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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
From "AVweb":
"Risks" identified by a DOT's Office of Inspector General (IG) report earlier this month "will impact the cost, schedule, and expected benefits of ADS-B" and may feed off of each other until addressed by the FAA. The Inspector General said the greatest risks to successful implementation "are airspace users' reluctance to purchase and install new avionics" and "FAA's ability to define requirements" for the advanced capabilities of that equipment. The FAA has estimated overall costs on the user end could range from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion overall. And the FAA currently plans to mandate only ADS-B Out by 2020. However, ADS-B Out "essentially replicates existing domestic radar coverage," meaning adopters would bear a cost but see few new benefits. The main benefits of ADS-B rely on in-cockpit ADS-B In. But the IG estimates FAA requirements and equipment costs for that feature "may not be mature for at least two years." According to the IG, so long as that mix of uncertainties remain, "progress with ADS-B will be limited" and delays, cost increases and performance shortfalls "will continue." There are other complications and the FAA has responded. Aside from the cockpit side of ADS-B, the IG says integrating ADS-B on controllers' displays also presents a significant and yet unmet challenge. And on the foundation level, the IG says the FAA has failed to update its cost-benefit analysis structure to ensure the most cost- effective approach to implementation. The FAA has also not yet assessed "staffing gaps or actions needed" to provide oversight once the ground system is in place and being used to manage air traffic, according to the IG. The report notes that the FAA is making progress refining how ADS-B is put to work with airspace users, and makes recommendations "to help FAA reduce risk" with the program's oversight and implementation. The FAA agreed in full with seven of the nine recommendations and has put forth plans to addressed them and meet with the IG's approval. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
On 11/1/2010 6:50 AM, bildan wrote:
From "AVweb": The FAA has estimated overall costs on the user end could range from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion overall. And the FAA currently plans to mandate only ADS-B Out by 2020. However, ADS-B Out "essentially replicates existing domestic radar coverage," meaning adopters would bear a cost but see few new benefits. I'm reminded of the situation that has existed with personal computers for decades: advanced computers with more powerful processors (8 bit, then 16 bit, 32 bit, and now 64 bit) appear on the market years before the software is able to take advantage of the added power. While proponents of ADS-B point at how well the hardware (ground stations, e.g.) is being implemented, it appears the people, protocols, and software are lagging significantly behind. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
On Nov 1, 10:59*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 11/1/2010 6:50 AM, bildan wrote: *From "AVweb": The FAA has estimated overall costs on the user end could range from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion overall. And the FAA currently plans to mandate only ADS-B Out by 2020. However, ADS-B Out "essentially replicates existing domestic radar coverage," meaning adopters would bear a cost but see few new benefits. I'm reminded of the situation that has existed with personal computers for decades: advanced computers with more powerful processors (8 bit, then 16 bit, 32 bit, and now 64 bit) appear on the market years before the software is able to take advantage of the added power. While proponents of ADS-B point at how well the hardware (ground stations, e.g.) is being implemented, it appears the people, protocols, and software are lagging significantly behind. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) The computer analogy can also be useful from another prospective. I often find people talking about ADS-B, 1090ES or UAT technology in general as solving some problem. But that's an area we need to be careful. The analogy I use sometimes is ADS-B/1090ES/UAT devices are like having an network cable box or MODEM (remember them?). In the old days there was very limited connectivity. Things got better as online services and private networks and then the Internet provided connectivity between users. But what you can do with that depends on what computers and application software is on your end of that network connection and what it connects to on the other end. And the same is true of ADS-B. i.e. it depends on FAA ground infrastructure for ADS-R, TIS-B, FIS-B and ADS-B Surveillance services and things like display of traffic and warning of threat are a software application and the details/features of that go well beyond just how the data gets over the network. Just saying your computer is connected to the internet does not tell you anything about how your banking application will work etc. Darryl |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
On 11/1/2010 12:59 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 11/1/2010 6:50 AM, bildan wrote: From "AVweb": The FAA has estimated overall costs on the user end could range from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion overall. And the FAA currently plans to mandate only ADS-B Out by 2020. However, ADS-B Out "essentially replicates existing domestic radar coverage," meaning adopters would bear a cost but see few new benefits. I'm reminded of the situation that has existed with personal computers for decades: advanced computers with more powerful processors (8 bit, then 16 bit, 32 bit, and now 64 bit) appear on the market years before the software is able to take advantage of the added power. While proponents of ADS-B point at how well the hardware (ground stations, e.g.) is being implemented, it appears the people, protocols, and software are lagging significantly behind. Again, most people of mixing together ADS-B and "Nextgen" in the same bucket. ADS-B is a very small and limited part of the FAA's Nextgen plan. It is purely a position reporting infrastructure, part of which is on the aircraft (either a 1090ES or UAT transmitter with an optional receiver). The other part is a network of ground stations which are interfaced with the existing ATC infrastructure so that controllers can see ADS-B equipped aircraft on their scopes and conversely, so that the ground stations can transmit TIS-B info for Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft to ADS-B IN equipped planes. The ADS-B part of Nextgen is clearly defined and is being deployed as we speak. The ground stations are being deployed, and the interfaces to the existing ATC infrastructure have been designed, tested, and are being implemented as the ground stations are being installed. Slowly, we are seeing the introduction of ADS-B IN and OUT compliant avionics coming onto the market. Again, the technology exists and is currently being deployed. The big problem is cost and affordability, both for GA and the big iron. A big part of this problem is due to the overly cumbersome certification and TSO requirements that the FAA has established for this equipment. The big uncertainties that everyone is talking about are the additional Nexgen components that the FAA is planning to completely redesign how they control IFR aircraft to increase direct routings, permit direct descent profiles, etc. to hopefully provide significant fuel burn savings to the airlines. This redesign is enabled by the increased resolution and accuracy provided by the ADS-B avionics, vs what can be resolved by conventional radars interrogating Mode C/S transponders. For situational awareness in a VFR environment, the bigger Nextgen issues are completely irrelevant. What is important is that we can see other aircraft and they, and ATC, can see us. That part of ADS-B works. The challenge is to get the price down so that people will actually buy it before they are forced to in 2020 or beyond. -- Mike Schumann |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
On Nov 1, 12:01*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote: On 11/1/2010 12:59 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote: On 11/1/2010 6:50 AM, bildan wrote: From "AVweb": [snip] For situational awareness in a VFR environment, the bigger Nextgen issues are completely irrelevant. *What is important is that we can see other aircraft and they, and ATC, can see us. *That part of ADS-B works.. * The challenge is to get the price down so that people will actually buy it before they are forced to in 2020 or beyond. "That part of ADS-B works?"... What "part" of the things you were talking about works and do you mean like they works now? And where? Or are you talking about works in concept. The FAA surveillance service part of the ADS-B deployment is being rolled out. Besides Philly terminal services (and GOMEX?). I know Florida has ADS-B terminal services coverage but it that essential service and critical services within those terminals? And the enroute segment has critical and essential as well? Knowing where there there is FAA ATC surveillance coverage today via ADS-B is pretty important qualifier in the claim "..and ATC, can see us...That part of ADS-B works.". I believe the FAA claims those terminal and enroute deployments for critical services will be complete in 2013. But the details/progress on the FAA "critical services" surveillance integration in the ADS-B technology works is exactly one of the concerns in the IG report. e.g. see the section "Integrating ADS-B with FAA’s Existing Automation Systems for Controllers Could Delay Its Implementation" in the report. And the "we can see other aircraft" part only works if the other aircraft is properly equipped and that is hampered by all the other adoption problems, costs, STC/TSO etc. that slow adoption in the GA fleet, enough so that you don't have Metcalf's law working in your favor to help build adoption. Like above for ADS-B survelience.. where are the FAA critical service actually deployed now so that ADS-R services are available so a UAT equipped aircraft can see a 1090ES equipped aircraft? That's another "critical service" so not in today's en-route essential service rollouts. OK so for now the best we have in those regions is TIS-B, which SSR terminal radars pump out data to TIS-B today? The issues around the dual-link layers in the USA that mean at low altitudes (like in the traffic pattern of many GA airports) and in other areas an UAT and 1090ES equipped aircraft can't see each other even if fully equipped with data-in and out devices. That is one of the issues that make ADS-B data-in adoption problematic in GA aircraft and something that has worried AOPA and others. So I would not claim that part of ADS-B "works" either--not without lots of caveats. I recommend anybody interested to read the report itself at http://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/5415 and make your own conclusions. Darryl |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
On Nov 1, 3:49*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:01*pm, Mike Schumann wrote: On 11/1/2010 12:59 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote: *On 11/1/2010 6:50 AM, bildan wrote: From "AVweb": [snip] For situational awareness in a VFR environment, the bigger Nextgen issues are completely irrelevant. *What is important is that we can see other aircraft and they, and ATC, can see us. *That part of ADS-B works. * The challenge is to get the price down so that people will actually buy it before they are forced to in 2020 or beyond. "That part of ADS-B works?"... What "part" of the things you were talking about works and do you mean like they works now? And where? Or are you talking about works in concept. The FAA surveillance service part of the ADS-B deployment is being rolled out. Besides Philly terminal services (and GOMEX?). I know Florida has ADS-B terminal services coverage but it that essential service and critical services within those terminals? And the enroute segment has critical and essential as well? Knowing where there there is FAA ATC surveillance coverage today via ADS-B is pretty important qualifier in the claim "..and ATC, can see us...That part of ADS-B works.". I believe the FAA claims those terminal and enroute deployments for critical services will be complete in 2013. But the details/progress on the FAA "critical services" surveillance integration in the ADS-B technology works is exactly one of the concerns in the IG report. e.g. see the section "Integrating ADS-B with FAA’s Existing Automation Systems for Controllers Could Delay Its Implementation" in the report. And the "we can see other aircraft" part only works if the other aircraft is properly equipped and that is hampered by all the other adoption problems, costs, STC/TSO etc. that slow adoption in the GA fleet, enough so that you don't have Metcalf's law working in your favor to help build adoption. Like above for ADS-B survelience.. where are the FAA critical service actually deployed now so that ADS-R services are available so a UAT equipped aircraft can see a 1090ES equipped aircraft? That's another "critical service" so not in today's en-route essential service rollouts. OK so for now the best we have in those regions is TIS-B, which SSR terminal radars pump out data to TIS-B today? The issues around the dual-link layers in the USA that mean at low altitudes (like in the traffic pattern of many GA airports) and in other areas an UAT and 1090ES equipped aircraft can't see each other even if fully equipped with data-in and out devices. That is one of the issues that make ADS-B data-in adoption problematic in GA aircraft and something that has worried AOPA and others. So I would not claim that part of ADS-B "works" either--not without lots of caveats. I recommend anybody interested to read the report itself athttp://www.oig..dot.gov/library-item/5415and make your own conclusions. Darryl All one really has to do is look at the FAA's track record in implementing big systems. It is absolutely dismal (anyone remember the FAA Microwave Landing Systems fiasco from a couple of decade ago?). If the FAA said they had something in and operating at my local airport, I would be absolutely amazed if whatever was supposed to be there actually arrived within another 2-3 years, and flabbergasted if it worked at all when it did. Depending on an FAA schedule and an FAA assessment of capabilities is demonstrably ridiculous. We may well find that Power FLARM doesn't arrive next April as advertised, but I'll take anyone's wager at 10:1 odds that it will arrive and work long before ADS-B has anything practical for glider-on-glider or GA-on-glider or glider-on-GA collision avoidance. TA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More On "Significant Risks" Implementing ADS-B
On Nov 1, 4:05*pm, Frank wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:49*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Nov 1, 12:01*pm, Mike Schumann wrote: On 11/1/2010 12:59 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote: *On 11/1/2010 6:50 AM, bildan wrote: From "AVweb": [snip] For situational awareness in a VFR environment, the bigger Nextgen issues are completely irrelevant. *What is important is that we can see other aircraft and they, and ATC, can see us. *That part of ADS-B works. * The challenge is to get the price down so that people will actually buy it before they are forced to in 2020 or beyond. "That part of ADS-B works?"... What "part" of the things you were talking about works and do you mean like they works now? And where? Or are you talking about works in concept. The FAA surveillance service part of the ADS-B deployment is being rolled out. Besides Philly terminal services (and GOMEX?). I know Florida has ADS-B terminal services coverage but it that essential service and critical services within those terminals? And the enroute segment has critical and essential as well? Knowing where there there is FAA ATC surveillance coverage today via ADS-B is pretty important qualifier in the claim "..and ATC, can see us...That part of ADS-B works.". I believe the FAA claims those terminal and enroute deployments for critical services will be complete in 2013. But the details/progress on the FAA "critical services" surveillance integration in the ADS-B technology works is exactly one of the concerns in the IG report. e.g. see the section "Integrating ADS-B with FAA’s Existing Automation Systems for Controllers Could Delay Its Implementation" in the report. And the "we can see other aircraft" part only works if the other aircraft is properly equipped and that is hampered by all the other adoption problems, costs, STC/TSO etc. that slow adoption in the GA fleet, enough so that you don't have Metcalf's law working in your favor to help build adoption. Like above for ADS-B survelience.. where are the FAA critical service actually deployed now so that ADS-R services are available so a UAT equipped aircraft can see a 1090ES equipped aircraft? That's another "critical service" so not in today's en-route essential service rollouts. OK so for now the best we have in those regions is TIS-B, which SSR terminal radars pump out data to TIS-B today? The issues around the dual-link layers in the USA that mean at low altitudes (like in the traffic pattern of many GA airports) and in other areas an UAT and 1090ES equipped aircraft can't see each other even if fully equipped with data-in and out devices. That is one of the issues that make ADS-B data-in adoption problematic in GA aircraft and something that has worried AOPA and others. So I would not claim that part of ADS-B "works" either--not without lots of caveats. I recommend anybody interested to read the report itself athttp://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/5415andmake your own conclusions. Darryl All one really has to do is look at the FAA's track record in implementing big systems. *It is absolutely dismal (anyone remember the FAA Microwave Landing Systems fiasco from a couple of decade ago?). *If the FAA said they had something in and operating at my local airport, I would be absolutely amazed if whatever was supposed to be there actually arrived within another 2-3 years, and flabbergasted if it worked at all when it did. Depending on an FAA schedule and an FAA assessment of capabilities is demonstrably ridiculous. *We may well find that Power FLARM doesn't arrive next April as advertised, but I'll take anyone's wager at 10:1 odds that it will arrive and work long before ADS-B has anything practical for glider-on-glider or GA-on-glider or glider-on-GA collision avoidance. TA I remember MLS becase it was technology from Australia where I grew up and was talked about all through the late 1970s etc and the next big thing in aviation. See http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/MLS%20I...Stern%2078.htm Not FAA really but do people remember the Bendix/King VDL Datalink receivers (confusingly called FIS-B as well)? The weather etc. data system that was supposed to appeal to GA that had poor low-level coverage and nobody used and was recently turned off (https:// http://www.bendixking.com/wingman/se...talinkweather). And now ADS-B FIS-B is effectively an updated version of the same thing, but with basic graphical data for free (the Bendix/King service provided graphical data for a fee, text data free). And ADS-B FIS-B is supposed to be an attraction to GA users to adopt UAT. Except users who really want this are probalby already using XM Weather (at a pretty reasonable fee - and if they are wiling to pay a fee they probalby want it hard enough they likely want it to work everywhere) and XM Weather does not have issues like lack of coverage at low altitudes/remote areas or on the ground before flight. Still I do like the SkyRadar's iPad application over WiFi in the cockpit to their UAT receiver--but will suffers for some people like not being more integrated with a navigation system or flight bag app. Maybe over time it will becomes trivial to add this capability in other systems for very low cost. Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"VideO Madness" ( Soldiers...) "GoD Hates FAGS!!! (He sO righteOusly DoES)" | Colonel Jake | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 1st 10 12:14 AM |
Canadian Plans for Implementing Flight Simulator Training | Piet Barber | Soaring | 1 | February 5th 10 03:37 PM |
they are opening minus significant, prior to far, out of fine goodss | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | August 12th 07 10:11 PM |
Who has started implementing the TSA rule? | David Brooks | Piloting | 24 | October 28th 04 01:56 AM |