My Ideal ADS-B Solution

David - I share your search.  I would be perfectly happy to have only 978 Out for compliance, and Dual IN integrated with TAS to display both on our 540's.

I’m curious why you would want to exchange the AXP340 for a UAT (978MHz) ADS-B Out device? My AXP340 seems to work well.

I would prefer a dual band ADS-B In unit over the SkyTax 100 that I have, but that is independent of the AXP340.

Melohn wrote: The only reason I can see to want UAT Out over 1090ES Out is for its “anonymous” mode. It seems highly unlikely this will be useful for anyone flying in B, C, or D airspace, where you will still be identifiable via FlightAware ATC recordings.

I don't normally receive a discrete squawk code when flying in class D airspace.  I do in class B of course.

I don't encounter class C often enough to recall if they assigned me a code or not.

The other reason for desiring a UAT out device is that they tend to be AT LEAST a thousand dollars cheaper than an equivalent 1090ES product.  I can't explain why, but that is the marketplace.

I thought with ADS-B, you transmit a unique code for your airplane, along with the squawk code. Even when squawking 1200, they can know who you are.

According to AOPA:

Melohn wrote: According to AOPA: FAR 91.227 specifically allows operators with TSO-C154c-compliant 978UAT ADS-B Out equipment to temporarily transmit a self-assigned (randomized) 24-bit address, and no call sign.

I hadn't come across this thread until now, but I fully agree with David's thoughts.  Anonymous mode is very important to me - and not because I operate illegally.  I am fortunate that most of my flying is outside areas requiring an "out" signal.

Stiletto1 wrote: That is the most frustrating part of this whole ADSB thing. Typical government program: An expensive requirement for an incomplete solution to a statistically small problem.

If you're thinking that ADSB was designed primarily to benefit the pilot's in-cockpit resources, then yes, you're right--that seems inefficient and wasteful.  But if that's what you think ADSB is for, then you're misunderstanding the primary goal of ADSB.  

Edited by MysticCobra - 08 Sep 2018 at 8:13am

Stiletto1 wrote: I understand "their" goal, of course - but that goal is still not met when they continue to allow aircraft to operate just outside class B/C while below 10k' with no transponder at all.

It was never the government's "goal" with ADS-B to protect general aviation.  As an industry, we would have gone to the barricades and fought the government tooth and nail if it imposed on us the obligation the government has forced the airline industry to conform to: 100% equipped by 1/1/20.

Edited by Catani - 08 Sep 2018 at 11:57am

If at the end of the day busy airports are able to cram in more takeoffs and landings, and airlines see lower fuel use, then ADSB will have met its goals.

Stiletto1 wrote: Understood. My point is that if the goal was to protect only airliners, they missed that goal by a long shot!

Stiletto1 wrote: ... the FAA is in fact marketing ADSB as a traffic awareness/collision avoidance system to GA. I'm simply pointing out that ADSB is an incomplete system under the current implementation and regulatory requirements, could have and probably should have gone all the way, and does not protect airliners from colliding with GA any better than the current transponder requirements. It probably does allow ATC to space airliners closer together - that may be the only goal it will accomplish. Of course, the carrot will entice some of GA to equip as well - so there will be some overall improvement to traffic awareness as well. I wonder who wins the courtroom argument when one must defend their decision not to equip with ADSB-out? What would one say against the plaintiff's argument that you could have prevented disaster for little money - that it was not required to operate within certain airspace and therefore you were within your rights to fly there without it?

I'll tell you that I'm not spending $600 in the floatplane. I won't equip that plane.

Not at all.  I just don’t see it as necessary. We don’t even run a transponder in the airplane.  

Stiletto1 wrote: ... To bring this conversation back on topic, the ideal ADSB solution is one where everyone participates in traffic awareness.

Edited by oskrypuch - 10 Sep 2018 at 1:21pm

Stiletto1 wrote: I don't understand why some are so against making themselves more conspicuous to others in order to avoid a collision - and what pilot wouldn't want to know of others in the airspace around them?  <snip> What am I missing about this that I should be worried about?

Correction:

The self contained battery powered uAvionix product I mentioned above is called the 'SkyEcho'.


They do also have a product called the SkyBeacon

Gring wrote: Please remember that not all flight operations are the same, and I don't think it is right to put them all in the same box. Take the seaplane for instance, it has a transponder, but hasn’t been checked in 10+ years, so it doesn’t have the required 24mth check and therefore isn’t operable . Before you throw stones, have you ever stopped to think about the logistics of owning a floatplane with no wheels? Can’t get it to an avionics shop for a check very easily, and onsite check where I live is simply cost prohibitive if you can find someone who will drop what they are doing, drive to east BF, and do your $300 transponder check. It doesn’t make sense to go through all that headache when it isn’t required. And when I do fly through Class B or C I’m talking to ATC. Outside of that, the radio is off too - oh the horror!!! There are many different aspects of aviation, and just because one of them doesn’t fit into your vision or understanding does not make it wrong and socially irresponsible as you have suggested. My flight environment is vastly different from yours with different hazards, and procedures. Do not lump it all into one bucket. It's more likely that I'll run into wildlife or structures like bridges, wind turbines, and antennas than other airplanes. I think your thought process needs to be expanded a bit as it shows your ignorance about the environment you operate in. What do you think about glider pilots? It’s highly more likely that you’ll encounter one of them at 3-8000ft without either a radio or transponder than you will me at <1000ft while flying your Bonanza. My point is that there are lots of planes out there that won’t show up on your fancy electronics which is why the primary collision avoidance according to the FARs is still “see and avoid”. You have to decide whether you are an aviator or a button pusher. Looking at other threads about what people are doing in cruise - reading books, watching movies and waiting for your ADSB In to go “traffic, traffic” just shows the sad state of pilots these days. This airplane will never get ADSB out because it won’t get a WAAS GPS and a new transponder. It simply isn’t needed nor required. I don’t like ADSB “among other things” because people like you wrongly assume after 2020 that you’ll see all aircraft in the sky, and those like me that choose not to participate in the system are selfish, irresponsible, hazardous, and generally bad for aviation.

I think your attempt to justify your contrary position on the matter is quite contrived. For the purpose of this discussion, all flight operations are the same when they involve sharing the airspace with others.

You talk about traversing class B/C airspace with your floatplane, so you do not only operate where I and others do not - and I too spend considerable time at less than 1000' AGL in some aircraft.

The technology I mentioned above does not require a transponder at all - has an internal WAAS GPS - so your protesting about the inconvenience, TO YOU, of performing the required transponder checks is not applicable and therefore irrelevant - and so sorry, but if you cannot afford to maintain your equipment, then...

Having an internal 12 hour battery means it can be used in aircraft without electrical systems, including gliders and your floatplane, with no installation cost involved - it is portable and self contained - and yes, I do promote the idea that ALL aircraft be so equipped, including yours.

This subject has nothing to do with 'button pushing' pilots - 'See and Avoid' in many cases is pure fantasy - anything that can help avoid a collision, including an extra set of electronic "eyes" in the cockpit, is of benefit to all - and at less than $600 at current pricing (likely to continue getting less expensive), IMO it would be selfish not to participate in improvements to collision avoidance.

In short, I am not swayed by your reasons for remaining invisible when the cost/benefit of being more conspicuous is much in your favor, and to other pilots that wish not to collide with you.


PS: I own several aircraft from low and slow to cross country cruiser - a Bonanza is not one of them.


Edited by Stiletto1 - 13 Sep 2018 at 9:44am

HenryM wrote: I think see-and-avoid is a myth. After having used ADS-B for a while I’ve come to realize just how difficult it is to really see a plane even when you know exactly in which direction to look. If the plane is coming head on, it will be almost upon you when you finally see the tiny dot suddenly enlarge. If it is coming from the side, you will likely not be looking in the correct direction. The reason planes don’t come together more often is that the probability of two being in the same 3D position at the same time is still small. It is not the superhuman visual scan abilities of pilots.

Stiletto1 wrote: Exactly. I don't understand why some are so against making themselves more conspicuous to others in order to avoid a collision - and what pilot wouldn't want to know of others in the airspace around them?  And all this anonymous mode nonsense - with so little airspace not covered by radar, you are not hiding from anybody now.

By the way; For those of you wishing to increase your anonymity, I refer you to the following FAR regarding small N-numbers for aircraft manufactured 30 years ago or more - relevant parts emboldened. Note that subpart (c) may require that you display 12" numbers.

What - you didn't know you were flying an antique?

--------


FAR- 45.22(b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued under §21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with §§45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if:
(1) It displays in accordance with §45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital letter “N” followed by:

(i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or

(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft (“C”, standard; “R”, restricted; “L”, limited; or “X”, experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and

(2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter “N” anywhere on the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section—
(1) In an ADIZ or DEWIZ described in Part 99 of this chapter unless it temporarily bears marks in accordance with §§45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33;
(2) In a foreign country unless that country consents to that operation; or
(3) In any operation conducted under Part 121, 133, 135, or 137 of this chapter.

-------------------------

What is a "small aircraft?"
14 CFR part 1 defines a small aircraft as an aircraft of 12,500 lbs or less maximum certificated take-off weight.