Changes to ADS-B coming soon

gitmo234

gitmo234

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Oxford, PA
Display Name
Display name:
gitmo234
Evening Ladies and Gents,

Just returned from my weekend warrior duty and next to was a brand new officer. Just so happens she works at the FAA during her monday-friday and the topic of ADS-B came up.

Very soon there will be an update to the requirement and it's not going the way we want. They're tightening the location requirements. Whatever the small amount of error allowed is, they're making it smaller and the long term plan is to reduce the separation for air traffic in crowded areas. Her comments were:

"You should probably wait before you buy the equipment because some of the stuff out now wont be compliant once we updated it"

"Pretty soon it wont be uncommon to be able to look out and see another aircraft a few hundred feet away from you"

"There's a lot of resistance in the FAA to any change. Portable devices just aren't going to be allowed. The goal is to make them impossible to be disabled by anyone. This is fueled by the missing airplane scenarios and there are places terrain blocks radar coverage as it is, this will help reduce it"

EDIT FOR ONE CAVEAT: All the statements above are paraphrased and generalizations extracted for your general information from social conversation for discussion only. Dont act on anything. For all I know this could change tomorrow

Good evening! the drinks on me
 
Last edited:
Every stat shows we are flying less, not more. Fewer hours, fewer planes.

Where is all this hypothetical density of traffic coming from?
 
I'm guessing there is a misunderstanding on someone's part.

No way the FAA amps up the ADS-B requirements at this point. Too much invested by too many people from aircraft owners to airlines to equipment manufacturers. The FAA couldn't stand the political fallout.
 
kyleb said:
I'm guessing there is a misunderstanding on someone's part.

No way the FAA amps up the ADS-B requirements at this point. Too much invested by too many people from aircraft owners to airlines to equipment manufacturers. The FAA couldn't stand the political fallout.
Click to expand...
What investment? How many airliners are so equipped? I'd guess it's low single digit %. There won't be any "politcal fallout" except on GA web boards and magazines preaching to themselves.

I fully expect the requirements to change, the FAA won't leave something alone for years like this. I'm not paying one cent for it until after the final rule is in force and any restrictions are in place, so i can judge whether or not it's worth spending any money.
 
Are the airlines all planning to wait until the last minute? Not sure I buy that.
 
Freeflight and Lynx recently committed to buy 10,000 ads-b units for resale. Airliners and the miltary are already deploying ADS-B in large numbers, just take a look at flightradar24.

Where is the upgrade to the GPS system that would allow separation of a 'few hundred feet'? Because it can't do that now.

This FAA person needs to lay off the crack.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Every stat shows we are flying less, not more. Fewer hours, fewer planes.

Where is all this hypothetical density of traffic coming from?
Click to expand...


This is not about SEL pilots, it's about drones, corporate jets, commercial all living together.
 
kyleb said:
I'm guessing there is a misunderstanding on someone's part.

No way the FAA amps up the ADS-B requirements at this point. Too much invested by too many people from aircraft owners to airlines to equipment manufacturers. The FAA couldn't stand the political fallout.
Click to expand...


No way the technical specifications change, takes too long to get thru government process....but I could seen the requirements being added to D airspace, or all IFR planes for example.
 
The change won't necessarily come before the deadline. Think 5-10 years down the line.
There is already a constraint right now because of available manpower to install equipment. We're in a crunch because the standard wasn't solidified in time for the equipment to shake out. There will be airplanes that can no longer fly into controlled airspace when the deadline comes. To add additional requirements on top of the cluster this already is could have severe negative impacts to the FAA.
 
Has anyone here seen any proposals, draft or otherwise, that are consistent with the claim that ADS-B location accuracy requirements would be more stringent?
 
gitmo234 said:
"Pretty soon it wont be uncommon to be able to look out and see another aircraft a few hundred feet away from you"
Click to expand...

This is what happens when pilots flying a few hundred feet apart don't understand how to fly formation. ATC is going to make it work by giving you vectors? Someone is pulling your leg.
 
well....if this is true, it'll be the first time in history I've seen a spec tightened in late innings.

If anything....the spec will be "relaxed" not tightened.

....and I'm hopeful for a performance based "portable" solution, good for everyone, not just EA/B.
 
I would say its likely that the equipment the airlines would be buying would already meet/exceed any other specs. Its the GA community that gets screwed over when we buy a bottom of the barrel piece of equipment that is within spec for now, but doesnt have much margin.

I asked when it would come out, so we'll see what she says.

GPS is fully capable of providing separation of a few hundred feet. I think my Garmin D2 is less than 30 meters of separation side to side. I can say that as and average person. As a space operations guy who has worked GPS satellite constellations and is very familiar with PNT capabilities of commercial GPS devices, I think the GPS portion is the LEAST unreasonable part of all of what was mentioned.
 
gitmo234 said:
I would say its likely that the equipment the airlines would be buying would already meet/exceed any other specs. Its the GA community that gets screwed over when we buy a bottom of the barrel piece of equipment that is within spec for now, but doesnt have much margin.

I asked when it would come out, so we'll see what she says.

GPS is fully capable of providing separation of a few hundred feet. I think my Garmin D2 is less than 30 meters of separation side to side. I can say that as and average person. As a space operations guy who has worked GPS satellite constellations and is very familiar with PNT capabilities of commercial GPS devices, I think the GPS portion is the LEAST unreasonable part of all of what was mentioned.
Click to expand...

Position reporting accuracy and separation two entirely different things...
 
So are milk and milk cartons, but they rely on each other. Position reporting accuracy can be used to assist in providing separation.
 
Last edited:
gitmo234 said:
So are milk and milk cartons, but they rely on each other. Position reporting accuracy can be used to assist in providing separation.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked two milk cartons touching did not result in spilled milk. Perhaps you should look into lateral tolerances for approaches and why they are as wide as they are. Control is required for separation and I'm not talking ATC here...
 
You don't call a chicken a baboon without breaking a few eggs.

Sent from my XT1045 using Tapatalk
 
Your not going to out guess the government,just rumors untill put in print.
 
Clark1961 said:
Last time I checked two milk cartons touching did not result in spilled milk. Perhaps you should look into lateral tolerances for approaches and why they are as wide as they are. Control is required for separation and I'm not talking ATC here...
Click to expand...

Regulatory tolerances and technology capabilities are different. If this happens, and the technology gets more accurate and reliable then the tolerances may likely allow for closer formations in congested areas as the technology that would allow that to happen in a safer manner would be more reliable and accurate
 
Last edited:
btw....is this the same gal who use to work in the UAS office? sounds like it. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well....if this is true, it'll be the first time in history I've seen a spec tightened in late innings.

If anything....the spec will be "relaxed" not tightened.

....and I'm hopeful for a performance based "portable" solution, good for everyone, not just EA/B.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a lot of old com radios that were made obsolete when the bandwidth and channeling was narrowed. So it has happened before.

teejayevans said:
No way the technical specifications change, takes too long to get thru government process....but I could seen the requirements being added to D airspace, or all IFR planes for example.
Click to expand...

That's true, especially for the FAA, which is one of the worst agencies for process. It ATC is privatized or the airlines push the issue, all bets are off. Follow the money.
 
Bob Noel said:
Has anyone here seen any proposals, draft or otherwise, that are consistent with the claim that ADS-B location accuracy requirements would be more stringent?
Click to expand...

I heard that a friend of mine knows someone whose uncle works for the Navy and has a son that is married to an FAA inspector who used to work for the FAA that says it is a possibility. :yikes:
 
One person's opinion. She should join this board and have some fun.
 
gitmo234 said:
Just returned from my weekend warrior duty and next to was a brand new officer. Just so happens she works at the FAA during her monday-friday....
Click to expand...

I would of quit listening right there. Assuming she's fairly young I highly doubt she has any substantial placement in the FAA that puts her 'in the know'. I have casual conversations with FAA SES types who don't have a grasp of what's going on.
 
I've heard that some people think cucumbers taste better pickled....



Sorry, couldn't resist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
gitmo234 said:
Regulatory tolerances and technology capabilities are different. If this happens, and the technology gets more accurate and reliable then the tolerances may likely allow for closer formations in congested areas as the technology that would allow that to happen in a safer manner would be more reliable and accurate
Click to expand...

Regulatory tolerances result from requirements to control the aircraft. The turn radius of an aircraft will not change with a change in position reporting accuracy.
 
OkieAviator said:
I would of quit listening right there. Assuming she's fairly young I highly doubt she has any substantial placement in the FAA that puts her 'in the know'. I have casual conversations with FAA SES types who don't have a grasp of what's going on.
Click to expand...

ya but....that's not surprising either. :rofl:
 
bflynn said:
The change won't necessarily come before the deadline. Think 5-10 years down the line.
There is already a constraint right now because of available manpower to install equipment. We're in a crunch because the standard wasn't solidified in time for the equipment to shake out. There will be airplanes that can no longer fly into controlled airspace when the deadline comes. To add additional requirements on top of the cluster this already is could have severe negative impacts to the FAA.
Click to expand...
I've seen no indication that this applies to "controlled airspace".
 
Walboy said:
As a practical matter though, I have never understood how some folks continue to believe portable or non-TSOed devices might be allowed by the FAA when the whole purpose is to have a high degree of certainty of an aircraft's location, course, speed, identity etc.
Click to expand...

Now why would a portable system that is using a WAAS enabled GPS source be any less accurate than on that is hard wired into the aircraft? It can be approved to the same standard as a permanently installed unit. The only obstacle would appear to be an FAA mindset.
 
At least one of the companies that currently produce a "Portable" solution to ADS-B out has always known their device will not become TSO'ed as a portable device. Their goal is to provide kits to permanently mount the device thus eliminating it's portability as in permanent antennas, permanent mounting and permanent power. However this will not happen till they get said TSO. Will the FAA play with them fairly? Probably not, but I am not going to squelch their entrepreneurial spirit.
 
creweite said:
Now why would a portable system that is using a WAAS enabled GPS source be any less accurate than on that is hard wired into the aircraft? It can be approved to the same standard as a permanently installed unit. The only obstacle would appear to be an FAA mindset.
Click to expand...

So it uses an external GPS antenna that meets the appropriate TSO including the mask angle and view of the sky? That the bottom mounted L band antenna has no obstructions? And the GPS meets an appropriate TSO? And the pressure altitude is the same source as the one used by the transponder as required by 91.217? And the unit is installed as required by 91.225? That the unit broadcasts the correct ICAO aircraft ID as required by 91.227 along with all the other parameters? And the SIL and SDA values are not 0 as required by portable units?
 
tmyers said:
At least one of the companies that currently produce a "Portable" solution to ADS-B out has always known their device will not become TSO'ed as a portable device. Their goal is to provide kits to permanently mount the device thus eliminating it's portability as in permanent antennas, permanent mounting and permanent power. However this will not happen till they get said TSO. Will the FAA play with them fairly? Probably not, but I am not going to squelch their entrepreneurial spirit.
Click to expand...

So the rules for obtaining a TSO should be changed? If they want to demonstrate it meets the TSO and other requirements, the rules are well known.
 
John Collins said:
So the rules for obtaining a TSO should be changed? If they want to demonstrate it meets the TSO and other requirements, the rules are well known.
Click to expand...

Well known... and the rules wrt to the software certification can be a high hurdle (nevermind the configuration control of the hardware components).
 
I've heard that diversity antennas with eventually be mandatory. Something to do with tracking aircraft globally via iridium satellites.
 
gitmo234 said:
Also - GPS IIF satellites begin launching next year most likely
Click to expand...

IIF 1-8 are already in service. There are only 3 more to be launched. IIIA was initially supposed to launch last year, but is now delayed several years.
 
mkosmo said:
IIF 1-8 are already in service. There are only 3 more to be launched. IIIA was initially supposed to launch last year, but is now delayed several years.
Click to expand...


So, what do these new satellites do for us?
 
dans2992 said:
So, what do these new satellites do for us?
Click to expand...

Sounds like 2F is an interim between 2A and 3A to keep the system functioning.

But this says they have the following characteristics...

New characteristics[edit]


  • Broadcasting L5 "safety of life" navigation signal demonstrated on USA-203[2]
  • Broadcasting a new M-code signal[2]
  • Doubling in the predicted accuracy[4]
  • Better resistance to jamming[2]
  • Reprogrammable processors that can receive software uploads[2]
  • The first GPS satellites not to have Selective Availability hardware installed which degraded civilian accuracy when turned on in the original satellite fleet[2]


FWIW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top