ADS-B Out rule published 28 May 2010

[Bob Noel]

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-12645.htm
"Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service"

More bad news for aircraft owners.

Well, this is one owner that won't be putting ADS-B in the airplane.
I'll cut the airplane up for scrap before I toss that much money
down a rathole. So, I have another nine or so years of ownership
left.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

AVweb's Posting

AOPA Posting in 2008:

FAA certifies Garmin transponders for ADS-B

By Dave Hirschman
The deadline is still a little more than 11 years away, but Garmin has received FAA certification for making its GTX 330 and GTX 33 transponders ADS-B compatible.
ADS-B (automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast) is the satellite-based technology backbone of the coming post-radar air traffic control system. The Garmin transponders will be equipped with 1090 MHz extended squitter (ES) capability that allows them to send aircraft speed, altitude, heading, and identity messages to ADS-B-equipped aircraft and ground stations. The company based in Olathe, Kan., is the first to receive FAA certification for ADS-B transponders designed for the general aviation market.
“We are proud to be the first to bring this important, backbone technology to general and business aviation, and are determined to continue innovating products that will offer customers an affordable way to comply with the FAA’s NextGen system requirements,” said Gary Kelley, Garmin’s vice president for marketing.
Current GTX 330 and GTX 33 owners will be able to retrofit existing Mode-S transponders and add ES capability. The transponders meet the FAA’s proposed requirements for ADS-B “out” signals. Another Garmin product, the GDL 90, is a Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) that also collects ADS-B “in” signals that show weather and traffic.
AOPA has asked the FAA to modify its ADS-B proposal so that GA pilots can get the safety benefits of cockpit weather and traffic at a realistic price. The FAA proposal would permit GA aircraft flying below 24,000 feet to choose either ES or UAT equipment. The FAA has proposed requiring aircraft flying in U.S. airspace to carry ADS-B equipment by 2020.
“This is another sign that ADS-B will be part of the future air traffic control system,” said Randy Kenagy, AOPA chief of staff for government affairs. “It makes all the sense in the world for manufacturers to take steps in anticipation of ADS-B. We remain committed to making sure that ADS-B is affordable and beneficial to our members.”

Hmm,.. Garmin GTX 330 = $4300

Guess it is time to change up the hourly reserve for Avionics to try and get some pennies in the piggy

 

[TMetzinger]

I note that 1090ES is required in Class A airspace, not the FL240 and up originally discussed. So if you've got a turbo/turbine engine you'll want that unit. I thought that 1090ES was a bone to the airlines but that UAT was the more robust standard and allowed much more data in as well as out.

If I'm understanding this stuff, then a typical GA turbo/turbine owner who wants to be able to operate in all airspace AND get the datalink upload of weather and such will need a unit that transmits and receives 1090ES (so they can play nice in Class A) and receives UAT (so they can get uploads and such).

Would really like to see some analysis on this one.

 

[mikea]

We won't get any sympathy from the public on this, you know.

When Mode C was mandated it was a much more considerable expense in today's dollars. As I remember it was $4000(?) in the 1970s(?).

The public still thinks the "rich airplane owners" were criminal for not wanting to spend the money to not prevent the PSA jet from running into the Cessna that ATC called out and they said they had in sight in VFR conditions.

 

[tonycondon]

well hopefully the SSA can make progress on the work they're doing with the FAA and Industry on developing a low cost ADS-B box

 

[Bob Noel]

well hopefully the SSA can make progress on the work they're doing with the FAA and Industry on developing a low cost ADS-B box

It's not just the ADS-B box, it's the cost of the GPS receiver...
and not just any GPS receiver, but one that is essentially
equivalent to a WAAS-certified installation.

 

[wsuffa]

And the Garmin 330ES is certified to the older TSO standard, not the one adopted in the new rules.

Anyone who has one will either need to upgrade or (assuming that the changes are minor) have a software update.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

We only have to be ADS-B OUT though, not In and Out, so no need to expense extra for the full system if a transponder software update or replacement can get the OUT signal going.

Still, for those with planes having engines near TBO, and now a requirement to upgrade something in the panel, it just keeps adding up.

 

[Trapper John]

We only have to be ADS-B OUT though, not In and Out, so no need to expense extra for the full system if a transponder software update or replacement can get the OUT signal going.

Still, for those with planes having engines near TBO, and now a requirement to upgrade something in the panel, it just keeps adding up.

Well, you've got 10 years to go, plus FAA seems to always miss dates on big new systems, so it could be more like 15 or 20...

 

[sba55]

At least they're keeping transponders around. Hopefully, that means that they're not planning on reducing radar coverage any time soon...

 

[Ted]

If they were springing this on us it would be one thing, but with a 10 year notice? I think that's not bad at all, especially if they miss the date. I just did an avionics upgrade last year and I considered it to make for a respectable but not excellent avionics package. So this just tells me that when I do my next upgrade, it'll need to be to something ADS-B compliant. I was figuring on getting 10 years out of my setup anyway, so that places me in a good time frame.

 

[mikea]

We only have to be ADS-B OUT though, not In and Out, so no need to expense extra for the full system if a transponder software update or replacement can get the OUT signal going.

Still, for those with planes having engines near TBO, and now a requirement to upgrade something in the panel, it just keeps adding up.

How is your transponder going to OUT your location without having a (fully certified installation) GPS to generate the data? I don't have one.

 

[azure]

Ted, I agree with you. And something to consider also, is that with a UAT there is the benefit of in-cockpit traffic already in much of the country's busier airspace. TB equipped his Cardinal with a GDL-90 UAT a couple of years before he sold it to me, and coverage is very good in and around the Detroit area. Not just at 3k MSL and above, but even in the pattern, at least in this area. No, I wouldn't spring for something that pricey this early in the game, but it is nice to have*, and I have to predict that over the next few years other avionics companies will come out with more affordable solutions for both ADS-B Out and In.

*It would be nicer if I had consistent altitude info on all these targets I'm seeing, but alas, this GDL-90 has a glitch and most of the time all I see is position and direction of travel. I'm debating whether to have it looked at after I get a new windshield installed, or just let it go for the moment. It is spooky, though, seeing all those targets and not knowing where they are in all three dimensions!

 

[John Collins]

How is your transponder going to OUT your location without having a (fully certified installation) GPS to generate the data? I don't have one.

Mike,

You are correct that a GPS (probably WAAS) can provide the position information, but it need not be a full GPS/FMS panel mount type of system. Someone is bound to develop a compatible GPS that all the electronics are mounted in the antenna to provide a low cost means of providing the position and other required information to the transponder or UAT. The original Garmin UAT has a built-in GPS receiver and can be used stand-alone or with a panel mounted GPS system. If such a position source is provided, it can also be used by a MFD to determine the aircraft position. The MFD can be a panel mount or a portable.

 

[Bob Noel]

Someone is bound to develop a compatible GPS that all the electronics are mounted in the antenna to provide a low cost means of providing the position and other required information to the transponder or UAT. The original Garmin UAT has a built-in GPS receiver and can be used stand-alone or with a panel mounted GPS system. If such a position source is provided, it can also be used by a MFD to determine the aircraft position. The MFD can be a panel mount or a portable.

Don't count on a cheap GPS - look at the notice of rule making
and check out the accuracy, continuity, integrity requirements
for the system.

 

[flyersfan31]

Personally, I'd like to see a little more quo for my quid. We are dropping money (like a user fee) to help the FAA institute its latest gadgets. How about something, you know, for the effort -- LIKE ADS-B IN??????? At the very least, the basic deal should provide traffic information. WX? Alright, fine, 3rd party provider or a fee, but Traffic should be free of charge. Otherwise I'll send a bill to the FAA for providing ADS-B Out service.

 

[kkoran]

Page 30185

The FAA fully acknowledges that the general aviation community will incur significant costs from this rule. However, this must be balanced against the foundation this capability provides in moving toward the NextGen infrastructure and benefits from its overall usage.​

Translation: We know this will cost GA a fortune, but we have to make them do it so that the FAA and airlines can reap the benefits.

 

[Bob Noel]

Page 30185

Translation: We know this will cost GA a fortune, but we have to make them do it so that the FAA and airlines can reap the benefits.

"Overall, in terms of competition, this rulemaking reduces small operators' ability to compete."

"The FAA agrees with Boeing that if the costs of ADS-B Out avionics
are at the high end of our estimates and if ADS-B In avionics are more
expensive than ADS-B Out avionics, then the costs estimated for ADS-B
Out and In will exceed the quantified benefits, given the assumptions
in the economic evaluation."

iow - the FAA thinks the benefits will outway the costs...but only if
the ridiculously optimistic dreams about costs occur.

Gee, why would the airlines and avionics companies would support
this?

(thanks for nothing AOPA)

 

[COFlyBoy]

"(thanks for nothing AOPA)

I think the AOPA was up against a wall. ADS-B is coming whether the GA community wants it or not. AOPA could staunchly resist it, in which case GA will have lost any voice in the implementation, or AOPA can accept it and try to minimize the damage. It seems to me that AOPA went with the minimize the damage route. I think they chose the most "successful" approach.

I do like that the EAA managed to get all airspace within 2500 AGL exempted, but it really doesn't help me since I'm within 30 NM of Denver International, which will necessitate ADS-B regardless of where I choose to go.

 

[Joe B]

Personally, I'd like to see a little more quo for my quid. We are dropping money (like a user fee) to help the FAA institute its latest gadgets. How about something, you know, for the effort -- LIKE ADS-B IN??????? At the very least, the basic deal should provide traffic information. WX? Alright, fine, 3rd party provider or a fee, but Traffic should be free of charge. Otherwise I'll send a bill to the FAA for providing ADS-B Out service.

The FAA is providing ADS-B In for free from all their ground stations. You can install an ADS-B In receiver if you wish. The new rule only requires you to install equipment for ADS-B Out.

I think the AOPA was up against a wall.

A wall which they helped build. Phil Boyer was actively promoting ADS-B for years.

 

[John Collins]

Don't count on a cheap GPS - look at the notice of rule making and check out the accuracy, continuity, integrity requirements
for the system.

My understanding is that there are commercially available chips that can receive and process WAAS signals. The only output required would be an ARINC 429 port with a content of ARINC 743A labels to satisfy the 1090ES position input and for a UAT it would also require a timing signal used to synchronize the transmissions with the GPS second. All this can be done by software and could be physically incorporated inside the antenna in a way similar to the Aspen RSM. There is no need to provide any other capabilities, such as a display, control knobs, FMS, etc.

With respect to the NPRM, the accuracy and integrity requirements are standard calculations.

I would think a unit price around $500 would be achievable with a cost at 10 to 20 percent of that.

 

[John Collins]

I posted the following on the AOPA red board.

One thing that AOPA could advocate would be to have a low power ground station located at every airport that has an instrument approach. This would at least provide the benefit of obtaining UAT weather data from the ground up and enable the one in/out rule to be eliminated at non towered airports. It would also provide additional coverage thru ADSB-R for participating traffic (UAT/1090ES) when in the pattern and below radar coverage.

The current plan is to only provide the same service volume as is currently provided by radar, with a few exceptions such as the Gulf of Mexico.

There are fewer than 800 Ground Based Transceivers (GBTs)planned with only the largest 35 airports planned to have service available on the ground. Some of the enroute GBTs will be located at airports, but this will be hit or miss for the vast majority of non towered airports. Eventually, maybe a few hundred airports of the 5000+ will have service on the ground.

 

[Bob Noel]

I posted the following on the AOPA red board.

One thing that AOPA could advocate would be to have a low power ground station located at every airport that has an instrument approach. This would at least provide the benefit of obtaining UAT weather data from the ground up and enable the one in/out rule to be eliminated at non towered airports. It would also provide additional coverage thru ADSB-R for participating traffic (UAT/1090ES) when in the pattern and below radar coverage.

(assuming that there was a way to validate the ADS-B messages...)
What would be really cool is to put ADS-B transmitters on towers...
sort of like an instant update to the obstruction database.

 

[Bob Noel]

My understanding is that there are commercially available chips that can receive and process WAAS signals. The only output required would be an ARINC 429 port with a content of ARINC 743A labels to satisfy the 1090ES position input and for a UAT it would also require a timing signal used to synchronize the transmissions with the GPS second. All this can be done by software and could be physically incorporated inside the antenna in a way similar to the Aspen RSM. There is no need to provide any other capabilities, such as a display, control knobs, FMS, etc.

With respect to the NPRM, the accuracy and integrity requirements are standard calculations.

I would think a unit price around $500 would be achievable with a cost at 10 to 20 percent of that.

I believe that you are overlooking the software costs and the certification
aspects of that software. Compare the hiker GPS to the handheld
aviation GPS and the installed WAAS GPS.

 

[COFlyBoy]

I believe that you are overlooking the software costs and the certification
aspects of that software. Compare the hiker GPS to the handheld
aviation GPS and the installed WAAS GPS.

I agree that the certification costs are high, but I'd think that creating a hardware GPS receiver with no front end user interface should be pretty cheap. After-all that engine is already embedded in the available GPS units. It would just need to be removed to be a single module.

I think the costs would be in proving the units availability and proving that the integrity evaluation is correct.

 

[mikea]

My understanding is that there are commercially available chips that can receive and process WAAS signals. The only output required would be an ARINC 429 port with a content of ARINC 743A labels to satisfy the 1090ES position input and for a UAT it would also require a timing signal used to synchronize the transmissions with the GPS second. All this can be done by software and could be physically incorporated inside the antenna in a way similar to the Aspen RSM. There is no need to provide any other capabilities, such as a display, control knobs, FMS, etc.

With respect to the NPRM, the accuracy and integrity requirements are standard calculations.

I would think a unit price around $500 would be achievable with a cost at 10 to 20 percent of that.

Oh, sure. There are also auto and land GPS receivers with that chip or even more powerful ones that cost under $300. Find an aviation GPS for that.

You can the optional GPS navigation installed in your car for $1000. Find me a legal panel mounted aviation GPS for that.

There's unlikely to be an incentive for any transponder maker to build-in a GPS receiver for ADS-Out when a) they will be cannibalizing their own GPS business and b) to get it certified will cost as much as a) did.

I'll shut up if I can buy and install the new Garmin GPS 490W with higher res, more power and new features for a reasonable $5000. I'll even pitch in another $2000 for the new transponder.

 

[sba55]

Oh, sure. There are also auto and land GPS receivers with that chip or even more powerful ones that cost under $300. Find an aviation GPS for that.

You can the optional GPS navigation installed in your car for $1000. Find me a legal panel mounted aviation GPS for that.

There's unlikely to be an incentive for any transponder maker to build-in a GPS receiver for ADS-Out when a) they will be cannibalizing their own GPS business and b) to get it certified will cost as much as a) did.

I'll shut up if I can buy and install the new Garmin GPS 490W with higher res, more power and new features for a reasonable $5000. I'll even pitch in another $2000 for the new transponder.

I don't know, Mike. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not quite that pessimistic. Look at what Aspen can do for ~$10k. Making a ADSB-out unit seems to be a much simpler problem. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they could sell that for $2k installed.

-Felix

 

[John Collins]

(assuming that there was a way to validate the ADS-B messages...)

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[John Collins]

Oh, sure. There are also auto and land GPS receivers with that chip or even more powerful ones that cost under $300. Find an aviation GPS for that.

You can the optional GPS navigation installed in your car for $1000. Find me a legal panel mounted aviation GPS for that.

There's unlikely to be an incentive for any transponder maker to build-in a GPS receiver for ADS-Out when a) they will be cannibalizing their own GPS business and b) to get it certified will cost as much as a) did.

I'll shut up if I can buy and install the new Garmin GPS 490W with higher res, more power and new features for a reasonable $5000. I'll even pitch in another $2000 for the new transponder.

I would not be talking about a panel mount. Effectively all I would be talking about is a smart GPS antenna. All it would provide is position information and the other calculated data required of a position source. No human interface. FAA certified GPS antennas sell for $300 to $400 today and Aspen has its RSM that includes a GPS antenna, GPS receiver, OAT probe, and Magnetometer all included in the same GPS antenna size package.

 

[John Collins]

I believe that you are overlooking the software costs and the certification aspects of that software. Compare the hiker GPS to the handheld aviation GPS and the installed WAAS GPS.

Valid concern, but the software is much more limited than a hand held as there is no user interface and would have to be certified in any case, regardless if it was integrated into a UAT or a 1090ES transponder or a new panel mount GPS. However, by packaging the function into the antenna, it could serve as a low cost method of providing position for an ADSB receiver of either frequency, especially when the aircraft doesn't have a WAAS GPS or any GPS for that matter.

My background includes 27 years engineering hardware and software products, operating an avionics shop for almost 6 years, and acting as a technical consultant helping one of the companies (not ITT) to prepare their bid to the FAA for the FAA ADSB contract. I also am a freelance writer for mostly avionics topics.

 

[Ted]

One thing you have to remember regarding avionics and the high cost of them (plus the fact that things are rarely changed) is due to certification. The requirements to certify electronic equipment in aircraft are rather extensive, and the tests you need to perform are very expensive. They do, however, produce a pretty reliable product when done (usually). That cost is amortized out over the units produced. Since there aren't many units produced, each one has a pretty high cost associated.

 

[Bob Noel]

Can you explain what you mean?

ADS-B has no means to prevent spoofing.

The FAA apparently thinks that radar coverage can be used so
that the ATC systems can verify the validity of an ADS-B position.
Of course, if radar coverage exists, then there isn't much point
to ADS-B. The potential value of ADS-B is where radar coverage
doesn't exist.

 

[sba55]

ADS-B has no means to prevent spoofing.

The FAA apparently thinks that radar coverage can be used so
that the ATC systems can verify the validity of an ADS-B position.
Of course, if radar coverage exists, then there isn't much point
to ADS-B. The potential value of ADS-B is where radar coverage
doesn't exist.

So what _is_ the point of ADS-B (besides the cost-savings over radar that won't be realized anyways)? Provide services in areas that don't have radar coverage? That's it? Seems like a small problem compared to the scope of the solution - a solution which, in many ways, is inferior to radar....

 

[kkoran]

So what _is_ the point of ADS-B (besides the cost-savings over radar that won't be realized anyways)? Provide services in areas that don't have radar coverage? That's it? Seems like a small problem compared to the scope of the solution - a solution which, in many ways, is inferior to radar....

No--the only place the FAA was planning for ADS-B to provide service where there isn't currently radar is over the Gulf of Mexico. In response to comments, the FAA says it will look into expanding service to areas where service is not currently provided.

 

[mikea]

One thing you have to remember regarding avionics and the high cost of them (plus the fact that things are rarely changed) is due to certification. The requirements to certify electronic equipment in aircraft are rather extensive, and the tests you need to perform are very expensive. They do, however, produce a pretty reliable product when done (usually). That cost is amortized out over the units produced. Since there aren't many units produced, each one has a pretty high cost associated.

Exactly, so certifying an all-new all-in-one ADS-Out transponder will take the same weight in paperwork as certifying a new Garmin GPSMAP 430 and a new transponder, which, come to think of it, may be why, like with the plane manufacturers, they upgrade the existing model rather than bring out a new one. With an upgrade they can just revise the existing certification.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think certifying a GPS engine with NO user interface at all will be a good bit easier than a panel-mount. All it has to do is provide accurate position information or FLAG that it's not accurate.

 

[COFlyBoy]

ADS-B has no means to prevent spoofing.

Its a bit disappointing that there is no anti-spoofing, but I can see how it might be nearly impossible to implement a fool-proof anti-spoofing scheme.

I'm guessing most of the major metro areas are going to have to have radar systems to ensure that there are no spoofed (read hijacked) planes flying around pretending that they are somewhere else.

 

[wsuffa]

Its a bit disappointing that there is no anti-spoofing, but I can see how it might be nearly impossible to implement a fool-proof anti-spoofing scheme.

I'm guessing most of the major metro areas are going to have to have radar systems to ensure that there are no spoofed (read hijacked) planes flying around pretending that they are somewhere else.

If you had any idea how easy it is to jam or spoof a GPS, you wouldn't want one as sole nav source. Seriously.

And the same sort of thing applies to ADS-B. Use the right coding and it's pretty easy to spoof an aircraft.

 

[COFlyBoy]

If you had any idea how easy it is to jam or spoof a GPS, you wouldn't want one as sole nav source. Seriously.

I do and I totally agree. Jamming is easy and occasionally happens by accident. Not sure about the spoofing though. It is easy to create an imposter GPS signal, but to create say 5 signals, that have the right relative offsets to cause a receiver to make an incorrect solution that will actually cause some sort of damage is pretty advanced. I've not yet seen anything out in the general market that can do that.

And the same sort of thing applies to ADS-B. Use the right coding and it's pretty easy to spoof an aircraft.

I agree the spoofing would be easy. I'm just not sure what the point would be. You could hide whatever you are really doing (hijacking, drug running, visiting the mistress, an extra $100 hamburger), but I'm not sure that it would be a huge risk to air traffic in general.

 

[jtheune]

There are 406 ELT with GPS built in for 1360.00 right now.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aircraftspruceelt.php

I can't believe that the cost of adding a GPS to transponder would cause a price point much higher. There is no user interface and all the GPS has to do is give present postion, pretty easy from a software point of view. ( with a GPS chip of course )