Capstone

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187369

How much longer are we supposed to be happy for a bunch of frozen
piper pilots on government technological welfare ?

If ADS-B saves lives, deploy it. Or shut the hell up. Just my
2 cents.

Scott Moore wrote:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187369

How much longer are we supposed to be happy for a bunch of frozen
piper pilots on government technological welfare ?

If ADS-B saves lives, deploy it. Or shut the hell up. Just my
2 cents.

More stupid stuff that ****es me off:

http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-0...B-Overview.pdf

The "final link decision" is "in", in a document that has the ability to
"copy" (cut and paste) disabled (thanks):

o Two ADS-B technologies are selected for use in the NAS: 109ES and UAT

o Aircraft that fly in high altitude airspace would equip with 1090ES

o General Aviation aircraft that are not capable of high altitude operations
would equip with UAT.

o Interoperability between the links will be provided within coverage of the
ground ADS-B infrastructure using the multilink gateway service provided via the
TIS-B uplink (ground to air).

Translation: BIG AIRCRAFT AND SMALL WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK TO EACH OTHER. Instead,
the data will all go through the FAA radar site.

Gee, I thought the whole idea of ADS-B was to get a system that didn't need to
depend on radar !

Further, this moronic doublespeak ignores that UAT is installed, let me think,
oh yea, NOWHERE OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED TESTS IN GODDAM FROZEN NOPLACE.
Whereas a lot of us foolishly bought mode-s to get TIS DATA, which is how, by the
by, the "gateway" service the radar terminal provides is supposed to work.

This means: you bought mode-s to get TIS ? Yea, TIS is a good idea, but mode-s
ain't it. You messed up ! That'll teach you to try and predict what the FAA
will do !

Finally, yes you MAY use your mode-s for ADS-B - if you can prove you can fly
high in that thar airplane. Or perhaps private planes are supposed to carry
both, and switch over at a certain altitude ??!!!

Heres what really happened:

FAA: we want you all to use UAT. We spent big bucks funding it.

AIRLINES: No way. We already believed your last insipid line and bought
mode-s for everyone. We are staying mode-s.

FAA: well, we need SOME little defenseless aviation group to jam it to,
lets see.....

Typical beaurocrat nonsense. Try and give everyone what they want, and end up
screwing everyone.

Hey airlines, you didn't make out so good on the deal, either. You have
TWAS in spades to detect other large peices of metal, and even small
peices of metal. Say, does it make sense to make sure the little peices
of metal can't see you, even if you can see them ?

Also, yes, you big airplanes come and go with radar. How sure are you
that you will never encounter a light airplane outside the radar sphere ?
Radars go on the blink, as well, and they get shadowed by other airplanes
and mountains.

So what do you recommend? whats the solution?

Dave

Scott Moore wrote:

Scott Moore wrote:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187369

How much longer are we supposed to be happy for a bunch of frozen
piper pilots on government technological welfare ?

If ADS-B saves lives, deploy it. Or shut the hell up. Just my
2 cents.


More stupid stuff that ****es me off:

http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-0...B-Overview.pdf

The "final link decision" is "in", in a document that has the ability to
"copy" (cut and paste) disabled (thanks):

o Two ADS-B technologies are selected for use in the NAS: 109ES and UAT

o Aircraft that fly in high altitude airspace would equip with 1090ES

o General Aviation aircraft that are not capable of high altitude
operations
would equip with UAT.

o Interoperability between the links will be provided within coverage of
the
ground ADS-B infrastructure using the multilink gateway service provided
via the
TIS-B uplink (ground to air).

Translation: BIG AIRCRAFT AND SMALL WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
Instead,
the data will all go through the FAA radar site.

Gee, I thought the whole idea of ADS-B was to get a system that didn't
need to
depend on radar !

Further, this moronic doublespeak ignores that UAT is installed, let me
think,
oh yea, NOWHERE OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED TESTS IN GODDAM FROZEN
NOPLACE.
Whereas a lot of us foolishly bought mode-s to get TIS DATA, which is
how, by the
by, the "gateway" service the radar terminal provides is supposed to work.

This means: you bought mode-s to get TIS ? Yea, TIS is a good idea, but
mode-s
ain't it. You messed up ! That'll teach you to try and predict what the FAA
will do !

Finally, yes you MAY use your mode-s for ADS-B - if you can prove you
can fly
high in that thar airplane. Or perhaps private planes are supposed to carry
both, and switch over at a certain altitude ??!!!

Heres what really happened:

FAA: we want you all to use UAT. We spent big bucks funding it.

AIRLINES: No way. We already believed your last insipid line and bought
mode-s for everyone. We are staying mode-s.

FAA: well, we need SOME little defenseless aviation group to jam it to,
lets see.....

Typical beaurocrat nonsense. Try and give everyone what they want, and
end up
screwing everyone.

Hey airlines, you didn't make out so good on the deal, either. You have
TWAS in spades to detect other large peices of metal, and even small
peices of metal. Say, does it make sense to make sure the little peices
of metal can't see you, even if you can see them ?

Also, yes, you big airplanes come and go with radar. How sure are you
that you will never encounter a light airplane outside the radar sphere ?
Radars go on the blink, as well, and they get shadowed by other airplanes
and mountains.

Dave S wrote:
So what do you recommend? whats the solution?

Dave


I cleaned up my language a bit, then sent my tirade off to Phil Boyer :-)

He gave me a short note, then promised me an "in depth" note from their
staff expert on the subject. I believe the gist of it is that the AOPA
has fought tooth and nail to keep the mode-s requirement out of light
airplanes due to individual airplane ids and their potential for for
fees and misuse (imagine the "stop the noise" zelots having the ability
to get an N number automatically).

I don't mind adding a UAT, if that is what it takes. I mind the apparent,
from reading the FAA material, dogma that light airplanes shall have
UAT and big airplanes shall have mode-s, and the FAA shall act as the
bridge between the two (ha !).

All kinds of "what to do" things occur to me, but each seems to be
centered around a group with an interest who does not want to move.

o Allow "anonymous mode-s", and so remove the light pilot/AOPA objection
to mode-s ? This has been proposed many times in many places. Apparently
the FAA would rather die than this, but why are they (apparently) going
to allow UAT to so do, but not mode-s ?

o Require UAT on airlines, so that everyone speaks the same language, and
UAT eventually replaces mode-s as a more advanced method ? I could hardly
blame the airlines for fighting that one. The FAA just got through requiring
them to buy into mode-s. It would put the airlines into the position
of buying the "black box of the month" as the FAA changes with the wind.

o Require light airplanes to have both ? Time for us to scream, I guess, but
that is where I am headed anyways, since I was stupid enough to buy mode-s
(for TIS).

In any case, it appears that the FAA, the AOPA and the airlines have all
already come to the solution:

o Airlines have mode-s, we have UAT, and the friendly FAA will translate
between the two, but only under radar control (neatly severing the non-radar
reliant feature off ADS-B). The theory is, I guess, that airlines allways
travel under radar so it won't matter in any cass.

o Light airplanes unlucky enough to have high altitude capability would
need both mode-s and UAT. This would also apply to a huge number of
jets and even heavy aircraft, since there are a lot of light jets and
passenger aircraft servicing smaller, non-radar fields.

In short, it will be a mess, and the FAA has a plan, the beauty and
simplicity of which clearly escapes me.

"Say Tex, wasn't that a heavy that nearly ran us down ?"

"why yes, we need to turn our mode-s on ! And I think the UAT off ?
or is it mode-UAT ?"

"which one of them switches is that ?"

"never mind, they are gone anyways..."

In article yjstc.9901$Ly.7087@attbi_s01, Scott Moore
wrote:

o Allow "anonymous mode-s", and so remove the light pilot/AOPA objection
to mode-s ? This has been proposed many times in many places. Apparently
the FAA would rather die than this, but why are they (apparently) going
to allow UAT to so do, but not mode-s ?

Mode-S doesn't have a provision for "anonymous." And changing
the specs for Mode-S would be, ahem, challenging. It's not
actually an FAA issue.



o Require UAT on airlines, so that everyone speaks the same language, and
UAT eventually replaces mode-s as a more advanced method ? I could hardly
blame the airlines for fighting that one. The FAA just got through
requiring
them to buy into mode-s. It would put the airlines into the position
of buying the "black box of the month" as the FAA changes with the wind.

bingo. The airlines had to install expensive tcas systems and
have to have Mode-S for that and other systems (for flight in Europe
and other areas). The airlines will fight tooth-n-nail requirements
to install duplicative systems.


In any case, it appears that the FAA, the AOPA and the airlines have all
already come to the solution:

not much of a solution...

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

In article yjstc.9901$Ly.7087@attbi_s01, Scott Moore
wrote:


o Allow "anonymous mode-s", and so remove the light pilot/AOPA objection
to mode-s ? This has been proposed many times in many places. Apparently
the FAA would rather die than this, but why are they (apparently) going
to allow UAT to so do, but not mode-s ?


Mode-S doesn't have a provision for "anonymous." And changing
the specs for Mode-S would be, ahem, challenging. It's not
actually an FAA issue.

Well, I do understand the issue, but not why anonymous is so hard. The
shop programs the N number, right ? What is to prevent them from declaring
a "universal" N number (the equivalent of 1200) and just programming all
"protestants" with that on request ?




o Require UAT on airlines, so that everyone speaks the same language, and
UAT eventually replaces mode-s as a more advanced method ? I could hardly
blame the airlines for fighting that one. The FAA just got through
requiring
them to buy into mode-s. It would put the airlines into the position
of buying the "black box of the month" as the FAA changes with the wind.


bingo. The airlines had to install expensive tcas systems and
have to have Mode-S for that and other systems (for flight in Europe
and other areas). The airlines will fight tooth-n-nail requirements
to install duplicative systems.



In any case, it appears that the FAA, the AOPA and the airlines have all
already come to the solution:


not much of a solution...

"Scott Moore" wrote in message newstttc.5331$eY2.1195@attbi_s02...
Well, I do understand the issue, but not why anonymous is so hard. The
shop programs the N number, right ? What is to prevent them from declaring
a "universal" N number (the equivalent of 1200) and just programming all
"protestants" with that on request ?

The shop doesn't program N-number. They program a mode S id that corresponds
to the N number in the FAA database. I'm not sure mode S is prepared to deal with
duplicate ID's so you just can't set them to blank, you'd need unique anonymous ID's.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message =
. ..
=20
"Scott Moore" wrote in message =
newstttc.5331$eY2.1195@attbi_s02...
Well, I do understand the issue, but not why anonymous is so hard. =
The
shop programs the N number, right ? What is to prevent them from =
declaring
a "universal" N number (the equivalent of 1200) and just programming =
all
"protestants" with that on request ?
=20
The shop doesn't program N-number. They program a mode S id that =
corresponds
to the N number in the FAA database. I'm not sure mode S is prepared =
to deal with
duplicate ID's so you just can't set them to blank, you'd need unique =
anonymous ID's.
=20

My Ryan TCAD displays the N-number of Mode-S aircraft.
It certainly has no access to the FAA database you mentioned.
If "the shop" doesn't program the N-number, who does?
---JRC---

No they don't. That is how it is supposed to work, but it doesn't. The shop
programs in the "N" number. My approval just came back from the FAA for the
Garmin 330.

Karl
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
newstttc.5331$eY2.1195@attbi_s02...
Well, I do understand the issue, but not why anonymous is so hard. The
shop programs the N number, right ? What is to prevent them from
declaring
a "universal" N number (the equivalent of 1200) and just programming all
"protestants" with that on request ?

The shop doesn't program N-number. They program a mode S id that
corresponds
to the N number in the FAA database. I'm not sure mode S is prepared to
deal with
duplicate ID's so you just can't set them to blank, you'd need unique
anonymous ID's.

Ron Natalie wrote:
"Scott Moore" wrote in message newstttc.5331$eY2.1195@attbi_s02...

Well, I do understand the issue, but not why anonymous is so hard. The
shop programs the N number, right ? What is to prevent them from declaring
a "universal" N number (the equivalent of 1200) and just programming all
"protestants" with that on request ?


The shop doesn't program N-number. They program a mode S id that corresponds
to the N number in the FAA database. I'm not sure mode S is prepared to deal with
duplicate ID's so you just can't set them to blank, you'd need unique anonymous ID's.


Dosen't a UAT have a similar requirement ?