ADSB Radar Box

[Guest sirius]

skybum;

 

I've heard, and read all that ad nauseum and I've been involved in fighting for the concept of flying without unnecessary restrictions and costs for years, but the important thing today is:

 

Certification is due for the end of this year Q4 2010

Talk to me when that happens. Until then it's a piece of unnecessary junk.

 

If you want a certified bit of kit right now then I suggest- Contacting

I don't want a bit of kit, probably never will unless forced at the point of a gun.

 

Where RAA would fit in is around CTAF®

Hang on a minute. It is only now that we look at the mandatory radio in a CTAF to make the Regionals feel good about their miserable life in being forced to look out of the window. Even then there are exemptions, but you accept this given by quoting CTAF ® which is the old and now defunct MBZ as we know it.

 

So what now? It's a CTAF, full stop. Read the "white paper".

 

Do I need a radio and an ADSB OUT to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. Most country airports are ghosts anyway except for once or twice a day (or even month), when a passenger carrying aircraft has right of way and you are treated like a criminal and forced to wear an ASIC. No wonder fuel company's are taking their outlets away, no business I guess.

 

Do you know the definition of VISUAL FLIGHT RULES? It involves looking outside the aircarft.

 

When a Regional reaches "decision height" in IFR he becomes "VISUAL" or does a missed approach. If he can't see the airport it is by definition IMC, and RAA have no business being in the air that day. So who benefits by me spending money on this bit of "kit"?

 

and the ability to fly ABV050

RAA need a transponder to fly in class E airspace above 8500ft AMSL only. (if granted that privelege). Otherwise you don't even need a transponder. Unless to take the cost on board voluntarily so airline TCAS can see you. This is called the double condom theory. To be sure to be sure Paddy.

 

The balance, class G airspace where RAA fly, is 90% (approximately) of the 7,500,000 sq (yes, million), Kilometers of Australian airspace multiplied into hemispherical altitudes of 500 ft to 10,000ft where you'll start to need oxygen. Thats 19 layers x 7.5 million sq Kilometers = too many digits for my calculator to find out- then divided by the total aircraft fleet airborne at any one time in exactly the same space.

 

Yes, obviously a very real danger of mid air collision and in need of ATC surveillance.

 

 

[storchy neil]

:wasnt me:thats atti :hittinghead:no neil :ban me please:leave that alone:sorry:cor neil

 

 

[skybum]

Sirius, whatever mate. You just stick to what you do and promise to keep enjoying yourself and I will be happy for you. My experience tells me otherwise and I will say no more.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

If you want to mix it with the Regionals I will be the first to acknowledge "alerted see and avoid" is better than "see and avoid" which is the basis of VFR flight. It just makes sense to carry radio in such an environment. The carriage of mode C transponder only enables those aircraft equiped with TCAS to see you. ATC call any aircraft not in their system and painting mode C, "blowfies". You won't get any taffic separation from them now, so it is unlikely you will ever if ADSB replaces radar where it is now. There is no such thing as "uncertified" mode C transponder. In fact if it is even unserviceable it is law that you turn it off.

 

With 45 years of "experience" in the industry I now only fly to enjoy myself. Why do people keep making things harder for me to keep doing this?

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Sorry guys but your all missing the point. Non repudiation may be simple and nothing too high tech about it but it must be made to work in the SSR protocol, much of which dates back to a WW2 design. In otherwords all that addon stuff cant break a Mode 3 transponder that still wants to work just as a mode 3 transponder.

It's just a bit of digital data, just like anything else ADS-B related (location) in the mode-s ES. So having put a signing algorithm in there would not have broken anything.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Bas,

 

Extended Squitter has the capacity to encode only 112 bits (not bytes) of info. Now If you feel that we can continue to have all the info that is currently in the datablock, and encrypt or sign it, in 112bits then I suggest that it we would need to give up some of the current payload, and there simply arent enough data slots to make it aqnything other than trivial to undo.

 

ADSB isnt an old technology and it wasnt put together by school children rather real engineers that have to work with the constraints that I spoke of. Extending beyond the 112bits will break the SSR protocol As I recall (and it was yrs ago so may be wrong) the Squitter pulse (unmodified by ADSB) had a real purpose and had timning constraints so just changing the size to allow a larger payloaqd wont work.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

In computing, there are many protocols that only allow a limited data payload. For instance, the TCP connection you are using now only allows about 1500 bytes. Not quite enough for this page, which is surely tens of kilobytes. So we sent multiple packets to make up the whole.

 

Was that not an option?

 

Doing a bit of Wikipedia research, the way I understand it, that is exactly what the military does with mode 4 and 5 transponders; describing mode 4 as "provides a 3-pulse reply to crypto coded challenge" (the way I would have done it, but it seems they beat me to it!) and mode 5 as "a cryptographically secured version of Mode S and ADS-B GPS position."

 

Not to mention there's the other methods of sending ADS-B data, like UAT that don't have the limitation of mode-S ES.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

I don't know if any of you have followed the various ADSB threads on other websites, but apart from the pilot needing to know the basics of how the "system" works and how to turn the device on and off, the average non "technophobe" switches off in these discussions.

 

The end result is a very predictable non involvement, and in typical "bureaucratese", this non involvement is taken as public consultation and overall support for something most don't want or need to be forced to buy.

 

These sort of discussions need pidgeon holing in the "avionics" section and leave us who are technologically challenged to discuss the merits of it's introduction based on cost/ benefit analysis. In my personal case, it will cost me heaps of money for doubtful benefit if it is mandated, and the main beneficiary is a money making corporation (QANGO), with one shareholder.

 

But then again that shareholder needs the money more than me, so I guess I'm just selfish.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

But then again that shareholder needs the money more than me, so I guess I'm just selfish.

Now now, that's not fair; I am sure Garmin, Honeywell, their local distributors and the LAME community need the money too!

I remember McCormick recently stated we should get ready to buy transponders (I have one, thank you very much) and that better be a mode S. Dear John, lucky for us, nobody seems to be selling them for GA use.