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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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