How would the FAA know? (ADS-B question)

gsengle said:
We are explicitly talking about the 2020 requirement that is what, 17 months away. Primary radar only even now causes huge traffic backups due to increased separation requirements over transponder with mode C. But if you're a "chief pilot", you know all this.
Click to expand...

And primary radar can't go away because it'd be far too easy for a miscreant (think 9/11) to pull a breaker and do whatever they want. It's inefficient, yes, but it's not subject to being easily disabled.

Also, being a "chief pilot" as you put it gives one the ability to do basic math...like understanding that the January 1 2020 deadline is actually more like 29 months away...not 17.
 
ChiefPilot said:
And primary radar can't go away because it'd be far too easy for a miscreant (think 9/11) to pull a breaker and do whatever they want. It's inefficient, yes, but it's not subject to being easily disabled.

Also, being a "chief pilot" as you put it gives one the ability to do basic math...like understanding that the January 1 2020 deadline is actually more like 29 months away...not 17.
Click to expand...

So you're advocating a position that the FAA wouldn't think it's a big deal to lie about the integrity of your ADSB transmitted position because primary radar??? Yep, 29 months whatever. I intend to live and fly past that date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
So you're advocating a position that the FAA wouldn't think it's a big deal to lie about the integrity of your ADSB transmitted position because primary radar??? Yep, 29 months whatever. I intend to live and fly past that date.
Click to expand...

No, I'm advocating that your assertion that ADS-B is intended "to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths" is simultaneously hyperbole and preposterous.

Primary radar already does that - and better than ADS-B ever could because it sees non-transponder equipped aircraft. Additionally, there's a whole bunch of FARs that attempt to encourage the pilot community "to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths" as well. What ADS-B *is* intended to do is to make the system more efficient, but it won't be operating in lieu of primary radar for security and other purposes (GPS outages, for example).
 
ChiefPilot said:
No, I'm advocating that your assertion that ADS-B is intended "to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths" is simultaneously hyperbole and preposterous.

Primary radar already does that - and better than ADS-B ever could because it sees non-transponder equipped aircraft. Additionally, there's a whole bunch of FARs that attempt to encourage the pilot community "to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths" as well. What ADS-B *is* intended to do is to make the system more efficient, but it won't be operating in lieu of primary radar for security and other purposes (GPS outages, for example).
Click to expand...


It's neither preposterous or hyperbole.

1) it's planned to use to cut separation standards. The controllers will know your position and vector with more accuracy and a higher refresh rate.
2) it is used for in cockpit traffic displays for non tcas equipped aircraft. Unprecedented improvement over see and avoid.
3) it is used by controllers to see traffic to lower altitudes than is possible with center radar, including many traffic patterns now 'visible' to atc. The main purpose is to deconflict traffic as well as to enhance approaches (terrain). I've confirmed this with a Boston Center controller.

I'm sure I haven't covered everything. Your original post took issue with my post that basically says don't mess with separation because the Feds really care about it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
1) it's planned to use to cut separation standards. The controllers will know your position and vector with more accuracy and a higher refresh rate.
2) it is used for in cockpit traffic displays for non tcas equipped aircraft. Unprecedented improvement over see and avoid.
3) it is used by controllers to see traffic to lower altitudes than is possible with center radar, including many traffic patterns now 'visible' to atc. The main purpose is to deconflict traffic as well as to enhance approaches (terrain). I've confirmed this with a Boston Center controller.
Click to expand...

...and all of those are efficiency improvements over what we have today.
 
ChiefPilot said:
...and all of those are efficiency improvements over what we have today.
Click to expand...

Yep. Improvements to SEPARATION. And the Feds care a whole lot about that. What happens when separation is lost?

The point is this isn't the area to try and cheat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Yep. Improvements to SEPARATION. And the Feds care a whole lot about that. What happens when separation is lost?
Click to expand...
Separation won't be lost - it'll just be larger since it'd be provided by radar.

gsengle said:
The point is this isn't the area to try and cheat.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, regardless of whether the issue is safety or efficiency.
 
ChiefPilot said:
Separation won't be lost - it'll just be larger since it'd be provided by radar.

I agree with this, regardless of whether the issue is safety or efficiency.
Click to expand...

If someone is flying with reduced separation, and then their equipment fails to provide the position accuracy it says it can provide, because it isn't approved equipment, separation certainly could be lost...

ATC will be trusting your position source and needs to be able to trust it. Or nothing works...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
If someone is flying with reduced separation, and then their equipment fails to provide the position accuracy it says it can provide, because it isn't approved equipment, separation certainly could be lost
Click to expand...

That's a known risk inherent in the design of ADS-B. It's not just a risk on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis - GPS spoofing isn't exactly an unknown thing and would result in exactly the same scenario for all aircraft. But there's a way to detect an aircraft reporting an incorrect position and it's often referred to as "primary radar" but in reality there are additional things going on as well besides radar. STARS does this, for example.

So again, it's an efficiency thing.
 
Last edited:
ADS-B started out as a way to help ATC deal with out of radar service coverage. A major reason Alaska was a test center (Capstone project).
I am 99% sure it was sold to Congress as a way to improve performance for airlines, allowing more direct and reduced separation, especially in areas out west without radar coverage.
Problem is airlines are not equipping.
Just us little bug smashers are doing it, under threat.
The candy of free weather and better traffic, has basically been proven to be BS compared to the cost for most bug smashers to implement ADS-B out.

Tim
 
ChiefPilot said:
That's a known risk inherent in the design of ADS-B. It's not just a risk on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis - GPS spoofing isn't exactly an unknown thing and would result in exactly the same scenario for all aircraft. But there's a way to detect an aircraft reporting an incorrect position and it's often referred to as "primary radar" but in reality there are additional things going on as well besides radar. STARS does this, for example.

So again, it's an efficiency thing.
Click to expand...

And this risk is mitigated by making it illegal to put in non approved equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If someone designed and built it, someone else can reverse engineer it to do what they want it to do.
If there is enough incentive (translation: money) there will be competing solutions.
 
gsengle said:
And this risk is mitigated by making it illegal to put in non approved equipment.
Click to expand...

That's part of it, sure. But it's certainly not the whole thing since it's a mitigation that is easily overturned. Primary radar, multi-lateration, and several other mitigations ensure that an errant GPS position report is not going to cause "mid air collisions and innocent deaths" as you claim. Your statement was simply incorrect, whether you accept that or not.
 
ChiefPilot said:
That's part of it, sure. But it's certainly not the whole thing since it's a mitigation that is easily overturned. Primary radar, multi-lateration, and several other mitigations ensure that an errant GPS position report is not going to cause "mid air collisions and innocent deaths" as you claim. Your statement was simply incorrect, whether you accept that or not.
Click to expand...

You don't like being wrong do you. Your original statement was more along the lines of that's not what ADSB is for and it's absurd. Inaccurate position reports absolutely degrade safety margins. In multiple ways. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So, if someone bought one of the lower cost (Meets requirements of TSO-C154c) ADS-B out solutions for expermintal / LSA aircraft (or even unmanned) and installed it in an aircraft with a white airworthiness certificate, that would degrade the accuracy of the signal?
 
don't going to try and make sense outta this.....remember what yer dealing with.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, if someone bought one of the lower cost (Meets requirements of TSO-C154c) ADS-B out solutions for expermintal / LSA aircraft (or even unmanned) and installed it in an aircraft with a white airworthiness certificate, that would degrade the accuracy of the signal?
Click to expand...
exactly, same accuracy, same electronics, different stamp ($$$$$)

and since those vendors pay to have those same electronics certified they pass those costs on to the certified buyer, so silly
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, if someone bought one of the lower cost (Meets requirements of TSO-C154c) ADS-B out solutions for expermintal / LSA aircraft (or even unmanned) and installed it in an aircraft with a white airworthiness certificate, that would degrade the accuracy of the signal?
Click to expand...

Now that's true. I'm surprised they allow experimental stuff for this. Since it isn't just the people in the airplane labeled experimental that are affected. That said the non TSO stuff is often just as good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I read the NAVWORX statement and it appears the SIL applies to the GPS quality. If a Exp/LSA ADS-B solution has a SIL 3 GPS then it would broadcast SIL 3 and the FAA should be OK with that.

I understand the FAA's need to make sure electronic don't interfere with each other, I'm all for that. I just don't see the need to cause a $2k-$3k increase in price of a mandated system for one owner over another when both are in the same airspace and really interchangeable in the "eyes" of ATC.
 
cgrab said:
I read the NAVWORX statement and it appears the SIL applies to the GPS quality. If a Exp/LSA ADS-B solution has a SIL 3 GPS then it would broadcast SIL 3 and the FAA should be OK with that.

I understand the FAA's need to make sure electronic don't interfere with each other, I'm all for that. I just don't see the need to cause a $2k-$3k increase in price of a mandated system for one owner over another when both are in the same airspace and really interchangeable in the "eyes" of ATC.
Click to expand...

Just remember the testing to prove that it works isn't free. Just because it should work isn't good enough to the FAA... hence the higher price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What's the real reason for the question @cgrab ? Do you not have the extra cash to put in a certified solution or are you just trying to stick it to "the man"? Or are you jealous of the experimental's that CAN put this stuff in without a problem?

Or something else?

Owning a certified plane has requirements. Don't like it? Don't own a certified plane.

"Hoping" someone won't notice through all the annuals, inspections, etc is just silly. Plus as someone said previously you not only jeopardize yourself, but their careers as well.

I'm sure people put non-certified stuff in certified planes all the time. The same statement can be applied to them, you and anyone else that does something on the sly..."Just don't get caught" :).
 
Caramon13 said:
What's the real reason for the question @cgrab ? Do you not have the extra cash to put in a certified solution or are you just trying to stick it to "the man"? Or are you jealous of the experimental's that CAN put this stuff in without a problem?:).
Click to expand...

I'm going to pay to get it done right, I was just wondering how "they" know I did or didn't. One thing I'm going to continue to do is use my STRATUX for ADS-B in since I can upgrade it with better capabilities. I would like to get a good, cost effective for a $30k-$40k plane, solution and not get saddled with something that goes TU or needs replaced in another ten years. And yes, I do have a little jealousy that planes flying the same airspace with the same mission are getting the OK from the FAA with very flimsy justification. (especially in light of the long drawn out safety discussion above)

Also, I'm working with a company that has developed a device that senses the Earths magnetic field and is getting 2 meter position accuracy. It could replace GPS as a position source. We will fly it in my plane to check it against several different GPS's.
 
cgrab said:
I'm going to pay to get it done right, I was just wondering how "they" know I did or didn't. One thing I'm going to continue to do is use my STRATUX for ADS-B in since I can upgrade it with better capabilities. I would like to get a good, cost effective for a $30k-$40k plane, solution and not get saddled with something that goes TU or needs replaced in another ten years. And yes, I do have a little jealousy that planes flying the same airspace with the same mission are getting the OK from the FAA with very flimsy justification. (especially in light of the long drawn out safety discussion above)

Also, I'm working with a company that has developed a device that senses the Earths magnetic field and is getting 2 meter position accuracy. It could replace GPS as a position source. We will fly it in my plane to check it against several different GPS's.
Click to expand...

Cool, sounds good.

I also envy the experimental class...I'm a couple years out from owning again, but I'm very seriously considering getting an experimental for my next plane. Unless the FAA REALLY starts re-thinking how they limit technologies in certified aircraft.

There are some really nice low cost solutions out there and it sucks that they aren't an option for certified owners...yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top