| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
|
20-06-2008, 10:34 PM
|
#1
|
|
|
I hate to mention this but .....
I'm still looking for an ADSB transciever that is powered by 12 volt
supply and will fit in the aircraft.
in some 3 years I havent seen any mention of ADSB transcievers
actually being available.
surely there must be some available since AirServices is rolling out
groundstations all over the country.
When I was out getting the maps to see where Coop flies I went past
the local avionics shop. On the way back I dropped in to ask the
question. Specifically " what ADSB transcievers are available that are
12 volt powered and light enough to fit a light aircraft"
the answer from the 4 guys behind the counter was a preceeded by huge
smiles.
"None, there are no ADSB transcievers available at all"
'but surely there is something available. Airservices is rolling out
their groundstations all over the country.'
more smiles.
well they've been experimenting with mode S to see what they'll
decide...
am I missing something here?
this was going to be the all singing all dancing anti collision
technology that was so promising it was to have been a mandatory
fitment to all australian aircraft.
why are there still no transciever units available after 3 years?
Stealth (genuinely puzzled) Pilot
|
|
|
|
|
20-06-2008, 11:31 PM
|
#2
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
Stealth Pilot <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in
news:s78n54hgekq9lat8sb9alqukvjin5p6gq8@4ax.com:
> Subject: I hate to mention this but .....
OK, so why did you mention it exactly?
GB
--
My friend Steve is an atheist. He has a bumper sticker that reads "Honk
if you love Jesus". When someone honks, he gives them the finger.
|
|
|
|
|
21-06-2008, 09:35 PM
|
#3
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On 20 Jun 2008 23:31:45 +1000, GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com>
wrote:
>Stealth Pilot <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in
>news:s78n54hgekq9lat8sb9alqukvjin5p6gq8@4ax.com:
>> Subject: I hate to mention this but .....
>
> OK, so why did you mention it exactly?
>
>
>GB
could you tell me why you, an incompetent, post here on aus.aviation?
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2008, 07:54 AM
|
#4
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
"Stealth Pilot" <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
news:s78n54hgekq9lat8sb9alqukvjin5p6gq8@4ax.com...
>
> I'm still looking for an ADSB transciever that is powered by 12 volt
> supply and will fit in the aircraft.
>
> Stealth (genuinely puzzled) Pilot
>
Stealth
Garmin GTX330ES. You'll see it on the Garmin USA site.
There was an ABIT/GIT meeting in CB last Thursday and ADS-B is back on the
table again.
I am meeting with an Airservices contingent on July 3 to canvass a lot of
concerns.
One is that the NAS DP V1.4 follows cones of Class E above CTAF
(particularly CTAF R).
Not possible with our limited radar but very possible with ADS-B.
Keeps those RPT in the CTA shield they adore and excludes non ADS-B
aircraft.
The JCP did NOT require ADS-B (ie no subsidy) for aircraft operating in G
below 5000' (that's RA Aus to my mind).
Fill in the dots - a non-ADSB-equipped aircraft would have to fly S bends to
get from A to B past CTAF Rs.
There's still also a lot of confusion about the benefits of ADS-B versus
GNSS and the JCP mixed it all up.
Summary - I need to be convinced what VFR gain out of ADS-B but against that
a 'no go' argument means CASA will probably mandate it anyway sooner or
later without a subsidy.
cheers
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2008, 08:47 AM
|
#5
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
Stealth Pilot <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in
news:0qpp54hgteejfpi7kq5dvd0137dta4d617@4ax.com:
> could you tell me why you, an incompetent, post here on aus.aviation?
Someone's gotta provide a counterpoint to your unhinged ravings
Stealth, I sacrifice myself to that role for 'the good of the
people'.
GB
--
My friend Steve is an atheist. He has a bumper sticker that reads "Honk
if you love Jesus". When someone honks, he gives them the finger.
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2008, 09:54 PM
|
#6
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:54:08 +1000, "Sr20goer"
<jamesmichael@live.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Stealth Pilot" <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>news:s78n54hgekq9lat8sb9alqukvjin5p6gq8@4ax.com...
>>
>> I'm still looking for an ADSB transciever that is powered by 12 volt
>> supply and will fit in the aircraft.
>>
>> Stealth (genuinely puzzled) Pilot
>>
>Stealth
>
>Garmin GTX330ES. You'll see it on the Garmin USA site.
>
>There was an ABIT/GIT meeting in CB last Thursday and ADS-B is back on the
>table again.
>I am meeting with an Airservices contingent on July 3 to canvass a lot of
>concerns.
>One is that the NAS DP V1.4 follows cones of Class E above CTAF
>(particularly CTAF R).
>Not possible with our limited radar but very possible with ADS-B.
>Keeps those RPT in the CTA shield they adore and excludes non ADS-B
>aircraft.
>The JCP did NOT require ADS-B (ie no subsidy) for aircraft operating in G
>below 5000' (that's RA Aus to my mind).
>Fill in the dots - a non-ADSB-equipped aircraft would have to fly S bends to
>get from A to B past CTAF Rs.
>There's still also a lot of confusion about the benefits of ADS-B versus
>GNSS and the JCP mixed it all up.
>
>Summary - I need to be convinced what VFR gain out of ADS-B but against that
>a 'no go' argument means CASA will probably mandate it anyway sooner or
>later without a subsidy.
>cheers
>Brian
>
I know that Dick Smith pointed out the security concerns and the ease
with which aircraft returns could be spoofed but I would have thought
that these were no more difficult to engineer out than internet
security.
What I'm amazed at is the fact that there are no transcievers.
I thought that a number of solutions had been breadboarded together
for the trials. Why havent any of these become viable units?
To hell with whether CASA mandates the stuff, where the bloody hell is
it? The avionics shop werent tweaking my dials when they said there
werent any units available.
I'll check out the garmin though.
Stealth Pilot
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2008, 09:56 PM
|
#7
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On 22 Jun 2008 08:47:05 +1000, GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com>
wrote:
>Stealth Pilot <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in
>news:0qpp54hgteejfpi7kq5dvd0137dta4d617@4ax.com:
>> could you tell me why you, an incompetent, post here on aus.aviation?
>
> Someone's gotta provide a counterpoint to your unhinged ravings
>Stealth, I sacrifice myself to that role for 'the good of the
>people'.
>
>
>GB
ok if you really need to sacrifice yourself spread out naked on a bull
ant nest. you wont get bitten. the ants will laugh themselves silly.
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2008, 11:00 PM
|
#8
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:54:48 +0800, Stealth Pilot
<notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote:
> What I'm amazed at is the fact that there are no transcievers.
>I thought that a number of solutions had been breadboarded together
>for the trials. Why havent any of these become viable units?
>
>To hell with whether CASA mandates the stuff, where the bloody hell is
>it? The avionics shop werent tweaking my dials when they said there
>werent any units available.
>I'll check out the garmin though.
It might be worth waiting some more. The Garmin is an extended
squitter mode S unit. CASA have approved mode A/C extended squitter
units (see ATSO C1004). They should be a good deal cheaper.
The reality is that the limbo exists due to waiting for the FAA to
finalise their version of ADS-B, which CASA want to harmonise with.
Which makes good sense.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 05:00 PM
|
#9
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:00 +0800, Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote:
(snip)
>The reality is that the limbo exists due to waiting for the FAA to
>finalise their version of ADS-B, which CASA want to harmonise with.
>Which makes good sense.
Had to happen eventually - a para with CASA and "good sense" and not a negative
in sight.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 11:43 PM
|
#10
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:00:07 +0800, eyeballs <all@around.you> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:00 +0800, Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>The reality is that the limbo exists due to waiting for the FAA to
>>finalise their version of ADS-B, which CASA want to harmonise with.
>>Which makes good sense.
>
>Had to happen eventually - a para with CASA and "good sense" and not a negative
>in sight.
and a complete mistake at that. it is airservices rolling out the adsb
not casa.
Stealth Pilot
|
|
|
|
|
25-06-2008, 11:05 PM
|
#11
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:43:40 +0800, Stealth Pilot
<notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:00:07 +0800, eyeballs <all@around.you> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:00 +0800, Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>The reality is that the limbo exists due to waiting for the FAA to
>>>finalise their version of ADS-B, which CASA want to harmonise with.
>>>Which makes good sense.
>>
>>Had to happen eventually - a para with CASA and "good sense" and not a negative
>>in sight.
>
>and a complete mistake at that. it is airservices rolling out the adsb
>not casa.
CASA are the ones setting the technical specifications and writing the
regulations. Not Air Services, who will indeed roll the hardware out.
This delay in *mandating* ADS-B transponders won't have a significant
impact on ASA setting up the hardware, but it will result in reduced
costs for GA. I hope they don't up roping in all the airspace you
need and that you will continue to be stealth instead of squitter. 
In my view, ASA should pick up all the costs of a basic ADS-B out
transponder, including the GPS component and ongoing maintenance, for
people like you. There's not much benefit to you and they are doing
it to save their own money. They could set up a standard installation
for an LRU that they could maintain in a pool.
One interesting thing I've seen is this "radar box" for ADS-B
http://www.airnavsystems.com/RadarBox/index.html
For someone who was using a PC based system on their aircraft, like
the system set up for the lightwing speed, it might be quite cost
effective to set up a non-approved traffic advisory system.
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2008, 07:51 AM
|
#12
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
"Paul Saccani" <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote in message
news:qoe4645c7fa4qd1sg2bsamema57s3mg3p5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:43:40 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:00:07 +0800, eyeballs <all@around.you> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:00 +0800, Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>The reality is that the limbo exists due to waiting for the FAA to
>>>>finalise their version of ADS-B, which CASA want to harmonise with.
>>>>Which makes good sense.
>>>
>>>Had to happen eventually - a para with CASA and "good sense" and not a
>>>negative
>>>in sight.
>>
>>and a complete mistake at that. it is airservices rolling out the adsb
>>not casa.
>
> CASA are the ones setting the technical specifications and writing the
> regulations. Not Air Services, who will indeed roll the hardware out.
> This delay in *mandating* ADS-B transponders won't have a significant
> impact on ASA setting up the hardware, but it will result in reduced
> costs for GA. I hope they don't up roping in all the airspace you
> need and that you will continue to be stealth instead of squitter.
>
> In my view, ASA should pick up all the costs of a basic ADS-B out
> transponder, including the GPS component and ongoing maintenance, for
> people like you. There's not much benefit to you and they are doing
> it to save their own money. They could set up a standard installation
> for an LRU that they could maintain in a pool.
>
Paul and Stealth
You are both correct to a point.
CASA have written a NPRM, I know as I was part author.
CASA are not waiting on the USA.
Airservices have trotted out a crisis deadline later this year to go ADS-B
or fix the radars and lose the subsidy.
The USA have some issues with the dual system (interlink speeds UAT to/from
ADS-B translators.
But, Australia will go 1090ES only and lose the ability to pick up
competitive USA equivalent.
Airspace is also an issue. ADS-B allows Class E cones to be placed over
CTAF, CTAF where RPT fly once a fortnight to be mandated for ADS-B, and
effectively large tracts of Class G open airspace to be quarantined into
Class E and CTAF R exclusionary airspace.
Our other option is to forget the subsidy and argue that Class C is still
open to Mode C transponder because MSSR radar is kept in the major terminal
areas, and that ADS-B cannot be mandated for Class E without a full safety
case (given Oz is unique in requiring txpdr in E).
I have put a mid range proposal that there be an in between subsidy. At
present it is $10K VFR who do not get a GPS display (TSO 145) and $15K IFR
who do get. I have suggested the subsidy include a $12.5K for VFR who want
a GPS display with their ADS-B. Otherwise, what's the value to VFR owners?
Eyeballs was also correct in his tongue in cheek. "CASA" and "good sense"
in the one para without a negative comment is rather unique 
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2008, 11:05 PM
|
#13
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:51:15 +1000, "Sr20goer"
<jamesmichael@live.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Paul Saccani" <saccani@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>news:qoe4645c7fa4qd1sg2bsamema57s3mg3p5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:43:40 +0800, Stealth Pilot
>> <notransponder@aeroplanes.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:00:07 +0800, eyeballs <all@around.you> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:00 +0800, Paul Saccani <saccani@omen.net.au>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>>The reality is that the limbo exists due to waiting for the FAA to
>>>>>finalise their version of ADS-B, which CASA want to harmonise with.
>>>>>Which makes good sense.
>>>>
>>>>Had to happen eventually - a para with CASA and "good sense" and not a
>>>>negative
>>>>in sight.
>>>
>>>and a complete mistake at that. it is airservices rolling out the adsb
>>>not casa.
>>
>> CASA are the ones setting the technical specifications and writing the
>> regulations. Not Air Services, who will indeed roll the hardware out.
>> This delay in *mandating* ADS-B transponders won't have a significant
>> impact on ASA setting up the hardware, but it will result in reduced
>> costs for GA. I hope they don't up roping in all the airspace you
>> need and that you will continue to be stealth instead of squitter.
>>
>> In my view, ASA should pick up all the costs of a basic ADS-B out
>> transponder, including the GPS component and ongoing maintenance, for
>> people like you. There's not much benefit to you and they are doing
>> it to save their own money. They could set up a standard installation
>> for an LRU that they could maintain in a pool.
>>
>
>Paul and Stealth
>
>You are both correct to a point.
>CASA have written a NPRM, I know as I was part author.
>CASA are not waiting on the USA.
>Airservices have trotted out a crisis deadline later this year to go ADS-B
>or fix the radars and lose the subsidy.
>The USA have some issues with the dual system (interlink speeds UAT to/from
>ADS-B translators.
>But, Australia will go 1090ES only and lose the ability to pick up
>competitive USA equivalent.
>Airspace is also an issue. ADS-B allows Class E cones to be placed over
>CTAF, CTAF where RPT fly once a fortnight to be mandated for ADS-B, and
>effectively large tracts of Class G open airspace to be quarantined into
>Class E and CTAF R exclusionary airspace.
>Our other option is to forget the subsidy and argue that Class C is still
>open to Mode C transponder because MSSR radar is kept in the major terminal
>areas, and that ADS-B cannot be mandated for Class E without a full safety
>case (given Oz is unique in requiring txpdr in E).
>
>I have put a mid range proposal that there be an in between subsidy. At
>present it is $10K VFR who do not get a GPS display (TSO 145) and $15K IFR
>who do get. I have suggested the subsidy include a $12.5K for VFR who want
>a GPS display with their ADS-B. Otherwise, what's the value to VFR owners?
>
>Eyeballs was also correct in his tongue in cheek. "CASA" and "good sense"
>in the one para without a negative comment is rather unique
>Brian
>
Brian,
Been following this for a while. What's it mean to rampant aviators
such as myself? Will I be able to fly in and out of Kingscote (for
example) which has RPT x2 per day without one of these ADS-B thingies?
If not, does "the subsidy" mean that the black box won't cost me
anything (as long as I don't want a display)? And what level of power
supply will I need if I do have to have one of these boxes?
Coop
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2008, 08:18 AM
|
#14
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
"Coop" <vhbdq@chariotnose.netwheel.au> wrote in message
news:2s4764lscgoernnthbcn3a64bdn032a1da@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:51:15 +1000, "Sr20goer"
> <jamesmichael@live.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Brian,
> Been following this for a while. What's it mean to rampant aviators
> such as myself? Will I be able to fly in and out of Kingscote (for
> example) which has RPT x2 per day without one of these ADS-B thingies?
> If not, does "the subsidy" mean that the black box won't cost me
> anything (as long as I don't want a display)? And what level of power
> supply will I need if I do have to have one of these boxes?
>
> Coop
Coop
I can give you a definite 'maybe' answer.
Stage 2 of the JCP made ADS-B mandatory where radio was mandatory.
CASA OAR are slowly pushing toward CTAF R wherever RPT goes (forget overseas
experience or that 96% of aircraft are radio fitted and the facts are it is
non-adherence to radio and/or circuit procedures that is the proven risk).
I'm currently writing an input to Ambidji re CTAF/CTAF R as they are the
latest consultants hired to try and find a way to resolve the RPT
unconfirmed CTAF R safety shield mindset with the reality stated at ACF by
the rest of industry. But, CASA is renowned for the last word with the
airlines, particularly QF (last word - how high should we jump, Geoff?) and
after the Avalon aeronautical study I doubt anyone has faith in the CASA OAR
outcomes.
So, Fred Nurk in the C172 etc may well find a CTAF R requiring ADS-B.
Airservices want to only go phase 1 to get ADS-B up (ADS-B where transponder
required) but the reality is that CASA not ASA issue the airspace
pronouncements so all they have to do is start the phase 1 mandate and then
legislate the CTAF R requirement. Do I trust them, well ........ based on
history ......
If you look at the NAS DP V1.4 you also find the reference to the Class E
veils over the RPT CTAF. You need ADS-B for that as the radar coverage does
not allow Class E veils as is. It would not be an issue for us if Oz was
not unique in requiring transponders in E. But, because of that, phase 1
ADS-B would also require ADS-B in E.
So, if you follow my reasoning, it is quite likely that ADS-B with all its
quoted benefits could also mean a massive loss of CTAF and Class G airspace
to CTAF R and Class E requiring ADS-B and many people would need to fly S
bends to get from A to B.
In your case I believe there will be consideration to ADS-B exemption for
aircraft that cannot power ADS-B (gliders already have transponder exemption
in Class E areas). But, exemptions are not my favourite as you stand there
begging for one in what is after all OUR airspace.
Power requirements unknown but a Mode ES transponder like the GTX 330ES
quotes a 250W tx power (remembering that's not continuous power) to which
you can add the current draw of a TSO 145 GPS engine. Microair are adamant
they can produce a unit but I have no data yet on it. However, in your case
I have doubts you could power such for long haul unless you add a couple of
12V truck batteries to your payload.
I can send you the DPV1.4 re the airspace if you wish. The GTX 330 (the ES
is the 1090 model) and I believe a basic 330 can be ES upgraded is on the
Garmin site.
cheers
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2008, 09:07 PM
|
#15
|
|
|
Re: I hate to mention this but .....
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:51:15 +1000, "Sr20goer"
<jamesmichael@live.com.au> wrote:
>You are both correct to a point.
You are generous to a T.
>CASA have written a NPRM, I know as I was part author.
>CASA are not waiting on the USA.
Correct, thank you for that. I was out of date. The 1090MHz ES was
selected by the US FAA as their primary ADS-B, but apparently CASA
elected to go the 1090MHz route to harmonise with SEA at ICAO's
suggestion. So ultimately it wasn't because of the FAA decision. So
I got that wrong too.
>Airservices have trotted out a crisis deadline later this year to go ADS-B
>or fix the radars and lose the subsidy.
>The USA have some issues with the dual system (interlink speeds UAT to/from
>ADS-B translators.
>But, Australia will go 1090ES only and lose the ability to pick up
>competitive USA equivalent.
The NFRM specifically accepts ATSO-C1004 G1 compliant equipment, which
is mode A/C not S.
>Airspace is also an issue.
I would have thought it was *the* issue.
> ADS-B allows Class E cones to be placed over
>CTAF, CTAF where RPT fly once a fortnight to be mandated for ADS-B, and
>effectively large tracts of Class G open airspace to be quarantined into
>Class E and CTAF R exclusionary airspace.
>Our other option is to forget the subsidy and argue that Class C is still
>open to Mode C transponder because MSSR radar is kept in the major terminal
>areas, and that ADS-B cannot be mandated for Class E without a full safety
>case (given Oz is unique in requiring txpdr in E).
I wish you good luck with your efforts on this.
>I have put a mid range proposal that there be an in between subsidy. At
>present it is $10K VFR who do not get a GPS display (TSO 145) and $15K IFR
>who do get. I have suggested the subsidy include a $12.5K for VFR who want
>a GPS display with their ADS-B. Otherwise, what's the value to VFR owners?
Transmit only should be south of $5k for a mode A/C, from the
technical requirements.
>Eyeballs was also correct in his tongue in cheek. "CASA" and "good sense"
>in the one para without a negative comment is rather unique
I think that by and large they are a bureaucratic nightmare. But
look at what they did with gliders, LSA/Ultralights and experimental.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:23 AM.
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The Travel Forum
|
|
|
|
