Interesting Avweb comment

[timwinters]

No reasonable accommodation for non-ADS-B Out equipped aircraft is planned nor offered.

I don't know, Nate.

In reading the final rule, it's my understanding that you can fly anywhere you want to below 10,000 ft (or below 2,500' AGL for you mountain guys) & outside the lateral boundaries of class B & C.

That's a LOT of airspace and that sounds like "reasonable accommodation" to me.

 

[Ted]

Ted, how is that measured? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what metric was used. Hours flown for instance. It would be neat to see a chart or something. So, I guess if you include bizjets which are GA, then I would think you're right.

Admittedly this is from my own estimates. I'm looking at all GA - although as I said earlier this does impact piston aviation significantly more than turbine, because for turbine aircraft, this represents a smaller investment relative to the aircraft use and value. My earlier numbers, based on FlightAware (so planes flying IFR and some flight following), are how I looked at this, and showed 5% of the aircraft in the sky as piston.

Now, we know my assumptions were actually more favoring your position, because many of the piston aircraft there will get the upgrades. Twin Cessnas, Navajos, Cirri, etc. Will likely be worth enough to their owners to do the upgrades. Which makes an even smaller number.

The VFR folks squawking 1200 aren't getting counted, so that goes a bit further towards that direction.

Jesse's point is right on perception - hear lots of bugsmashers. What you don't hear are the folks above you. The Flight Levels are a surprisingly busy place. Lots of planes there. Of course, various busy schools (ERAU, UND, etc) help the bug smasher side, but those folks will make the upgrades.

Still if you take away the bugsmasher segment of GA which are most of us here, it would still put a hardship on the infrastructure, like maintenance shops, FBO's etc.

Agreed fully.

My point (which I think many are missing) is that we do live in an industry that moves on (not necessarily forward). VORs and NDBs cost money to maintain, and aren't heavily used anymore. Think about it - most who are /G will use the GPS to go direct to a VOR when assigned. Secondary radar shuts down (more cost savings). Primary radar stays, yes.

The other point is we still have 8 years. I specifically opted for a 327 this year instead of a 330 because I expect the requirements to change between now and then, so I'll buy a new transponder then.

TV moved on, too. The government bought those who signed up a converter box. I opted not to take one - I thought it was a ridiculous waste of tax dollars. So my TV turned into a big DVD player. Still is. Write to Obama and ask him to buy you ADS-B.

 

[Anthony]

Thanks Ted. Good info, and lots to think about.

lol in the Obama comment.

 

[Bob Noel]

I don't know, Nate.

In reading the final rule, it's my understanding that you can fly anywhere you want to below 10,000 ft (or below 2,500' AGL for you mountain guys) & outside the lateral boundaries of class B & C.

That's a LOT of airspace and that sounds like "reasonable accommodation" to me.

Unless you have an airplane at the following airports around KBOS.

2B2
KBVY
KLWM
Steck
A portion of Nashua's D
KBED
6B6
9B1
a private airport near Framingham MA
1B6
KOWD
Mansfield
2BM
Plymouth
Taunton

All wiped out by the 30mile "veil" around KBOS.

And there are quite a few other airports with the 30 mile veils.

 

[N801BH]

Unless you have an airplane at the following airports around KBOS.

2B2
KBVY
KLWM
Steck
A portion of Nashua's D
KBED
6B6
9B1
a private airport near Framingham MA
1B6
KOWD
Mansfield
2BM
Plymouth
Taunton

All wiped out by the 30mile "veil" around KBOS.

And there are quite a few other airports with the 30 mile veils.

And that just points out 1 class Bravo airport... Multiply that figure by all the rest of the Bravo's and Charlies and the number gets sobering.

 

[Ted]

Thanks Ted. Good info, and lots to think about.

It's worth noting that I'm more of a "big picture" person, even when I'm the one who gets impacted by a change. At my last job, I cheered when the program I was on got canceled, because it was a ridiculous program that was a terrible idea. Conversely, I'd never get elected for office because I'd probably run over a lot of people in the process of making things more efficient. Engineer and all. Fortunately, I'm not running for occie.

Lots to think about for sure. But if we're saying estimated $10k for everything and we have ~10 years, that means we should start saving up. I have it planned in Cloud Nine's budget.

lol in the Obama comment.

Thought you'd appreciate that.

 

[Everskyward]

You don't have to pay for all this stuff, so what do you care?

I care when people come and try to stir up the issue without correct facts.

 

[Anthony]

The fact is that this is another potentially significant cost that could further reduce the number of active pilots and aircraft owners. Getting clarification on things is one of the reasons I come here. We all have been wrong at times.

To commercial operators, this is just another cost they can pass through to their customers. For private operators it is another cost to try to save for just like engine overhauls/replacement, avionics replacement/repair, paint, interior, etc.

 

[Steve Foley]

All wiped out by the 30mile "veil" around KBOS.

And there are quite a few other airports with the 30 mile veils.

Where does it say the 30 mile veil is included?

 

[Everskyward]

To commercial operators, this is just another cost they can pass through to their customers. For private operators it is another cost to try to save for just like engine overhauls/replacement, avionics replacement/repair, paint, interior, etc.

I see many private operators getting all kinds of electronic gadgets for their airplanes which are not required by regulation. This implementation is still over 7 years away. Is your current transponder even going to work that long? We just had one fry itself after only 4 years.

 

[Anthony]

I see many private operators getting all kinds of electronic gadgets for their airplanes which are not required by regulation. This implementation is still over 7 years away. Is your current transponder even going to work that long? We just had one fry itself after only 4 years.

I'd rather voluntarily upgrade my avionics when I can afford it, and choose to do so rather than the government mandating that I HAVE to do it. While they frivolously waste everyone's money, the lean more and more on us to pick up the shortfall.

 

[Everskyward]

I'd rather voluntarily upgrade my avionics when I can afford it, and choose to do so rather than the government mandating that I HAVE to do it. While they frivolously waste everyone's money, the lean more and more on us to pick up the shortfall.

I get it. For you this is really a political philosophy issue rather than an practical issue so I'll leave it at that before it goes to the SZ.

 

[Ted]

I get it. For you this is really a political philosophy issue rather than an practical issue so I'll leave it at that before it goes to the SZ.

What's interesting is that I'm looking at it from both practical and political philosophy of wanting the government to shut down spending money on things that are used little. VORs constitute some of those items, as did LORAN.

Anthony and I are both conservative (as is Jesse), yet our similar starting point on it come to different conclusions.

But I'd point out that aircraft owners and operators should budget for upgrades, not for regulation so much as because things break, and in the long run it often makes more financial sense to do an upgrade than a simple repair.

A good example was putting the Aspen in the 310. The HSI and AI were making funny noises, bearings going bad, and the HSI tried to fly me into a mountain on an ILS to mins. I probably could've gotten the units overhauled for half the cost of the upgrade, but how long would these 40-year-old paperweights continued to work? Furthermore, a lot of wiring got cleaned up, and we also found out a lot of wiring related to the units (which was probably the real cause of my suicidal HSI) was bad. That woudn't have gotten caught on a simple swap, and would have resulted in more trips to the shop ($$$) and troubleshooting.

I do not always use shotguns on my plane. But when I do, I prefer 12-gauges. Stay proficient, my friends.

 

[Bob Noel]

Where does it say the 30 mile veil is included?

§ 91.225 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment and use.

[snip]
(d) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the following airspace unless the aircraft has equipment installed that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section
(1) Class B and Class C airspace areas;
(2) Except as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 to this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;
[snip]

 

[denverpilot]

I don't know, Nate.

In reading the final rule, it's my understanding that you can fly anywhere you want to below 10,000 ft (or below 2,500' AGL for you mountain guys) & outside the lateral boundaries of class B & C.

That's a LOT of airspace and that sounds like "reasonable accommodation" to me.

Over the top of B and C was a significant tool in the VFR toolkit on an XC. Especially /A or /U since you're probably using that facility's VOR, which are some of the only VORs that will soon exist.

(Yeah yeah, I know... The world is /G now and will be once you have ADS-B Out on board, in theory.)

Having to have a box of questionable value on board to do it, is the problem, really.

It's also against primacy somewhat on those airspace definitions. B and C isn't really B and C anymore, if you don't have an ADS-B Out on board... B and C become giant ground to Class A barriers that have to be completely circumnavigated. Why?

(Yes, B also has the 30 mile Mode C ring which is similar... I know, I know.)

It's really bugging me that it's not following the KISS principal. It'd be better to just say if you're in the B or C you need it. Doesn't fix that it's a useless system, but at least it's more consistent, training-wise.

 

[Everskyward]

Over the top of B and C was a significant tool in the VFR toolkit on an XC.

Over the top of B is probably riskier than you might think at first, especially if you are not talking. I learned that lesson a long time ago. Of course that was before airlines had TCAS.

 

[Anthony]

I get it. For you this is really a political philosophy issue rather than an practical issue so I'll leave it at that before it goes to the SZ.

No, primarily it is a financial issue. I'd rather do it when I want to similar to when I installed a GPS, than be forced to when I may not be able to afford it. That is it in a nutshell. I do think if the gov't wants to upgrade the system, that is great, but they already get enough money to do it on their (really our) dime.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My earlier numbers, based on FlightAware (so planes flying IFR and some flight following), are how I looked at this, and showed 5% of the aircraft in the sky as piston.

Ted,

You talked about a "snapshot" of FlightAware - Can you point me to where you got that? I'm interested in seeing it.

Thanks!

 

[Ted]

Kent,

In the interest of scientific research, of course.

What I did was went to FlightAware's listing of all airborne aircraft by type:

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/

Then I went through and counted up the numbers, separating them into airlines and GA based on type. The assumption is that, out of the 547 A320s in the sky at the moment, an insignificant number are for GA purposes.

I separated GA into piston and turbine, and left it at that. Of course, there are still a number of piston aircraft that are "working planes" that do have to earn their living, which would be excluded from the impacted planes in a more precise calculation, but I left in.

The numbers, of course, will change with your time of day. Mine was 9 AM or so EDT.

 

[jesse]

Jesse's point is right on perception - hear lots of bugsmashers. What you don't hear are the folks above you. The Flight Levels are a surprisingly busy place. Lots of planes there. Of course, various busy schools (ERAU, UND, etc) help the bug smasher side, but those folks will make the upgrades.

I'm not convinced it's just perception -- ultimately those airplanes need to go somewhere. If I'm not hearing them on any of the lower level ATC frequencies or any CTAF frequency and everything I do hear is 10:1 bugsmasher then it's fairly clear that there is a lot of bugsmasher in my state which does mean they influence the economy here.

Turbines flying over my state don't do much to help my state. Airplanes landing and based here do.

There are a lot of aircraft not talking to ATC period flying around. I'd wager there are more of them then there are "in the system" quite often. Don't forget about them.

 

[Ted]

I'm not convinced it's just perception -- ultimately those airplanes need to go somewhere. If I'm not hearing them on any of the lower level ATC frequencies or any CTAF frequency and everything I do hear is 10:1 bugsmasher then it's fairly clear that there is a lot of bugsmasher in my state which does mean they influence the economy here.

Turbines flying over my state don't do much to help my state. Airplanes landing and based here do.

True. It looks like the relative number of airliners isn't that high. Of course, when you're going somewhere, your en route phase has fewer radio calls. But I'd bet you're right that your area has more bugsmashers. The way I looked at it gave a nationwide perspective.

There are a lot of aircraft not talking to ATC period flying around. I'd wager there are more of them then there are "in the system" quite often. Don't forget about them.

This is true, but those people are flying VFR. Since there are concessions for those groups (albeit still restriction vs today), how should we count them? Furthermore, how is any agency that is trying to justify the cost of an infrastructure that they can't track who is truly using? We know the extent to which it's used by people who are in the system. Those who squawk 1200 forfeit their option to use it. So in a "use or lose" philosophy, maybe that means the VFR bugsmashers should use the system more often.

Also, given the level of disparity between airliners and bugsmashers, I seriously doubt if there are enough bugsmashers to catch up.

 

[N801BH]

...... So in a "use or lose" philosophy, maybe that means the VFR bugsmashers should use the system more often.

Also, given the level of disparity between airliners and bugsmashers, I seriously doubt if there are enough bugsmashers to catch up.

Too bad they don't have the software to display all the planes sending out 1200... Now I do agree not all VFR's have a transponder but I bet 90+% do.... I always have my mode C on when I fly so the airliners and people like Mari can see me on the fish finder.

Those VFR numbers would be interesting to see.

 

[Ted]

Agreed, Ben. That would be a good way to help track the true use of the airspace. I'm very curious at what they are. It wouldn't surprise me if that doubles the number of piston planes in the sky.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In the interest of scientific research, of course.

Of course!

I'm simply considering setting up something to suck a bunch of data out of FlightAware every so often... I wonder how hard I'd have to hit their servers before they'd notice.

 

[Silvaire]

Personally, after 40 years of flying and having voluntarily downgraded myself to bug-smasher level, I could get by reasonably well without ADS-B although it would make it extremely inconvenient to get past Vegas and up to Utah to visit my brother. There is a possibility that airports like the one I'm at, which is just outside a mode C veil, will see an influx of refugees or that all outlying airports will see an increase in traffic that may drive the growth of facilities in those areas. There also is a distinct possibility that all of the bug smashers will have inexpensive ADS-B in on the screens of their hand held Garmins so at least they will know where everyone else is (except their fellow bug smashers)

Either way, I don't see it killing GA. There will be adjustments but not an end to things as we know them.

 

[denverpilot]

Over the top of B is probably riskier than you might think at first, especially if you are not talking. I learned that lesson a long time ago. Of course that was before airlines had TCAS.

I was always talking. I didn't need an ADS-B box on board. And I amazingly didn't die.

 

[Everskyward]

I was always talking. I didn't need an ADS-B box on board. And I amazingly didn't die.

I got to see a Convair 580 up close and personal. They saw us too, and reported it.

 

[Ted]

I'm conflicted on the mid-air issue. Due to the infrequency of mid-airs, it seems that it clearly isn't much of an issue. That said, the consequences are very high. As such, having traffic knowwledge is a big nice-to-have.

We're planning on adding TCAS to the 310 at some point in the future. Ironically, my trips up to middle of nowhere Canada are the biggest reason. No radar services, and few airports (so most planes are on the same routes).

 

[PPC1052]

I confess to being ignorant about these technical issues. Realistically, what is the cost for minimal compliance? I suspect that cost will come down as we get closer. But that is just my uneducated guess, of course.

Will the ADS-B requirements allow the FAA to reduce separation requirements for controllers in busy B and C airspaces? Maybe they are thinking that they can somehow better manage the expected congestion. I don't know. Would that have any effect on the number of landings and take offs at any particular runway?

 

[Bob Noel]

I confess to being ignorant about these technical issues. Realistically, what is the cost for minimal compliance?

For the airplane I had, the cost of the GPS and UAT (or Mode-S), installed, plus periodic inspections, plus reserve to replace/repair when it inevitably breaks, approaches 50% of the value of the airplane. (One of the main reasons I sold the airplane was that I wasn't going to dump that much more money into it to install a flawed system providing no operational benefit).

Will the ADS-B requirements allow the FAA to reduce separation requirements for controllers in busy B and C airspaces?

That's what some people want.

Would that have any effect on the number of landings and take offs at any particular runway?

Nope. Airspace congestion isn't the problem, lack of sufficient runway capacity is the problem.

 

[Ted]

That's part of the wonders of aviation. On the 310, the cost of overhauling the engines is more than we could sell the plane for with engines at TBO. With avionics and the like, investment goes even higher.

It ends up being an investment you make because you want to and/or the plane provides a utility to you. I've never fully understood the "It's not worth that much" argument. If you're using it, is the cost worth the value?

 

[Henning]

I was talking about the costs of installing equipment in aircraft. Why should the cost of a national defense need be imposed on a small segment of the population?

Because it's the part you use and are responsible for.

 

[Henning]

I see many private operators getting all kinds of electronic gadgets for their airplanes which are not required by regulation. This implementation is still over 7 years away. Is your current transponder even going to work that long? We just had one fry itself after only 4 years.

That's why I kept the GTX 320 and got the 430W with the G500, I knew there was more new stuff coming.

 

[Henning]

That's part of the wonders of aviation. On the 310, the cost of overhauling the engines is more than we could sell the plane for with engines at TBO. With avionics and the like, investment goes even higher.

It ends up being an investment you make because you want to and/or the plane provides a utility to you. I've never fully understood the "It's not worth that much" argument. If you're using it, is the cost worth the value?

That's always confused me as well, resale value only counts if you are trying to sell it. If you are trying to use the plane the value is determined by the operational benefit during your use.

 

[PPC1052]

For the airplane I had, the cost of the GPS and UAT (or Mode-S), installed, plus periodic inspections, plus reserve to replace/repair when it inevitably breaks, approaches 50% of the value of the airplane.

Thanks. Two questions:

1) Is the GPS required?

2) How much is your plane worth? Without knowing the value of your plane, I can't figure out what you are saying the cost would be.

 

[zaitcev]

1) Is the GPS required?

Yes and it's not just any panel GPS (as explained above, there are requirements which only newest WAAS units happen to satisfy).

 

[Bob Noel]

Thanks. Two questions:

1) Is the GPS required?

2) How much is your plane worth? Without knowing the value of your plane, I can't figure out what you are saying the cost would be.

Yes.

I sold the aircraft for $18,000. We can debate the value of a low-time cherokee 140.

 

[Bob Noel]

That's always confused me as well, resale value only counts if you are trying to sell it. If you are trying to use the plane the value is determined by the operational benefit during your use.

and costs of equipment required by regulation should provide value (and not be fundamentally flawed)

With the current ADS-B system, how many ATC radars can be turned off?

 

[Henning]

and costs of equipment required by regulation should provide value (and not be fundamentally flawed)

With the current ADS-B system, how many ATC radars can be turned off?

No idea, but how many weather subscriptions can be allowed to expire? You get traffic and weather.

 

[N801BH]

No idea, but how many weather subscriptions can be allowed to expire? You get traffic and weather.

And you can bet your sweet bippie when this is all rolled out their ( guvmint) software will accept your -out signal, start the clock and you will be billed a fee... This will lead to pay for play.. I am 100% sure.