This is why you don't rush to embrace new tech (another ADS-B thread)

[Rigged4Flight]

You can spend a significant percentage of the value of your aircraft to install an ADS-B In/Out system years ahead of the mandatory compliance date. Or, and this might sound crazy so just hear me out, you could wait until closer to the date and allow market forces to lower the cost while technology continues to improve and expand the available options.

Case in point: http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/ads-b-solved

The good news is there is an easy solution, and that is FAA-approved portable units.

The technology is already there, and it works. A couple of years ago I was sent a portable ADS-B In/Out developmental unit that was light and cheap and that worked. The idea behind it wasn't to provide compliant hardware for the ADS-B mandate but simply to allow pilots of homebuilts and other nonconventionally certificated aircraft to get all the benefits of ADS-B, including the ability to see all other traffic (cleverly defeating the FAA's selective availability to non-panel-mount ADS-B users) and to be seen by ADS-B In traffic too.

The unit I'm referring to is a marvel. A dual-band ADS-B transceiver (1090ES and universal access transceiver), the SkyGuardTWX includes a WAAS receiver/antenna and can display incoming ADS-B traffic and weather info on a tablet computer. The system does everything a $7,000 panel-mount system would, and it does it for $1,475. The unit is currently undergoing FAA review — it's not clear just what category it will fit into — but for now, there is no provision for portable ADS-B Out equipment

 

[comanchepilot]

Now - why can't you take the portable unit. . . . give it some ram that you can enter an airplane code into. You buy that unit, you plug it into your computer USB. You go get your FAA Mode S code from the FAA website. You go to the factory website and you set up an account. You enter your mode S code into your account, it updates your FAA record with your aircraft ID.

The FAA sends you an email that tells you that your system is now registered and may be used with and only in that aircraft. There is a 6 hour battery for the system. You incorporate a 'phone home' switch in it that lets you use it as a PLB satisfying 409 ELT.

This will work with most unpressurized aircraft I would imagine. . . . and perhaps in the pressurized ones. But honestly, if you have a Cheyenne or King Air, a $7000 ADS-B unit is not going to even get noticed in a hot section inspection

You have to be REALLY REALLY careful to NOT use that unit on a commercial flight because it will activate the TCAS . . .

 

[Rigged4Flight]

That's just crazy talk

 

[JHW]

it's tough to find any case ne new technology where early adopters come out ahead. You's think it would be obvious yet people keep running around chanting "gotta get this now before it's too late" as if 2020 is some sort of magic time that the physics of lifting an airplane cease to work.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

it's tough to find any case ne new technology where early adopters come out ahead. You's think it would be obvious yet people keep running around chanting "gotta get this now before it's too late" as if 2020 is some sort of magic time that the physics of lifting an airplane cease to work.

I'm a gadget nut (just ask my wife). And I love the feel of a new gadget. But my gadgets tend to be several hundred dollars or so - not several thousand - and if I get nipped by the bleeding edge of the technology blade it isn't going to hurt so bad. But let me shell out $10K or so just to be an early adopter of a mandatory government-driven gadget, and then let me find out that I could have spent thousands less AND had more versatility or usefulness out of a better/cheaper gadget, and I'm going to be one sad/angry man.

I can't remember what magazine I saw it in, but sometime over the last few months I read an article encouraging plane owners to just jump in and bite the bullet early on the ADS-B In/Out issue. The link above is exactly why that is a bad idea. Unless you have several thousand dollars just laying around not being useful, or something. :wink2:

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

The only ADS-B portable in/out unit is the skyguard referenced in this article. It does not and never will meet the mandate requirements. And this device's out signal is invisible to certified ADS-B in devices. So everyone that does it the correct and legal way will not be able to see you. Yes, it is dumb. But the writer of this article has no clue what he's talking about.

It's been out for a long time, and it's been unable to meet the mandate for equally as long. Was this thread supposed to be some big revelation? If so, you're a little late.

 

[JGoodish]

I can't remember what magazine I saw it in, but sometime over the last few months I read an article encouraging plane owners to just jump in and bite the bullet early on the ADS-B In/Out issue. The link above is exactly why that is a bad idea. Unless you have several thousand dollars just laying around not being useful, or something. :wink2:

The challenge with portable units isn't one of technology, it's one of reliability and normalcy. Who is going to test and certify the operation of a portable system for any aircraft in which a pilot may choose to use it? That may not be a big deal when the pilot is interested in triggering traffic data from a ground transmitter, but it is a big deal when the transmitted data is being used by ATC for separation services.


JKG

 

[kyleb]

The challenge with portable units isn't one of technology, it's one of reliability and normalcy. Who is going to test and certify the operation of a portable system for any aircraft in which a pilot may choose to use it? That may not be a big deal when the pilot is interested in triggering traffic data from a ground transmitter, but it is a big deal when the transmitted data is being used by ATC for separation services.


JKG

There is no reason a portable couldn't be a plug and play device that is transferrable between aircraft which already have a standard set of antennas, harnesses, etc. installed by a certified shop. It *should* take relatively few wires to run one of these things - GPS antenna, ADS/B in/out antenna, power, ground, and whatever is required to "sniff" the transponder setting.

The FAA's stance against portables is silly.

 

[NoHeat]

One thing that is often forgotten, in the debate about ADSB now vs later, is trade-in value. I got compliant for OUT recently by trading my Garmin 327 transponder in for a 330ES. This did not cost a fortune, because of the trade-in.

Of course, if your present transponder is much older, this might not help. But if you have a 327, somebody out there wants it enough to pay quite a lot.

 

[Sgu2-22]

I believe that if the FAA had their druthers they'd make ADS-B out mandatory in all airspace. There is no way they'll allow a portable device and therefore give the pilot the option of leaving it at home while flying outside of airspace that requires it. Once installed, like the transponder, it must be on at all times.

 

[hindsight2020]

This community is notorious for heavy underutilization of their airplanes and the associated avionics they generally install in them. They do it because they're tech nerds. This is America, a fool has the freedom to part with his money as he sees fit and damn it, I support those ideals. To be fair, when I can install glass for EAB money, I'll join them. Until then, they can take the depreciation hit on my behalf while I fly my ascot off.

I too find it self-evident that the pricing of the ADS-B mandate will be a non-issue in 2019, so I've never viewed this eventual requirement as some sort of avocation-exiting crisis. I'm also in the camp that believes primary non-commercial will be a reality sooner than 2019, ergo making the pricing structure even more of a non-issue. The 'sky is falling' threads from the 40AMU-panel-upgrade-touchscreen-or-you're-nobody-day-VMC-50hr/yr crowd are fun to read though.

/stripot

 

[winrose46]

Unfortunately if you, like me, have a plane based within special airspace, you do not have many choices by 2020. With the number of planes in the GA fleet, if we wait a couple of more years to have it done, the avionics shops will not have time to perform all the upgrades to ADS_B Out. Because of the funnel effect associated with FDK (P-40 and the SFRA), there is limited airspace available for training. Before I got one of my planes configured with ADS_B Out (Garmin 88), I did not realize how many planes are within a couple of miles and 1000 feet of me. I can only see about 30% of the traffic depicted on my ADS_B In device. I hope to get the ADS_Out on my trainer strictly as an added safety feature for traffic avoidance.

 

[denverpilot]

The challenge with portable units isn't one of technology, it's one of reliability and normalcy. Who is going to test and certify the operation of a portable system for any aircraft in which a pilot may choose to use it? That may not be a big deal when the pilot is interested in triggering traffic data from a ground transmitter, but it is a big deal when the transmitted data is being used by ATC for separation services.

Which they've already clearly stated it can never ever do. Not even the certified units. Primary and secondary radar will continue to be the only primary source of ATC separation data after the ADS-B mandated cutover date.

ADS-B is non-authenticated and non-repudiated data that may not be used for primary separation services. Period. Full stop. It's child's play to spoof ADS-B data with a laptop and a transmitter in range of a receiver site. No encryption.

ADS-B as a primary aircraft location service was completely dead the second they published a spec without encryption key escrow and ability to encrypt the data.

So "certifying" a broken system design is nothing more than a circle jerk.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Which they've already clearly stated it can never ever do. Not even the certified units. Primary and secondary radar will continue to be the only primary source of ATC separation data after the ADS-B mandated cutover date.

ADS-B is non-authenticated and non-repudiated data that may not be used for primary separation services. Period. Full stop. It's child's play to spoof ADS-B data with a laptop and a transmitter in range of a receiver site. No encryption.

ADS-B as a primary aircraft location service was completely dead the second they published a spec without encryption key escrow and ability to encrypt the data.

Is this your opinion? Or is this backed up by facts? This seems to contradict the dog and pony show the FAA puts on about how NexGen will completely change everything. Better and closer separation, not being reliant on radar, etc etc etc. I don't completely disagree with your opinion, it's a valid point. But I'm not sure the FAA sees it that way.

 

[lolachampcar]

The antenna to antenna verification points being addressed by a certified shop installing support equipment for a portable solution is an interesting twist on the topic. I know the Experimental crowd is coming to grips with getting FAA approval for installations of paired TSO'd equipment as I write. Dynon in particular is doing some innovative work with the FAA but all of that work is still predicated on whole system installation in a specified and repeatable way. In addition, I believe that ADSB-Out installations have a POH addition or two. If supplements to the POH are required, the portable system would have to have this or the certified support element installation would trigger a POH update.

 

[Bob Noel]

Is this your opinion? Or is this backed up by facts? This seems to contradict the dog and pony show the FAA puts on about how NexGen will completely change everything. Better and closer separation, not being reliant on radar, etc etc etc. I don't completely disagree with your opinion, it's a valid point. But I'm not sure the FAA sees it that way.

The ADS-B out NPRM comment responses from the FAA can be, um, interesting.

I don't have the link handy for the ADS-B NRPM and the FAA responses to the NPRM comments (I changed computers and may have lost the link)

Also, look at the FAA multi-lateration system.

 

[bnt83]

I sat of the fence even for portable and I'm glad I have. The portable IN units cost about 1/3 to 1/2 what the IN&OUT 2020 compliant transceiver that NavWorxs sells.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

The ADS-B out NPRM comment responses from the FAA can be, um, interesting.

I don't have the link handy for the ADS-B NRPM and the FAA responses to the NPRM comments (I changed computers and may have lost the link)

Also, look at the FAA multi-lateration system.

Your responses aren't much clearer?

The FAA has no plans to use multi-lateration for air traffic control purposes. They never have. And the notion they ever will while we're alive is silly. You said the same thing in the other thread, and it is still incorrect. MLAT is only used as one component the multi-component ADSE-X ground traffic radar at a handful of airports. It has nothing to do with air traffic.

 

[Bob Noel]

Your responses aren't much clearer?

The FAA has no plans to use multi-lateration for air traffic control purposes. They never have. And the notion they ever will while we're alive is silly. You said the same thing in the other thread, and it is still incorrect. MLAT is only used as one component the multi-component ADSE-X ground traffic radar at a handful of airports. It has nothing to do with air traffic.

What the heck are you talking about?

Perhaps I misunderstood your post asking Denverpilot about his opinion or fact.

I was responding to the concept of ADS-B being unvalidated and your apparent questions regarding the FAA position on it. I said nothing about ATC purposes... of course, unvalidated ADS-B message can't be used for ATC purposes.

You apparently aren't aware of the multi-lateration system and radars being used to validate ADS-B out messages.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

What the heck are you talking about?

I've been asking you that for days in the other thread where you keep babbling this stuff that makes no sense. Not much different here. You did nothing at all to answer my question, which wasn't directed at you in the first place. You went on about something else.

You apparently aren't aware of the multi-lateration system and radars being used to validate ADS-B out messages.

I'm unaware of it because it doesn't exist. We've been through this. None of your validation and MLAT babble has any validity. As I said in both threads, the only place MLAT is used is as part of ADSE-X. It isn't used by ADS-B or anywhere else in the USA. Nor is ADS-B data validated by radar or anything else. Please stop confusing topics with this non-sense.

 

[denverpilot]

Is this your opinion? Or is this backed up by facts? This seems to contradict the dog and pony show the FAA puts on about how NexGen will completely change everything. Better and closer separation, not being reliant on radar, etc etc etc. I don't completely disagree with your opinion, it's a valid point. But I'm not sure the FAA sees it that way.

Someone here posted the direct link to the process document a while back that essentially said no change to the use of primary/secondary radar could be made to pay for ADS-B because ADS-B data couldn't be used as primary. It was months ago, you'd have to dig to find it.

Meanwhile no matter what the marketing department at FAA says, there's no data engineer who's got more than two brain cells to rub together who can't see the gaping security hole in ADS-B. Not even really a hole, just a complete omission in design. It's not possible to use non-repudiated data as primary.

Your responses aren't much clearer?

The FAA has no plans to use multi-lateration for air traffic control purposes. They never have. And the notion they ever will while we're alive is silly. You said the same thing in the other thread, and it is still incorrect. MLAT is only used as one component the multi-component ADSE-X ground traffic radar at a handful of airports. It has nothing to do with air traffic.

I guess the operational system being used as primary data in the KASE valley for IFR operations where there isn't ANY radar coverage, isn't there then, and KZDV isn't clearing aircraft into the valley for Instrument approaches based on Multilateralization data from multiple receivers.

Would you like me to post the photos of one of the receiver sites on a telephone pole? The telephone pole is owned by Global Signal. There's a cell site in the box next to it which is where the fiber optic runs into.

Price to implement in aircraft: $0. Transponder already required.

ADS-B aircraft location data: Radar and WAM already do it.
ADS-B weather: XM already did it, better.
ADS-B aircraft identification: Spoofable and insecure.
ADS-B RF design: US added completely non-standard 900
MHz band screwing international standards.

Name one thing ADS-B does better than an existing technology.

Padding any politician's pockets via buying the gear from their district, doesn't count. Pretending it's "free!" doesn't count.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Believe me, I totally with you on it being a poorly executed typical government boondoggle. Nor do I think MLAT is a bad thing. Just that it isn't used for what Bob keeps proclaiming. I didn't know they used it at Aspen, but it is a sensible alternative to radar. It is a very constrained single area though. We're not talking about wide area MLAT here.

If there is no radar, what exactly are these MLAT receivers listening to? With no radar, there will be no secondary reply from the transponder, and nothing for MLAT to listen to. Transponders don't broadcast, they reply, so is something on the ground interrogating the transponders in the area in some to make them reply?