3331 137 #1 March 14, 2008 USPA has submitted comments to the FAA concerning the agency’s proposal to move to a new system of air traffic control called NextGen. A component of that system is known as ADS-B, for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast. The ADS-B system combines the GPS system, aircraft avionics and ground stations to enable more accurate transmission of position and trajectory information between aircraft and ATC, and between aircraft. The FAA is proposing that by 2020 all aircraft be equipped for ADS-B when operating in Class A, B or C airspace, and Class E airspace areas at or above 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). Because most skydiving jump planes fly above 10,000 feet MSL, USPA took the opportunity to advise FAA’s planners of the impact on jump operations. Though there may be safety benefits (still to be determined), there could also be huge costs. For instance, the FAA noted that the costs for a piston aircraft could range from $6,578 to $22,283; the costs for a turbine aircraft could range from $12,906 to $486,000. Stay tuned to the USPA website and Parachutist for updates.I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #2 March 15, 2008 I imagine AOPA has a lot to say about it too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #3 March 15, 2008 Sounds like a good thing to me, as long as the cost is reasonable (more like $10k than $500k per aircraft). 2020 is a long way away... I think we have time to save our pennies. Can't imagine why there's such a massive price range for the technology. I assume the high end is what it would cost to integrate the displays into existing complex avionics systems. But from a safety standpoint, it's just what we need. I'd like to hear about DZs installing collision avoidance technology before the FAA makes us. I can't believe there WOULDN'T be huge safety benefits when all aircraft are equipped. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #4 March 15, 2008 I am not interested in 'saving my pennies' for technology that has yet to actually be invented. 'nextgen' is nothing more than a catch-phrase - they do not even know what it is yet, yet they want to add user fees and raise taxes to pay for it? This is typical gov't bullshit driven by larger corps that hope to get fat gov't contracts to invent stuff that may not work and we will end up paying for it. I like VFR myself. see and be seen. How about instead of offering us high-end electronics that cost $10K-$500K that they instead 'approve' the $1000-$3000 devices that already exist but I am currently not allowed to fly with? If you want the best interests of general aviation, then that would be a good start. trouble is they look to the industry leaders for advice - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Grummond, etc. Those guys are not interested in what sells for $1000. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #5 March 15, 2008 Quote I like VFR myself. see and be seen. How about instead of offering us high-end electronics that cost $10K-$500K that they instead 'approve' the $1000-$3000 devices that already exist but I am currently not allowed to fly with? . Hi TK, What equipment are you not allowed to use VFR? Ed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #6 March 15, 2008 ADS-B hasn't been invented yet? Sure, it's still in development, but it's been tested in a lot of areas now. We're talking about a rule to be implemented 12 years from now. I do agree that there are an awful lot of cool avionics you can install in an experimental plane that you can't put in a certified plane. Sucks, but there are reasons why avionics need to be certified. But by the time ADS-B is mandatory, there'll be all kinds of companies building units for aircraft. I'm sure there will be all sorts of options at different costs. Think about what a certified panel-mount GPS cost when it was new compared to today. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,030 #7 March 15, 2008 QuoteQuote I like VFR myself. see and be seen. How about instead of offering us high-end electronics that cost $10K-$500K that they instead 'approve' the $1000-$3000 devices that already exist but I am currently not allowed to fly with? . Hi TK, What equipment are you not allowed to use VFR? Ed I suspect his "VFR" sentence was a separate thought from his "devices" sentence. I have a Garmin 396 GPS with WAAS in my plane. It is not legal for IFR despite having battery backup in case the plane's electrical system fails, and is accurate typically to 10 ft. I also have a 38 year old King ADF which is 100% dependent on the plane's electrical system and which, on a good day, will get me within a mile of my destination IF the ground equipment is still working and turned on, yet it is 100% legal for IFR navigation. Go figure. As for NextGen, there has been a plan for the next generation of ATC as long as I have been a pilot, and nothing has happened yet. I'm not holding my breath.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #8 March 15, 2008 Agreed, and if you went to the 496, you can upgrade with an add on unit, and get real time traffic. The FAA needs to stop blaming their 30 years of inactivity, and passing the buck, on GA, but instead they need to sack up and do the job they've been handed decades ago.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #9 March 16, 2008 Quote As for NextGen, there has been a plan for the next generation of ATC as long as I have been a pilot, and nothing has happened yet. I'm not holding my breath. For those who may not know, the FAA is trying to do away with radar. A simplification of the way this would work is the aircraft GPS would transmit identification, position and altitude. Other planes and ground stations could pick up this information and display it on a computer screen. I am sure that the FAA in conjunction with the avionics industry can find a way to make this expensive; with their cooperation it should actually cost less in the long run. This unit would replace the aircraft transponder and ground radar stations. As an Amateur Radio Operator, I was involved in a test of a similar system about 15 years ago. It was called APRS or Automated Position Reporting System. About 30 of us in the southeast US and Bahamas put them together and placed them on our sailboats. It required a GPS, transceiver and a notebook computer. The information from the GPS was periodically sent out in "packets" and it showed up on everyone's notebook computer as position and identification. By todays standards, its costs were small and it proved to be an excellent system. The big job would be getting the FAA to approve a low cost system. It is possible to mass produce such a unit for less than $1000, but who believes that will ever happen if it is for an aircraft? There was a time that one could switch from one plane to another and the avionics worked "pretty much" the same. Today that is not so and I want MY GPS with me so that I know which button to push. The FAA needs to learn that portable no longer means unreliable. Ed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrightskyguy 1 #10 March 16, 2008 I went to an ADS-B seminar recently at the HAI symposium in Houston. While all the bugs haven't been worked out, the technology does indeed exist. They are going to implement it into oil rig helo operations in the Gulf of Mexico first, there are an enormous amount of flights there with virtually no traffic control other than time seperation. If I'm low and slow 100 miles from anywhere, I'd feel a little better if someone knew exactly where I was. John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #11 March 17, 2008 Being a Gulf of Mexico (GOM) helicopter pilot myself, I can vouch for your comments. Ones eyes and TCAS work fine for traffic purposes but ATC radar is practically useless at the altitudes and range we fly at. The lack of continuous accurate position reporting is addressed but could be much better. ADS-B promises to make every GOM pilot's nightmare - taking a swim close to sundown when no one knows quite where you are and they can't get to you even if they do - "just" a really bad night. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #12 March 17, 2008 Quote I'd like to hear about DZs installing collision avoidance technology before the FAA makes us Our chief pilot mentioned at a staff meeting 2 weeks ago that a colision avoidance system had been installed in our jump plane over the winter. Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #13 March 17, 2008 If you're saying that for $12,000, an Twin Otter could be outfitted to have full informational awareness about every aircraft operating in the area, that safety benefit would be simply outstanding. Likewise, if for a $12,000 investment on behalf of the Twin Otter, each Soutwest 767 could see the jumpship each and every time, that too would be just outstanding. All of this changes of course if that same system costs $486,000. Of course, the real costs I'm sure will be somewhere in between. ADS-B could be one of the biggest safety enhancements to GA the FAA has ever introduced - as long as it's affordable. The most pragmatic approach to ADS-B is one where an affordable system gets put in place ASAP. I am disturbed that the FAA seems to be planning a staggered release cycle where airplane owners will be required to purchase new gear, and update old gear piece by piece over a long period of time. The current plan of the FAA seems like the worst case. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #14 March 17, 2008 QuoteThe big job would be getting the FAA to approve a low cost system. It is possible to mass produce such a unit for less than $1000, but who believes that will ever happen if it is for an aircraft? An ELT is just such a system and is exactly where I'd opt to put the identification and GPS position components of ADS-B functionality. The altitude and RF components could be there as well or might be better co-located with a mode C transponder/encoder or derivative. Data and power could be transferred between the two over a NMEA 0183 or USB interface. Far fetched? Look at the ACR Aerofix 406 and ACR Microfix 406. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #15 March 18, 2008 Quote An ELT is just such a system and is exactly where I'd opt to put the identification and GPS position components of ADS-B functionality. The altitude and RF components could be there as well or might be better co-located with a mode C transponder/encoder or derivative. Data and power could be transferred between the two over a NMEA 0183 or USB interface. Far fetched? Look at the ACR Aerofix 406 and ACR Microfix 406 Not far fetched at all. I hadn't thought of that, but most of the components are already in the (newer) ELT for compiling the data and transmission of the data. If you want to receive from others you could opt for a receiver that outputs to the GPS screen, most of that is already in most planes. So, bottom line, it looks like a modification to the ELT and another small receiver for the GPS would do the entire job. They wouldn't make it that simple, would they??? Ed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gofastrlbrown 0 #16 March 21, 2008 I can see it closing down some drop zones that are just breaking even. It will not hurt the drop zone I am at. They got the money. Somebody may have to sell a Ferrari or two. GOFASTIt is strange, the more I practice, the better I get! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrismgtis 0 #17 March 21, 2008 You mean typical bullshit started by companies that can afford it because they overcharge customers by 5000% for something they have to use, just like oil companies. Then they never think about how it will effect 99% of the population. Just because they have deep pockets, they think everyone does.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #18 March 22, 2008 No it sounds like he is talking about a self imployed buisseness owner like me that is making an honest living and gets what they want/worked for!!!! Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrismgtis 0 #19 March 23, 2008 Quote No it sounds like he is talking about a self imployed buisseness owner like me that is making an honest living and gets what they want/worked for!!!! I'm just pissed about gasoline prices. Don't mind me. Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
