ADS-B Made Simple

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by N941WR

Wait? So, a Cub with no transponder can fly inside a Mode-C vale, under, but not in Class Bravo airspace but my RV with a transponder but not a certified ADS-B installation cannot fly in that same airspace.

Please tell me that I have that wrong.

You have it right. But that's no different than the current situation. Because you have an electrical system you must have a mode C transponder to fly within the vail; the cub is exempt.

BTW, for all those worried about user fees, it's too late: The ADSB-out mandate IS a user fee; it's the FAA saying that if you want to fly (in many areas) then the owner must pony up $$. Long term the FAA wants to get rid of radar, which is very expensive for them. Their solution: make the owners pay for the substitute.

[Radomir]

Y'all should support this proposal by submitting a comment:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2014-1061-0001


Even though I am 2020 compliant already, I do support this proposal... hopefully it'll go through with enough support from the flying community.

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

Long term the FAA wants to get rid of radar, which is very expensive for them.

Not sure radar will be decommissioned in my lifetime. More importantly radar is not particularly accurate. ADSB will allow closer spacing of aircraft, very important to the airlines.

[comfortcat]

Be careful what you wish for!

If we had been locked into standards too early, we would all be reading this with a 2400 baud modem!

Originally Posted by Mike S

Thanks Bill.

It would be so nice if we end users had the ability to buy from various vendors, and that the various items would play nicely together, so we could just simply plug-and-play install of the various things and they would work

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by comfortcat

Be careful what you wish for!

If we had been locked into standards too early, we would all be reading this with a 2400 baud modem!

No, you are talking hardware.

I am talking about how various chunks of hardware talk to each other.

[penguin]

Originally Posted by avionicsr

These days I spend a fair amount of my time explaining what ADS-B is, who needs it, and where it's needed. I've decided to put together this brief informational document about the ADS-B mandate. It's written in plain English, with references and examples. Hope you guys enjoy it. Link below

http://www.avionics-installations.com/ADS-BMadeSimple.pdf

I'm open to suggestions as well if anyone has any. I will try to incorporate more pictures in the next revision.

Pahan,

Good document, however I think you should make it clear this is a USA only view. Europe will not be implementing UAT, and has different airspace categorisation scheme (uses same letters but applied in a different way). I'm not suggesting you should try to explain how the whole World is doing ADS-B, just that this is a US specific view. There are already plenty of people in Europe wondering how they will get weather and re-transmitted traffic from ADS-B (they won't).

Pete

[deej]

Originally Posted by Mike S

No, you are talking hardware.
I am talking about how various chunks of hardware talk to each other.

I think he was referring to the communications protocol between two 2400 baud modems, which is different than that of 1Gb ethernet, for example.

This is analogous to one vendor using serial connections, and another using ethernet connections. Yes, different hardware, but also different communications protocols.

If we "locked" every vendor into using serial protocols, for example, then we also lock them out of any flexibility for future improvements/upgrades, like moving to a faster communications method like ethernet.

All of this is essentially "how various chunks of hardware talk to each other", IMHO.

As much as I agree it would be wonderful to have all vendors tech be able to talk to all other vendors tech, it is a huge challenge.

A nice first step would simply be to have each vendor publish their communications protocols, whether that be serial, ethernet, or whatever. Other companies can then choose if they want to be compatible or not, and the market will speak as to the success. This would involve companies working together versus competing with each other, so not likely to happen.

-Dj

[avionicsr]

Pete,
I'll incorporate the change in the next revision. Thanks

Originally Posted by penguin

Pahan,

Good document, however I think you should make it clear this is a USA only view. Europe will not be implementing UAT, and has different airspace categorisation scheme (uses same letters but applied in a different way). I'm not suggesting you should try to explain how the whole World is doing ADS-B, just that this is a US specific view. There are already plenty of people in Europe wondering how they will get weather and re-transmitted traffic from ADS-B (they won't).

Pete

[chazking]

I'm operating a TT-22 (Trig Transponder) & GTN-650 for ADS-B In & Out on AFS-5500/5600s ... It's working great.

But, from what I'm reading .. this configuration is not compliant(?).

[avionicsr]

Originally Posted by chazking

I'm operating a TT-22 (Trig Transponder) & GTN-650 for ADS-B In & Out on AFS-5500/5600s ... It's working great.

But, from what I'm reading .. this configuration is not compliant(?).

That's correct as of the last time the ADS-B approved combination list was published by the FAA. At that time, the only approved position source for the TT-22 was the Freeflight 1201. This may have change since the list was published. I would check with Trig to see what the current approved combinations for the TT-22 are.