New MOAs proposed near Marine Corp base and Mt Patterson

Can you get info on the targets?

In my Stemme and C-180 I have many different displays.Â* I can usually
get information which includes ICAO code (least informative), airline
flight number (not military), and N-number (also not military).Â* By
simple elimination one might assume the ICAO only code might be
military.Â* But you know about ass-u-me...

On 10/10/2019 10:58 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
Â* I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B
receiver in the Bay Area.

My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway
to tell the target is a military aircraft? Same question for the
Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E - can I determine a target is a military
aircraft (I have the simple rectangular display that just shows little
triangles)?


--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 9:59:01 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B receiver in the Bay Area.

My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway to tell the
target is a military aircraft? Same question for the Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E -
can I determine a target is a military aircraft (I have the simple rectangular
display that just shows little triangles)?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
The way I tell they are military is: if they look very much like an F16 or F18, and flying in formation below me, then I conclude they are military. Or If it looks a lot like a C5A. Seen both of those a few times up pretty close, and they never appear on any display. A lot of airliners, and most biz jets appear without fail. 2G thinks all these aircraft will be grounded come Jan 1, but somehow I doubt that.

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Can you get info on the targets?

In my Stemme and C-180 I have many different displays.Â* I can usually
get information which includes ICAO code (least informative), airline
flight number (not military), and N-number (also not military).Â* By
simple elimination one might assume the ICAO only code might be
military.Â* But you know about ass-u-me...

On 10/10/2019 10:58 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
Â* I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B
receiver in the Bay Area.

My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway
to tell the target is a military aircraft? Same question for the
Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E - can I determine a target is a military
aircraft (I have the simple rectangular display that just shows little
triangles)?


--
Dan, 5J

It's good to assume assuming is not always good. :-)

The formal identification data available via ADS-B (either UAT or 109ES) is

ICAO ID
Ident Characters (8 characters): The Flight Number or N-Number (targets don't transmit both).

You can also see any assigned squawk code and if the ident button has been recently pressed.

The ICAO ID can be super telling *if* you have access to the correct registration and/ or past observation databases, meaning typically on the ground connected to a computer. Just knowing if the ICAO address fits within a military reserved block may tell you if this is a military aircraft. That's the primary technique used to identify military traffic in this intersting paper on Military and State aircraft ADS-B traffic: https://opensky-network.org/files/pu...ons/dasc17.pdf In Europe disabling ADS-B Out for those aircraft has been a hot-topic of discussion.

There is a lot of other *potentially* telling information broadcast via ADS-B, e.g."emitter category" (e.g. heavy aircraft based in MTOW, light aircraft, sailplane, ... while nothing there says "military" directly the emitter category being say UAV or Highly Maneuverable ( 5 G and 400 TAS) could clue you in in some cases, wingspan and length (transmitted only on the ground), If it is 1090ES In or UAT In equipped, if it has TCAS, you can possibly tell something about how sophisticated it's avionics etc. e.g. wether transmitting GPS referenced velocity or/or air-referenced velocity, GPS altitude as well as pressure altitude, track data, etc. things there could make it possible to guess the level of sophistication and/or build up additional signatures to identify aircraft types.

Many airborne/end-user traffic systems don't display all this information, but it's all visible in open data to folks with the right tools, and/or a little programming skills--I modified dump1090 for example to gives me anything I want. I was going to show off some of that data, including watching some live ADS-R and TIS-B traffic processing, at the upcoming PASCO seminar.... but the seminar location has maybe the worst ADS-B tower ground coverage in SF Bay Area :-(

There can also be some extra data transmitted via Mode-S *without* ADS-B being involved that could also help give data on sophistication/capabilities of the aircraft. A TT21/22 in a glider can't do this, but sophisticated Mode-S transponder systems, (*independent* of ADS-B Out) can potentially transmit heading, track, roll rate, ground speed, airspeed, or FMS altitude select. etc. All possibly more fingerprinting clues.

I have a lot of empathy for the military operators here, ADS-B is a very surprising system, implemented with no fundamental encryption/authentication/security mechanisms. That's part of the publicly documented military concerns, it must be very strange for those military folks living in a modern IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) world, many of who recently upgraded to Mode 5 and are dealing with secure Mode 5 key provisioning etc. and then see this ball of unsecure/unauthenticated/wide open tangled string the FAA expects them to adopt.

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 8:36:07 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Does THIS
shed any light?




On 10/9/2019 5:55 PM, 2G wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:29:06 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:


On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:


On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:


On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
[snip]


I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.



That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.

14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or

...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.

And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/0...air-force-says


You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:

(f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -

(1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or

(2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.

So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
The statement WAS CORRECT!


I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?


Any aircraft, military or not, WILL have to have ADS-B out installed to fly in rule airspace on Jan 1, and I presume this covers most military aircraft. And the equipment must be operating UNLESS they fall into a very narrow mission exception.

I am curious as to how you know that "the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?" Are you referring to just military aircraft or all aircraft?





--

Dan, 5J

Dan

That is a brilliant document, I wish I had referenced it :-) The second page shows what a mess this all is, and makes it clear the actual intent here is *not* a narrow per-flight exclusion of need to use ADS-B out... even if that is what the regulation may seem to say. The regulations are kinda amusing, they say nothing about how permission is obtained, how frequently, for how long etc., and to somebody already confused could imply the likely reverse of the real situation... a narrow per-situation exclusion only (uh nope) vs. wide scale military non-use (likely). There are also apparently further ongoing negations underway about how the military is not able to comply with the 2020 Mandate, but for now this regulatory change provides one exclusion tool for to help with that.

Back to the thread, I hope everyone took the time to fill in a comment to the FAA on this. I did. The main point, I think, is to make them aware of the vast amount of glider traffic through this MOA, which they are probably not aware of at all. I pointed them to OLC, but if someone more energetic than me wanted to put some facts traces and numbers together it might be more persuasive. In any case, regulators do track public comments, and they become part of the public record. If there are incidents, it is much better if we can point to hundreds of "we told you so" warnings.

John Cochrane

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:14:17 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Back to the thread, I hope everyone took the time to fill in a comment to the FAA on this. I did. The main point, I think, is to make them aware of the vast amount of glider traffic through this MOA, which they are probably not aware of at all. I pointed them to OLC, but if someone more energetic than me wanted to put some facts traces and numbers together it might be more persuasive. In any case, regulators do track public comments, and they become part of the public record. If there are incidents, it is much better if we can point to hundreds of "we told you so" warnings.

John Cochrane

They likely don't care about glider traffic thru the proposed MOA, which they are currently flying in anyway. A "told you so" mentality is childish - you are still required to observe VFR rules (as are they), namely "see and be seen." Sure you can comment, but I guarantee this will have zero affect on their decision (they are merely going thru the regulatory steps that is mandated). Equip your gliders with a transponder and PowerFlarm (if you haven't already done so), which will alert you to other targets.

Tom

On 10/11/2019 9:57 PM, 2G wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:14:17 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Back to the thread, I hope everyone took the time to fill in a comment to the FAA on this. I did. The main point, I think, is to make them aware of the vast amount of glider traffic through this MOA, which they are probably not aware of at all. I pointed them to OLC, but if someone more energetic than me wanted to put some facts traces and numbers together it might be more persuasive. In any case, regulators do track public comments, and they become part of the public record. If there are incidents, it is much better if we can point to hundreds of "we told you so" warnings.

John Cochrane
They likely don't care about glider traffic thru the proposed MOA, which they are currently flying in anyway. A "told you so" mentality is childish - you are still required to observe VFR rules (as are they), namely "see and be seen." Sure you can comment, but I guarantee this will have zero affect on their decision (they are merely going thru the regulatory steps that is mandated). Equip your gliders with a transponder and PowerFlarm (if you haven't already done so), which will alert you to other targets.

Tom
.... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to
your presence.Â* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder.Â*
Get Mode S.
--
Dan, 5J

Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
.... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
presence.* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.

How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:51:31 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
.... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
presence.Â* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.

How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

None at all in practice.

And I expect Dan was giving general advice to buy new Mode S transponders, not new Mode C.

Let me try to say it how I would... If you are buying a new transponder for a glider get a Trig TT22. This is very specific advice... "not Mode S", not any other transponder.... There is *no* other compact transponder suitable for use in gliders in the USA that provide you with ADS-B Out options. Becker, Air-Avionics,.... none of them provide a Mode S transponder today that meets the 2020 14 CFR 91.227 technical requirements.

Using a Trig TT22 gives you all the options to upgrade to ADS-B Out if you want to do that now or in future, including TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out.

Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/12/2019 5:24 PM:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:51:31 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
.... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
presence.* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.

How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?

None at all in practice.

And I expect Dan was giving general advice to buy new Mode S transponders, not new Mode C.

Let me try to say it how I would... If you are buying a new transponder for a glider get a Trig TT22. This is very specific advice... "not Mode S", not any other transponder.... There is *no* other compact transponder suitable for use in gliders in the USA that provide you with ADS-B Out options. Becker, Air-Avionics,.... none of them provide a Mode S transponder today that meets the 2020 14 CFR 91.227 technical requirements.

Using a Trig TT22 gives you all the options to upgrade to ADS-B Out if you want to do that now or in future, including TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out.

But, but, but.. if a Mode C transponder is all you have or can afford that is *great* compared to nothing in environments like flying in the area being discussed. In practice, ground based SSR, TCAS, Military IFF interrogators will see your aircraft just as effectively as if you had a Mode S transponder. If you have ADS-B Out added to a TT22 then more GA aircraft will see you, and ATC may see you in areas normally outside of SSR coverage... although the particular area being discussed has significant holes in it's ADS-B ground receiver coverage as well.

One thing I ask folks who are upgrading older transponders like Becker ATC 4401 Mode C to a Trig TT22 is please find a junior pilot or other active local pilots who don't have or can't afford a transponder and give them your old transponder, or at least give them a deal they can't refuse.

If my 4401 would die, I'd definitely go for the TT-22 and a TABS system, ideally
with a ADS-B in display to get the radar images. But it keeps plugging along at 16
years of age...


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1