ADSB-Getting ready to bite someone in the butt

Colorado-Cub · Feb 18, 2020

cubdrvr said:
if you are on the ground and KNOW that your unit is broken....NO MATTER WHERE THE HELL YOU ARE IN THE COUNTRY......you cannot fly. But.......if you do fly and avoid rule airspace nobody will know......but you are illegal. As bone headed as the FAA is I cannot image this was their intent.

Is it bad that I believe this is exactly what their intent was?

This set of rules was written almost entirely on behalf of big iron flying in the sky. Bug smashers like us should not get any say in how we are managed.

behindpropellers · Feb 18, 2020

cubdrvr said:
So, if you are on the ground and KNOW that your unit is broken(self inflicted or not)....NO MATTER WHERE THE HELL YOU ARE IN THE COUNTRY......you cannot fly. But.......if you do fly and avoid rule airspace
nobody will know......but you are illegal. As bone headed as the FAA is I cannot image this was their intent.

They will tell you that you need to use the adapt tool to get to where you need to be to get fixed.

skywagon8a · Feb 19, 2020

flynlow said:
I fail to see the need for ADSB in rule airspace. ATC already knows your tailnumber, altitude and intentions in Charlie and Bravo. They have a transponder pressure altitude above 10,000' and inside the mode C ring
Outside the rule airspace seems to be where it would be most advantageous...but it's not required there....??? (that's fine with me, it should be personal preference) I was pulled over this summer and asked by a trooper why I wasn't wearing my seatbelt. I replied "same reason I not wearing a helmet, personal preference" ....got a ticket.

I don't care to be tracked and also suspect this probably has some relationship to future user fees. I like the safety factor possible with ADSB in uncontrolled airspace but believe it should be my choice whether I turn it on or off.

When the FAA first announced the new ADS-B requirement they said that it's purpose was to be able to shut down the radar in the ATC system due to high costs and that the ADS-B would be a better system.
It is also known that the central FAA bureaucracy thinks that a very small plane is a King Air. An FAA engineer in Anchorage told me this long ago.

flynlow · Feb 19, 2020

skywagon8a said:
When the FAA first announced the new ADS-B requirement they said that it's purpose was to be able to shut down the radar in the ATC system due to high costs and that the ADS-B would be a better system.
It is also known that the central FAA bureaucracy thinks that a very small plane is a King Air. An FAA engineer in Anchorage told me this long ago.

Iam none too techy so can the adsb satellite see a non equipped 172 outside of rule airspace without existing radar ?

Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

CharlieN · Feb 19, 2020

flynlow said:
Iam none too techy so can the adsb satellite see a non equipped 172 outside of rule airspace without existing radar ?

Sent from my iPhone

The ADSB satellite or ground station can not see anything that is not transmitting on the frequency it is tuned for.

Radar transmits a power pulse that will bounce off reflective objects and is then recognized by it's receiver.
What the radar can not see is, wood, fabric, and composites. It can see your engine and the tubes of your fuselage which provide a very small "target"

mvivion · Feb 19, 2020

flynlow said:
Iam none too techy so can the adsb satellite see a non equipped 172 outside of rule airspace without existing radar ?

Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

There is no such thing as an “ADS-B satellite”. ADS-B is purely a ground based system, other than the fact that your unit must be connected to a GPS receiver for position data.

But this entire system is built upon a collection of “GBTs” or Ground Based Transmitters”. The system would have made much more sense as a space based system, but that ship has sailed.

MTV

Lowrider · Feb 19, 2020

Yip...I'm working out the 12 amp windmill thingy hung on the belly...may be the best of both worlds and it makes the the nose lighter...not that matters. My biggest concern is drones.

flynlow · Feb 19, 2020

CharlieN said:
The ADSB satellite or ground station can not see anything that is not transmitting on the frequency it is tuned for.

Radar transmits a power pulse that will bounce off reflective objects and is then recognized by it's receiver.
What the radar can not see is, wood, fabric, and composites. It can see your engine and the tubes of your fuselage which provide a very small "target"

Thanks, that was also my understanding
Sooo with this improvement ATC will lose the capability to report VFR traffic unless everyone is forced to equip and use ADSB outside rule airspace?? Otherwise the aircraft not presently required will be invisible..??
Numerous times i have heard ATC report suspected flocks of birds ... perhaps only the lead goose with be required to comply with the new improved regs.

Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Eddie Stash · Feb 19, 2020

You are correct it is a control issue

flynlow · Feb 19, 2020

Eddie Stash said:
You are correct it is a control issue

I was skirting DFW airspace a couple days ago with approach calling out numerous “vfr traffic” to me receiving radar advisories (ff) if i hadnt vectored and descended one of those blips likely would have traded paint
If the radar is decommissioned, obviously these blips will become invisible. This seems insane!

Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

d_kandle · Feb 19, 2020

A lot of talk here about what big government might do with your ADS-B data, but not much about what is actually being done with it. Has anyone actually gotten a violation based solely on ADS-B? Almost every day I use the traffic component to help me see and avoid traffic in the pattern at my very busy local airport (KEUL). And equipped aircraft show up even when I am down in a canyon somewhere and other aircraft are hard to spot in the ground clutter. On long flights it is quite valuable obtaining weather for airports which may still be hours away from my present location but on my current flight leg.
At some point in the near future planes without ADS-B will be regarded much like we think of NORDO planes now (not good). I would worry more about my spouse finding out where I just came back from, not the FAA.

RaisedByWolves · Feb 19, 2020

cubdrvr said:
My understanding is that if an aircraft is "equipped" it must be "transmitting". Grace period to get to your destination or a place for repairs if unit is TU in flight.
So, if you are on the ground and KNOW that your unit is broken(self inflicted or not)....NO MATTER WHERE THE HELL YOU ARE IN THE COUNTRY......you cannot fly. But.......if you do fly and avoid rule airspace
nobody will know......but you are illegal. As bone headed as the FAA is I cannot image this was their intent.
To bypass this, in my opinion, is to"unequip the equipment" somehow. TXP is part of the equipment so you can't disable it. That leaves only removal. Per UavioniX I was told you can uninstall
and install at your discretion ( from STC to no STC and back). What about paperwork? Is this different than going from wheels to skis and back? Can an owner do it once installed? Can an owner
remove a com radio, send in for repair, and rerack?
My take is that if you have UavioniX the owner can remove a couple screws, pull 2 more bullet connectors and he is unequipped until he wants to be equipped again.

Maybe time to get my unmost favorite organization involved........ACLU

Don’t you have an a&p ia on staff that travels with you??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

txpacer · Feb 19, 2020

d_kandle said:
A lot of talk here about what big government might do with your ADS-B data, but not much about what is actually being done with it. Has anyone actually gotten a violation based solely on ADS-B?

The FAA has gone after someone for shorting the required 40 hour E-AB fly off based on ADS-B tracking.

180_jeff · Feb 19, 2020

Are Grand Canyon transition corridors now illegal to non ads aircraft?

Colorado-Cub · Feb 19, 2020

d_kandle said:
At some point in the near future planes without ADS-B will be regarded much like we think of NORDO planes now (not good)..

Flying with your radio turned off is not punishable with the loss of your license.

180_jeff · Feb 19, 2020

View attachment 47015

So, if the Class B extends beyond the 30 nm arc, non ads aircraft can fly below the Class B "shelf"?

d_kandle · Feb 19, 2020

motosix said:
Flying with your radio turned off is not punishable with the loss of your license.

I should have said "will be regarded by other pilots". You may think that is blasphemy but given our high traffic density most people out here simply can't understand why anyone would subject their fellow pilots to the added risks of flying without being able to communicate with the other nearby aircraft.

CharlieN · Feb 19, 2020

txpacer said:
The FAA has gone after someone for shorting the required 40 hour E-AB fly off based on ADS-B tracking.

Are not portions of the 40Hrs considered ground time? I have seen more than a few hours consumed with ground operation with taxi testing and the initial hops to learn the plane before any true flight was undertaken. We have logged this time with no question.

Troy Hamon · Feb 19, 2020

180_jeff said:
View attachment 47015

So, if the Class B extends beyond the 30 nm arc, non ads aircraft can fly below the Class B "shelf"?

That is technically correct. I saw the comments to the contrary earlier in the thread, and AvWeb made this more confusing by messing up the rule in their original video about it a few weeks back. There is no rule for under shelves, only for over shelves. You cannot overfly C or B airspace shelves. You cannot fly within C or B airspace. You cannot fly within the 30 nm Mode C veil of B airspace. Most B shelves are within the mode C veil, but the rule is not about underflying any shelves, only within the mode C veil.

There are not many places where this could really provide any useful clarity, but it is technically correct. LAX has a mode C veil that has B shelves extending past it, so there is a spot there where it could come into play but in general the airspace in question is so jigsawed that it is not likely to be the place you would try to squeeze through.

d_kandle · Feb 19, 2020

txpacer said:
The FAA has gone after someone for shorting the required 40 hour E-AB fly off based on ADS-B tracking.

This doesn't sound possible. Do you have something from the FAA to confirm? ADS-B requires a ground station to monitor. You could fly the full 40 hours not in line of sight to any ground station. Look at your tracks on FlightAware. There are lots of blank segments. Doesn't mean you turned off your equipment, just out of range of a ground station.

skywagon8a · Feb 19, 2020

algonquin said:
Just a little off the topic, I just received a Email from UAvionix about their new products. They have a tail mounted unit that transmit on 1090 and services as a transponder. This makes it compliant to ICAO standards. To use it as a transponder you will need a comparable head or buy one of their two units that will do the job . One is a MFD W/ several functions including a attitude ind. the other is smaller and has several function. The new ADS-B is 2495, the other units are roughly $1595 and $995. Just a little food for though.
Ps. This unit is experimental at this time and expected to be approved in the near future. Install expected to be 12 hours also.

https://generalaviationnews.com/202...review+to+remember&utm_campaign=TPOA-20200219

Colorado-Cub · Feb 19, 2020

d_kandle said:
I should have said "will be regarded by other pilots". You may think that is blasphemy but given our high traffic density most people out here simply can't understand why anyone would subject their fellow pilots to the added risks of flying without being able to communicate with the other nearby aircraft.

You are missing the point:

A device which is arguably more useful in 99.999% of our flying situations is not required by regulation. (our beloved radio)

A device which can be nice to have yet is expensive, insecure, and error prone is required by regulation. Better yet, if you ever turn that device off, you are in trouble.

I am not arguing that a radio is not useful. I am pointing out it is more useful yet not currently an enforceable action against your pilots license. This is what we are pointing out doesn't make any sense.

180_jeff · Feb 19, 2020

Troy Hamon said:
That is technically correct. I saw the comments to the contrary earlier in the thread, and AvWeb made this more confusing by messing up the rule in their original video about it a few weeks back. There is no rule for under shelves, only for over shelves. You cannot overfly C or B airspace shelves. You cannot fly within C or B airspace. You cannot fly within the 30 nm Mode C veil of B airspace. Most B shelves are within the mode C veil, but the rule is not about underflying any shelves, only within the mode C veil.

There are not many places where this could really provide any useful clarity, but it is technically correct. LAX has a mode C veil that has B shelves extending past it, so there is a spot there where it could come into play but in general the airspace in question is so jigsawed that it is not likely to be the place you would try to squeeze through.

I see a bunch of Class B locations where the airspace extends beyond the 30 nm arc - Las Vegas, SFO, LA, just for starters

txpacer · Feb 19, 2020

d_kandle said:
This doesn't sound possible. Do you have something from the FAA to confirm? ADS-B requires a ground station to monitor. You could fly the full 40 hours not in line of sight to any ground station. Look at your tracks on FlightAware. There are lots of blank segments. Doesn't mean you turned off your equipment, just out of range of a ground station.

There was no violation and it got all sorted out. However, the investigator used ADS-B data to initiate a query into a possible violation. The capability is there, and the willingness to use it.

Eddie Stash · Feb 19, 2020

So if Radar is decommissioned does that mean no more transponder? Are rules the same for flying without a transponder?

Troy Hamon · Feb 19, 2020

180_jeff said:
I see a bunch of Class B locations where the airspace extends beyond the 30 nm arc - Las Vegas, SFO, LA, just for starters

Now that you point that out, I see it too. Interesting. Perhaps access to the airspace beneath those extensions could be helpful in some cases.

wireweinie · Feb 19, 2020

There is a path of progression that needs to be considered here.

'They' say that radar needs to go away. To take it's place we'll need ADS-B. Radar is generally used to track aircraft near major airports. That means that ADS-B is manditory in controlled airspace. We don't argue that we need SOME kind of tracking such as radar/transponder or ADS-B. All okay so far? Now make it illegal to simply switch off your ADS-B, even in uncontrolled airspace. We all know it's a tracking device (duh) and we have programmed in our ID information so that it pops up any time the unit transmits. Down the road, these friendly feds just need to claim to need the ability to track in what has previously been uncontrolled airspace, in the name of safety, and we have 100% tracking.

Just look at the European model. Wheels can't leave the ground unless some type of transponder or other tracking is activated. I believe Australia is the same (feel free to chime in if your from Europe or Oz).

I think we can agree to tracking inside controlled airspace. It's where the greatest number of aircraft will congregrate. We have it now with radar and we seem to work with it. But we need to come together and fight this idea of being tracked outside of these airspaces. We need to push back against this idea of a piece of avionics being 'required' even though it is not required due to location. Anyone that feels that the feds 'just won't go there' has not dealt with them. Some of the highers are already looking into the data generated, being used for enforcement. How far away are we from automatic fees for passing through airspace or landing at a certain airstrip? How about taxes levied per hour of operation?

Web

RaisedByWolves · Feb 19, 2020

txpacer said:
The FAA has gone after someone for shorting the required 40 hour E-AB fly off based on ADS-B tracking.

Hmm well that’s interesting. Guess they have to do something with all the free time from not signing field approvals or ferry permits

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

180_jeff · Feb 19, 2020

wireweinie said:
I think we can agree to tracking inside controlled airspace. It's where the greatest number of aircraft will congregrate. We have it now with radar and we seem to work with it. But we need to come together and fight this idea of being tracked outside of these airspaces. We need to push back against this idea of a piece of avionics being 'required' even though it is not required due to location. Anyone that feels that the feds 'just won't go there' has not dealt with them. Some of the highers are already looking into the data generated, being used for enforcement. How far away are we from automatic fees for passing through airspace or landing at a certain airstrip? How about taxes levied per hour of operation?

No, I don't want to be tracked in any airspace,controlled or otherwise. How about ADS without the unique identifier component, then? But, the identifier is there to put the hardware hooks in place for user fees and automated violation enforcement. I have a feeling it also satisfies the desires of three letter agencies like DHS.

StuBob · Feb 20, 2020

txpacer said:
There was no violation and it got all sorted out. However, the investigator used ADS-B data to initiate a query into a possible violation. The capability is there, and the willingness to use it.

Surely this was instigated by someone — the investigator or a vindictive ex — who knew the pilot and hoped to do him harm. Maybe not, but this seems more likely than some investigator following up on a chance observation.

ADSB-Getting ready to bite someone in the butt

Buena Vista, CO

Registered User

NE Ohio

SE Mass MA6

Fowler, Ks

Registered User

Down low in the hills of Vermont USA

Bozeman,MT

Registered User

Idaho Panhandle (ID05)

Fowler, Ks

Registered User

Fowler, Ks

Idaho

Tx

Iowa Park, TX

Registered User

Buena Vista, CO

Registered User

Idaho

Registered User

Down low in the hills of Vermont USA

Registered User

King Salmon, AK

Idaho

SE Mass MA6

Buena Vista, CO

Registered User

Iowa Park, TX

Registered User

Registered User

King Salmon, AK

Palmer, AK

Tx

Registered User

Indianapolis

Similar threads