraft footing the bill.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.

- Andrew
  #6  
Old March 3rd 08, 06:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:23:12 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:


In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

A GA owner can choose to invest in ADS-B-IN. If the owner does so, the
pilot sees all traffic because of the mandated OUT functionality in all
those other aircraft. If there were no mandated OUT functionality,
this benefit would not be available to the GA pilot.


exactly what is the cost of that benefit? Shouldn't the GA pilot
(alledgedly) benefiting from ADS-B Out not fund the equippage of those
aircraft with ADS-B Out?


Did you write "out" where you'd meant to write "in"? Otherwise, I'm
afraid that I'm not understanding your question.


GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are, however,
funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all aircraft
(excluding military? Nasty, that!) are announcing their positions. It's
not all that different from transponders, in the sense that putting a
transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft, and not just the
aircraft footing the bill.


Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.


The problem with all this is the (currently) insane cost of the equipment.

If the cost of the required equipment were in the ballpark of a new
transponder and the optional equipment in the ballpark of a decent
handheld GPS, I doubt you would see much objection.

While the equipment costs will eventually probably fall to those levels,
the current outlook is about an order of magnitude greater than that,
which makes the cost a very significant fraction of the value of the
existing GA fleet.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #7  
Old March 3rd 08, 07:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

Andrew Gideon wrote:
GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are,
however, funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all
aircraft (excluding military? Nasty, that!)


I just did a quick scan of the DoD comments posted today (FAA-2007-29305-
0154.1) and it looks like they are complaining about the cost or
unlikelyhood of retrofitting some of their aircraft to be in compliance.
Hmmm.

are announcing their
positions. It's not all that different from transponders, in the
sense that putting a transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft,
and not just the aircraft footing the bill.


Nit: I'm not clear how transponders in two otherwise NORDO aircraft stops
either from bumping into each other. Or to what extent transponder (or ADS-
B Out) equipped aircraft prevent MACs near or at non-towered airports.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend
the extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.


My understanding is that if they want to fly VFR above 10,000 MSL they will
be required to have ADS-B Out. This is a _new_ cost requirement for using
that portion of the airspace - even to VFR flights. Not only is it a new
cost, it provides the VFR pilot no benefit. I believe that two fully
compliant ADS-B Out aircraft flying VFR in that space can still bump into
each other. Hence the conclusion by some (such as myself) that the mandate
costs and benefits are not equitable nor reasonable. (I also dislike the
technology because it relies on GPS.)

Anyway, finally got around to submitting my comments (hopefully in time).
They weren't terribly coherent or compelling, but what the heck.
  #8  
Old March 4th 08, 05:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Lee[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B

Did you write "out" where you'd meant to write "in"? Otherwise, I'm
afraid that I'm not understanding your question.

GA pilots aren't funding equipment in other aircraft. They are, however,
funding the creation of a network in the air whereby all aircraft
(excluding military? Nasty, that!) are announcing their positions. It's
not all that different from transponders, in the sense that putting a
transponder in an aircraft benefits all aircraft, and not just the
aircraft footing the bill.


Incorrect. Without ADS-B In capability...or talking to ATC,
broadcasting ADS-B Out does nothing for you. Mode-C does just as
good.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.


Do look into it and determine if the high cost is worth it to you. It
is not to me

Ron Lee

- Andrew


  #9  
Old March 4th 08, 05:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Lee[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthless FAA mandate on ADS-B


Nit: I'm not clear how transponders in two otherwise NORDO aircraft stops
either from bumping into each other. Or to what extent transponder (or ADS-
B Out) equipped aircraft prevent MACs near or at non-towered airports.

Without ADS-B In and a display...or talking to ATC....there is no
added ability to prevent a mid-air. That assumes ADS-B groujnd
reception of the ADS-B Out broadcast.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend
the extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.


My understanding is that if they want to fly VFR above 10,000 MSL they will
be required to have ADS-B Out. This is a _new_ cost requirement for using
that portion of the airspace - even to VFR flights. Not only is it a new
cost, it provides the VFR pilot no benefit. I believe that two fully
compliant ADS-B Out aircraft flying VFR in that space can still bump into
each other. Hence the conclusion by some (such as myself) that the mandate
costs and benefits are not equitable nor reasonable. (I also dislike the
technology because it relies on GPS.)

Anyway, finally got around to submitting my comments (hopefully in time).
They weren't terribly coherent or compelling, but what the heck.


Apparently you may need a GPS/WAAS (TSOd) receiver as well. Add in
that cost if you don't have one.

Ron Lee

  #10  
Old March 4th 08, 05:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default Just two days left to try to stop an expensive and worthlessFAA mandate on ADS-B

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:31:05 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

I just did a quick scan of the DoD comments posted today
(FAA-2007-29305- 0154.1) and it looks like they are complaining about
the cost or unlikelyhood of retrofitting some of their aircraft to be in
compliance. Hmmm.


And those are real issues. I wish there was some magic wand to wave to
drop the price.

[...]
Nit: I'm not clear how transponders in two otherwise NORDO aircraft
stops either from bumping into each other. Or to what extent transponder
(or ADS- B Out) equipped aircraft prevent MACs near or at non-towered
airports.


You're right that the benefit is limited to the owner that chooses to do
the minimum. That's the bad side of this. But it's the "cost" of having
owners foot the bill for building this "network", I'm afraid.

One alternative to this would be to mandate -IN as well as -OUT. I'm
glad that that's not being done, in that it gives the owner more choice.
To my mind, the mandate covers the minimum necessary to build the network
that makes the benefits available to anyone taking the next step. W/o
the mandate, that benefit would be far more limited.

Separate from this, the GA owner can choose whether or not to spend the
extra dollars to gain direct benefit from this network.


My understanding is that if they want to fly VFR above 10,000 MSL they
will be required to have ADS-B Out. This is a _new_ cost requirement for
using that portion of the airspace - even to VFR flights. Not only is it
a new cost, it provides the VFR pilot no benefit.


That is true. But as I've written, this mandate is necessary so that the
benefit of ADS-B-IN be available. That's why I compare this to
transponders: it provides benefit to aircraft participating in
transponder-in (ie. taking to ATC {8^) but an aircraft can choose to not
participate.

- Andrew
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-Owners insurance- Worthless? Matt Herron Jr. Soaring 13 January 13th 07 10:50 PM
Used Cessna 150M Mixture Cable On Ebay 2 days Left NW_PILOT Products 0 April 3rd 06 08:13 AM
Used Cessna 150M Mixture Cable On Ebay 2 days Left NW_PILOT Aviation Marketplace 0 April 3rd 06 08:13 AM
Ethanol Mandate for Iowa? Jay Honeck Piloting 155 October 4th 05 03:17 PM
Bendix King's worthless GPS loader software Ryan Ferguson Owning 6 July 21st 03 05:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.