ADS-B Optimism

[jlwild]

Hopefully cost relief may be in sight. Check out the article in the March 2015 "Flying" magazine by Robert Goyer (p. 17). He has proposed a low cost plan for light single engine aircraft that would keep the costs to around $1,500. It is a simplified ADS-B installation which makes use of existing non-WAAS certified GPS. It is encouraging to hear someone is trying to help budget minded aircraft owners keep their planes flying in 2020. If others hear of new developments suggest they also post them.

[canav8]

Jim there is no shortage of people trying to keep the GA alive. In the glider community, ADSB has been out a long time. Everything flying as we know it is affected by these rules. A cheaper solution is comming, and believe it or not the FAA is actually trying to help with the relaxation of certification requirements. Their new system will not work without this piece of the puzzle.

[bagarre]

http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/ ... -true-sort

The ADS600-EXP looks suspiciously like the fully TSO'd ADS-B Out units NavWorx sells to owners of certified Part 23 airplanes. In fact, NavWorx admits the new product is based on the ADS600-B, which has received FAA TSO/STC certification and carries a list price of $2,500 not including needed antennas and, of course, installation costs.

includes an internal Universal Access Transceiver with all the benefits of ADS-B In and Out, meaning it complies with the FAA's Jan. 1, 2020, mandate and buyers will be also receive free FIS-B weather and TIS-B traffic information to boot.

Oh, and it has a built-in WAAS GPS receiver. And Wi-Fi for output to an iPad. And did we mention it's just $699?

I know that certifying something involves a certain amount of cost.
However selling the certified box for $2,500 and the nonCertified box for $699 gives the appearance of price gouging.

[lowNslow]

As it stands there are some big downsides to using non-certified ADSB for the experimental crowd, there are some major drawbacks that make you wonder why you would bother. Heres a quote from the FAA :

"Some manufacturers are marketing uncertified ADS-B transmitters. Can I install these on my aircraft?

You may install an uncertified transmitter on amateur built aircraft and light-sport aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates. However,
you cannot install uncertified equipment, including uncertified transmitters on any aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate. Also, uncertified ADS-B transmitters do not comply with 14 CFR Part 91.227 and will not be permitted to operate in §91.225 airspace requiring ADS-B after January 1, 2020, without prior approval from air traffic control (ATC).
ATC cannot use the data from uncertified transmitters — this means ATC cannot provide flight-following services or separation services to these aircraft. Data from the uncertified transmitters is not displayed on certified ADS-B-In displays. Therefore, your fellow pilots in aircraft with certified ADS-B equipment won’t be able to “see” you. The FAA strongly discourages
the use of uncertified ADS-B Out equipment even in experimental aircraft."

[bagarre]

Requests for ATC authorized deviations from the requirements of this section must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows:

(1) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative ADS-B Out, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with ADS-B Out, the request must be made at least 1 hour before the proposed operation

I envision an extra field in flight plan filing to request non ADS-B VFR flights outside of Bravo Airspace similar to how you fly in the DC SFRA.

[flyboy122]

I know that certifying something involves a certain amount of cost.
However selling the certified box for $2,500 and the nonCertified box for $699 gives the appearance of price gouging.

If you look at the cost of DO-160 and DO-178 testing, you might start to understand where some of the difference comes from. Plus the certified product needs to made of aircraft spec components (no ordering switches from Digi-key for 32 cents), inspected per an approved Quality Manual, etc.... So even though they may do the same thing, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same thing. And even if they are, it's tough to justify adding the all extra expense for FAA cert to the homebuilt guys who don't need it. Now, this isn't meant to imply that the extra testing and requirements makes the certified version better. It may or may not.

If you don't like the cost discrepancy, your real beef is with the Feds. They are the ones who set the requirements that drive up the cost on this stuff.

DEM

[GAHorn]

The reason the experimental guys "don't need it" is because it doesn't meet standards to allow them to operate where they want.

I suspect the shake-out on all this will be....
...either a wholesale disregard for the FAA mandate (and folks will operate outside/below class C airspace anyway....
...or the marketplace will realize that the big opportunity will be the GA folks who need inexpensive solutions...and a much cheaper product that meets the standard will be developed, in accordance with a reduced criteria subsequently approved by the authorities.

The first scenario will force the second, and both are poor excuses because of gov't overreach.

[bagarre]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_paradox

Food for thought

[GAHorn]

That article opens upon an unlikely scenario at best. (The opening example is predicated upon aircraft travelling between the same two points.)
Of course there's a higher likelihood of collisions between aircraft travelling between only two points... regardless of vertical and lateral navigation accuracy, even. The advantage of random navigation (such as RNAV)* is that fewer aircraft are operating directly between the same two points.

But you're right Dave, that's an interesting discussion.

* (Before anyone jumps too quickly, anyone who has been doing this very long knows that the "R" does not stand for "Random". Anyone knowledgeable in this AREA is certainly aware that Random was merely the first name of Hipparchus, the Greek who invented the astrolabe.)

[lowNslow]

At work when we are in the non-radar oceanic areas we use a procedure called SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure) for just this reason. We can chose to offset to the right 1 or 2 nm but usually use 1nm.

[GAHorn]

You call that "work" ?

[lowNslow]

You call that "work" ?

Only when talking to the company, wouldn't want them to think we were having any fun.

[jrenwick]

The Wikipedia article is fascinating. I hadn't read about this before, but I've always had inklings about it when thinking about the hemispheric rule (which only seems to make sense when you're flying on a Victor airway). I often feel safer while flying VFR if I'm not exactly on the proper odd-or-even thousand plus 500' altitude.

Horizontal separation is another problem. I don't think GPS direct or RNAV navigation helps much, because many aircraft are still flying directly between the same two points A and B. The difference is that now they're airports, not VORs. Think about this: there's an airport with lots of based aircraft (for instance, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area: Anoka County, KANE) and a popular restaurant a reasonable distance away (like Eau Claire, WI, KEAU). On weekends we may see traffic concentrated between these two exact points around breakfast- and lunch-time. In that situation, flying to the right of the pink line on the GPS could be very helpful.

As the Wiki article points out, flying an offset from the course doesn't help in the case of intersecting A<->B courses -- it merely changes the point of possible collision. In connection with this, the article mentions ACCAR, an old idea I'd never heard of, but which I learned about here:

http://www.flyingmag.com/forums/trainin ... compass-cr

I'm involved in teaching a PPL ground school at the moment, and I think I'll mention this problem, along with a suggestion always to fly to the right of the GPS course if you're using one. It's harder to recommend altitude deviations, but I think we could suggest flying somewhere within 100' of the appropriate VFR cruising altitude, rather than being exactly on it.

Where I live, there could be similar cautions about following rivers and lake shores (a situation in which I've had one pretty near miss in the past). Don't fly directly over the river: fly off to the right of it. And don't fly directly over the shore of a big lake -- keep some distance inland or over the water. And never forget there may be other pilots enjoying the same scenery!

[GAHorn]

John, I think it's more accurate to say that most aircraft do NOT fly directly between two points labelled "A" and "B". They fly between B, F, H, Q, T, and W.... to and from "A".

Furthermore, they do not fly exactly ON the direct courseline, even with RNAV. They depart the runway, climb on a random course to a point outside a traffic-area...THEN hit "Direct" and fly to the destination. (In fact, I'll bet the average pilot RE-directs toward the destination... or toward a random arrival-point in the area...of the destination, several times during a flight. When was the last time you actually didn't have to go around a particular airspace, or cloud, etc etc. and then RE-hit "direct"?)
In other words...with most aircraft RNAV equipped, ...there are few magenta course-lines from which we should all offset to the "right" thereof.

[bagarre]

I wonder if that's the case with GPS so prevalent and simple to program.
I know in my case, I set up the route in the GPS before taking off so my route is point to point.
Once I'm in the air and away from the airport, I swing onto course.

On a longer trip, I always use airports as waypoints and I'm always below 3000' AGL.

So, If I take off from CGE to OXB for an ice-cream on the beach around the same time someone departs OXB for CGE to get some of their crab soup...we're on the same pink line. What happens if we both hold 1,500' over that pink line?

Flying in the DC SFRA can get crowded and it seems like everyone tends to cross the bay from KNAP to KNEF at 3,400' (just under BWI's Bravo).
It is not uncommon to hear on the radio "Traffic 12 O'clock opposite direction, same altitude"

Which is why I cross at 3,150 feet