Thoughts on NextGen

E

Embryboy1

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Maize, KS
Display Name
Display name:
Embryboy1
NextGen is coming--are you ready? I'm doing some research on pilot perception of the FAA's new "Air Traffic Management" system, scheduled to be phased in during the next decade. What do you know about it, and what do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the post. I invite you to take my survey as well, if you'd like. Here's the link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NextGenPerception
Thanks!

I'm closing the survey. Thanks to all who participated.


 
Last edited:
This was discussed at the latest IA renewal meeting,

we all agreed the FAA needs to drop it.
 
It'll turn out to be what it'll turn out to be. Hopefully they don't do a complete shift on protocols so that the stuff being sold as "ADS-B Ready" for the last few years is in fact so when full implementation is here.
 
I've read alot about the proposed benefits outlined by the FAA, most of which will "benefit" the airlines and others with the money to pay for the upgraded avionics. I don't think General Aviation will see the same rewards, or at least the costs may outweigh them. I haven't really seen GA's take on it. What reasons did your group give for being against it?
 
Henning said:
It'll turn out to be what it'll turn out to be. Hopefully they don't do a complete shift on protocols so that the stuff being sold as "ADS-B Ready" for the last few years is in fact so when full implementation is here.
Click to expand...

As of our meeting almost NONE of the ADS-B ready transponders on the market will be legal to operate once the system is on line:mad2:

Strait from the FSDO's mouth
 
Embryboy1 said:
I've read alot about the proposed benefits outlined by the FAA, most of which will "benefit" the airlines and others with the money to pay for the upgraded avionics. I don't think General Aviation will see the same rewards, or at least the costs may outweigh them. I haven't really seen GA's take on it. What reasons did your group give for being against it?
Click to expand...

Cost and practicality. What will ADS-B give me that I don't already have?

Not a damn thing besides let me cancel my XM, but for the cost of ADS-B I can get almost 30 years of XM weather.
 
Skylane81E said:
Cost and practicality. What will ADS-B give me that I don't already have?

Not a damn thing besides let me cancel my XM, but for the cost of ADS-B I can get almost 30 years of XM weather.
Click to expand...

That's right--as aviation gets more costly, an expensive mandate from the FAA with little benefit to the GA operator does nothing to help GA grow.:confused:
 
Skylane81E said:
As of our meeting almost NONE of the ADS-B ready transponders on the market will be legal to operate once the system is on line:mad2:

Strait from the FSDO's mouth
Click to expand...

I suspected that which is why I didn't do the transponder upgrade when I did my panel. Were they including the new one they sell with the Garmin 650/750?
 
Embryboy1 said:
That's right--as aviation gets more costly, an expensive mandate from the FAA with little benefit to the GA operator does nothing to help GA grow.:confused:
Click to expand...

Don't bet on that. It's peoples perceptions that keep them away from flying. With full implementation of Next Gen coupled with the latest generation of SVT electronics and touch screen nav systems coupled to digital autopilots and more people will say "I can do this". THAT is when the carnage will begin and GA will probably be regulated out of existence. Growing GA is not necessarily a good thing..
 
Henning said:
I suspected that which is why I didn't do the transponder upgrade when I did my panel. Were they including the new one they sell with the Garmin 650/750?
Click to expand...


Don't know, they mentioned the spec that they have to meet and not being an avionics geek or having any plan of "upgrading" before I have to I didn't pay that much attention to what spec was what.
 
bigred177 said:
So do they plan on helping any of us out with the switch?

The FAA paid to equip over 100 aircraft (mostly commuter service aircraft) for initial testing in Alaska in the early 2000's, but I doubt there is any plan for the rest of us.:nonod:
Click to expand...
 
I think as part of our re-registration process the govt should pay for half of the switch to NexGen for all the newly registered planes. That way they're not wasting money on the ones they "lost" in the old registration system and they get their precious ADS-B in all of the planes. :rofl:
 
NextGen and ADS-B are reliant on GPS.
LightSquared is about ready to take out (jam) the GPS L1 band with their 40,000 4G broadband towers across the US.

So what is plan B?
 
The FAA might have more street cred if their "thisgen" was worth a shlt, or their "lastgen" had panned out or if "anygen" had ever been even close to what they predicted. As an organization, they couldn't track a wounded elephant through fresh snow.
 
wabower said:
The FAA might have more street cred if their "thisgen" was worth a shlt, or their "lastgen" had panned out or if "anygen" had ever been even close to what they predicted. As an organization, they couldn't track a wounded elephant through fresh snow.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is that it's still probably the best run federal agency:mad2:
 
Will the new avionics be required? What about all the little cubs and champs that just wanna fly around for fun???
 
Jeanie said:
Will the new avionics be required? What about all the little cubs and champs that just wanna fly around for fun???
Click to expand...

The FAA rule does not require the ADSB-Out avionics if you don't fly in or around Class C or B or above 10,000 feet. If the aircraft was not originally certified with an electrical system, then it doesn't need to have ADSB Out and can fly under a class B or C, but not above it. See FAR 91.225 for details.
 
No different when the FAA mandated that aircraft be equipped with transponders in the first place. Just another box that doesn't help you fly the airplane and costs money when it breaks.
 
steingar said:
No different when the FAA mandated that aircraft be equipped with transponders in the first place. Just another box that doesn't help you fly the airplane and costs money when it breaks.
Click to expand...

One difference is that this ADS-B out stuff, with the required GPS, will easily cost at least half of what I could sell my cherokee for.

That's probably the primary reason why I won't be equipping and will need to dump the airplane before 2020 - unless a miracle occurs.
 
Bob Noel said:
One difference is that this ADS-B out stuff, with the required GPS, will easily cost at least half of what I could sell my cherokee for.

That's probably the primary reason why I won't be equipping and will need to dump the airplane before 2020 - unless a miracle occurs.
Click to expand...


And transponders did SOMETHING:mad2: all ADS-B does is pass the buck off of the FAA and on to us, gee sounds kinda like a backhanded user fee to me:rolleyes:
 
Nextgen is outright dangerous. Well, I guess it'll be ok as long as the old tech (primary radar and transponders are still required). But once those go away...I don't want to be flying anymore.
 
Skylane81E said:
And transponders did SOMETHING:mad2: all ADS-B does is pass the buck off of the FAA and on to us, gee sounds kinda like a backhanded user fee to me:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Call it what you want, but yes, your air services will be reduced in subsidy. You will be required to shoulder more of your burden for what is promissed to be superior service at an over all reduction in cost per total quantity of data/information/service. IF, and it's a big "if", the system actually comes through as advertised, I am willing to buy the equipment to make it happen. I'm not willing though until I see it work.
 
Sheesh, another cluster moment........ I think I'll just wait and see what happens before I get my knickers in a twist.
 
And transponders did SOMETHING all ADS-B does is pass the buck off of the FAA and on to us, gee sounds kinda like a backhanded user fee to me
Click to expand...

That's what I have been saying, too, Duncan. It's a big cost shift to the airplane owners. Nice equipment (as long as it is working), but expensive. I may be overly conservative, but I am a little hesitant to bet my life totally on GPS.
 
somorris said:
That's what I have been saying, too, Duncan. It's a big cost shift to the airplane owners. Nice equipment (as long as it is working), but expensive. I may be overly conservative, but I am a little hesitant to bet my life totally on GPS.
Click to expand...

Speaking of GPS, has anyone been following the latest on the LightSquared broadband and it's interference with GPS receivers? Apparently the company is trying to use a bandwidth very close to the GPS signals, and the plan is to spread 4G internet access throughout the states using tens of thousands of transmitters. Trouble is, testing has shown it's overpowering the GPS signals, causing loss of signal and position definition. A lot of players are involved (DOD, DOT, aviation groups, agriculture, commercial GPS companies, etc.) and it looks to be a potentially significant change if it's allowed. This would certainly degrade the reliability of GPS signals for aviation purposes and probably derail the FAA's NextGen air traffic management plans, which are based primarily on GPS access.
 
Embryboy1 said:
Speaking of GPS, has anyone been following the latest on the LightSquared broadband and it's interference with GPS receivers? Apparently the company is trying to use a bandwidth very close to the GPS signals, and the plan is to spread 4G internet access throughout the states using tens of thousands of transmitters. Trouble is, testing has shown it's overpowering the GPS signals, causing loss of signal and position definition. A lot of players are involved (DOD, DOT, aviation groups, agriculture, commercial GPS companies, etc.) and it looks to be a potentially significant change if it's allowed. This would certainly degrade the reliability of GPS signals for aviation purposes and probably derail the FAA's NextGen air traffic management plans, which are based primarily on GPS access.
Click to expand...
Yes, and from what I understand, the issue is a bit more complex than that:

- FCC has given LightSquared permission to use this spectrum at a very high power output.
- LS claims that they won't be transmitting at full power, but they certainly could.
- This wouldn't actually be a problem because the frequencies LS is using don't overlap with the GPS frequencies. HOWEVER, since LS's frequency band was originally only to be used for space-based transmissions, pretty much all GPS receivers aren't shielded correctly against land-based transmissions.
- The FCC just gave in and allowed land-based transmissions (such as LS) on this band.
- GPS isn't the only thing at risk here. Emergency responders, such as police, fire, etc. would have reception problems in areas where they use the correct (wrong?) band.

I don't think LS will really be able to go ahead with this. Somebody will step in.
 
From what I understand, if the transmissions were space-based there wouldn't be an interference problem. LightSquared got permission to use ground towers to "supplement" the space based signal, but in reality are building it the other way around, so that the main signal is ground based with satellite filling in the gaps.
 
sba55 said:
Yes, and from what I understand, the issue is a bit more complex than that:

- FCC has given LightSquared permission to use this spectrum at a very high power output.
- LS claims that they won't be transmitting at full power, but they certainly could.
- This wouldn't actually be a problem because the frequencies LS is using don't overlap with the GPS frequencies. HOWEVER, since LS's frequency band was originally only to be used for space-based transmissions, pretty much all GPS receivers aren't shielded correctly against land-based transmissions.
- The FCC just gave in and allowed land-based transmissions (such as LS) on this band.
- GPS isn't the only thing at risk here. Emergency responders, such as police, fire, etc. would have reception problems in areas where they use the correct (wrong?) band.

I don't think LS will really be able to go ahead with this. Somebody will step in.
Click to expand...
FAA and others are stepping in - latest tests show the LS plan would make GPS unusable in large areas. The FCC's stated that LS can only go ahead if they don't interfere, so....

I expect LS either abandons the spectrum that interferes (they still have one other block of spectrum), or they abandon the project altogether.
 
'Is anybody concerned that the GPS system can be rendered unusable by a 42dBw transmitter in an adjacent spectrum? Is it prudent to build a no-backup, global system that can be rendered unusable by a miscreant hobbyist that might not be a law-abiding American?
There are concerns with a system completely dependent on GPS satellites. Satellites fail, they’re hard to troubleshoot and replace, sunspots affect them, and the Chinese seem to be able to shoot them down. And there’s another thing: the radio signal from the satellite in orbit (20k miles up) to an airplane’s GPS receiver is pretty weak. That radio signal is not nearly as strong as a signal sent from a (legacy, ground-based) VOR. It becomes very important that nothing interfere with the faint GPS radio signal.

The entire infrastructure basis for NextGen is complete reliance on the United States’ NavStar global navigation satellite system (GNSS), our network of GPS satellites. Russia is developing GLONASS, China is developing Compass, and Europe is developing Galileo. These are competitive, non-complementary systems.:mad2:

The successful implementation of trajectory-based operations will reduce the dependence of the NAS on surveillance. Separation will typically be achieved by strategic separation of trajectory, rather than tactical separation through surveillance. However, surveillance will continue to play an important role in monitoring compliance to trajectories, detecting blunders, and mitigating unexpected failures of aircraft or facilities. In some instances, separation by the Air Navigation Service Provider will not be sufficient. Such instances include closely-spaced parallel approaches, certain crossing traffic and climbing/passing traffic situations, along with operations outside controlled airspace. In these instances, NextGen will include a transfer of separation responsibility to the flight crew, analogous to how responsibility is transferred in visual conditions today.':hairraise:
 
TMetzinger said:
FAA and others are stepping in - latest tests show the LS plan would make GPS unusable in large areas. The FCC's stated that LS can only go ahead if they don't interfere, so....

I expect LS either abandons the spectrum that interferes (they still have one other block of spectrum), or they abandon the project altogether.
Click to expand...
Good; let's hope it goes that way. But I can see a lawsuit coming based on the fact that LS isn't actually interfering at all...it's not LS's fault that the GPS receivers were designed with the idea in mind that LS's band would only be used for low-power, space-based transmissions.

I think it's fair to blame the FCC here for changing it's mind on frequency use _after_ the GPS manufacturers had already designed their systems.
 
sba55 said:
Good; let's hope it goes that way. But I can see a lawsuit coming based on the fact that LS isn't actually interfering at all...it's not LS's fault that the GPS receivers were designed with the idea in mind that LS's band would only be used for low-power, space-based transmissions.

I think it's fair to blame the FCC here for changing it's mind on frequency use _after_ the GPS manufacturers had already designed their systems.
Click to expand...
You may be right that the FCC is to blame. Certainly somewhere in there the Gov't dropped the ball and never took steps to protect the GPS spectrum properly. And you'd think that since so much depends on it (even if it's just to give adequate time signals to networks) they'd have caught on.
 
I spent some time going through ADS-B specs for the 1090MHz version (required for Class A ops).
I think it will result in some significant safety improvements in the air, on the ground. I haven't gone through the specs for the UAT version (for GA) to see how it compares.

I do think all the data needs to be encrypted. It's not entirely unlike broadcasting flight data recorder data publicly.

I predict the media will regularly purchase publicly broadcast trajectory data from pros and hobbyists monitoring large terminal areas to capture the final moments of large horrific incidents; to fuel insatiable press, lawyer, and political appetites for uninformed public spectacle.
 
kontiki said:
I spent some time going through ADS-B specs for the 1090MHz version (required for Class A ops).
I think it will result in some significant safety improvements in the air, on the ground. I haven't gone through the specs for the UAT version (for GA) to see how it compares.

I do think all the data needs to be encrypted. It's not entirely unlike broadcasting flight data recorder data publicly.

I predict the media will regularly purchase publicly broadcast trajectory data from pros and hobbyists monitoring large terminal areas to capture the final moments of large horrific incidents; to fuel insatiable press, lawyer, and political appetites for uninformed public spectacle.
Click to expand...

Another possibility is that some anti-airport goons will claim to capture data showing rule violations or whatever. Since there isn't any validation of the data, it could be challenging to show that the data is faked.
 
Embryboy1 said:
Speaking of GPS, has anyone been following the latest on the LightSquared broadband and it's interference with GPS receivers? Apparently the company is trying to use a bandwidth very close to the GPS signals, and the plan is to spread 4G internet access throughout the states using tens of thousands of transmitters. Trouble is, testing has shown it's overpowering the GPS signals, causing loss of signal and position definition. A lot of players are involved (DOD, DOT, aviation groups, agriculture, commercial GPS companies, etc.) and it looks to be a potentially significant change if it's allowed. This would certainly degrade the reliability of GPS signals for aviation purposes and probably derail the FAA's NextGen air traffic management plans, which are based primarily on GPS access.
Click to expand...

There are at least three POA threads on the LightSquared issue:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41909
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40818
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40378
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top