ADS-B Compliancy for wingmen in required airpace

Captain_John · #1 03-13-2017, 08:26 AM

So, yesterday while transitioning Boston's Class Bravo with Russki in tow I got to thinking...

If we were in a post 2020 world doing this very same thing, and I were ADS-B equipped... Would Russki need to be compliant?

I rang up Boston and asked them. What do you think they said?

I imagine that the feds haven't thought this far ahead, and if they did they haven't put anything into a file for revising the FAR/AIM.

What are your thoughts?

I would like to hear them.

CJ

Mel · #2 03-13-2017, 08:29 AM

My guess would be that they said everyone has to be compliant because there is always the possibility that the formation may break up for some reason while in their airspace.

az_gila · #3 03-13-2017, 10:01 AM

I'm guessing no as long as the formation is in place and the leader is responsible for airspace location.

If yes, wouldn't the ATC automatic collision warnings be going off all of the time?

fl-mike · #4 03-13-2017, 10:06 AM

I'm going to guess:
Compliant, but wingmen in "stand-by", i.e. "equipped".

PCHunt · #5 03-14-2017, 03:17 AM

Don't ask, don't tell...........

Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to............

(Just a couple of famous quotes that come to mind!)

catmandu · #6 03-14-2017, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel

My guess would be that they said everyone has to be compliant because there is always the possibility that the formation may break up for some reason while in their airspace.

Actually, the Forces of Darkness have been quite accommodating in the DC area, even allowing aircraft with known broken transponders to fly in the FRZ as the wingman of another. Sometimes common sense does win the day.

Captain_John · #7 03-14-2017, 07:14 AM

Yes, I think that we are all correct in our replies. This makes me remember Tony and his "ask a controller" thread. Vlad and I were saying that he could address this and support our voices in a most effective manner. In his absence, I thought that this would make a productive discussion.

Here is the reply that I got... My controller got in touch with the smartest guy at the facility and he said that they have no protocols, since it isn't 2020 yet, but at their level they really wouldn't care and would allow wingmen into Bravo sans ADS-B.

Now, I didn't ask the question about a non-compliant aircraft bugging out of formation while inside Bravo. I once actually had to do this a few years back and it CAN and DOES happen.

I dare say that if it DID happen, then it could become interesting. In reality, collision avoidance could be handled by position reporting and vectors.

On a rare occasion that this actually happens, workload wouldn't be difficult and safety would be relatively assured.

THIS is what I would like to see written into the FAR's when this actually becomes law.

If it were, it would alleviate this exact question.

So what are your thoughts now?

Basically I would like to have my non-equipped wingmen still join us in traveling through ADS-B airspace and I don't see it as much of an issue to accommodate it.

CJ

Bill Boyd · #8 03-14-2017, 07:31 AM

... does it matter if wingman is nefarious Russki with inordinate interest in radar antenna installations across great USA country? Should it matter?

Need to clear this with TSA as well as controllers, da?

flightlogic · #9 03-14-2017, 10:00 AM

I have a couple of predictions. ADS-B is required to be on ALL the time. (if equipped)
There is no standby switch in many systems. Since they are based on TSO GPS receivers... the controller should clearly see both targets. His radar return might be combined... but the ADS-B solution is quite distinct... even with N numbers visible in many systems. The Russians, all the banned countries and even rednecks from Texas A&M will all be spending money to be compliant.

greghughespdx · #10 03-14-2017, 11:18 AM

My guess (and I know I should never assume too much in government project land hah) is that with the new all-digital system, multiple combined targets could be electronically deconflicted/grouped together by the controller as a flight of x with a specific call sign assigned using the tail number for the flight lead. The computers could manage that use case, if the program was written to support it. If the formation was to break up, the software system could deal with that as well. Point is that by its very nature this new technology (digital computer-based platform) could be designed/enhanced to deal with this type of situation and make things simpler/smarter/safer/etc. for everyone involved in the situation.