Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
By Straight Level
#1620150
gaznav wrote:Hi Russ

Pushing out ADS-B is great, but pushing out SIL = 1 is going to be really important if you want to be seen by higher-end ADS-B In users .
Best, Gaz


Is it though?
What's important, to seen by the high end at flight level nose bleed, or the rest of us pootling about in class G also outputting SIL-0
Isn't this just a red herring with the intention to make us part with £££££££££?
When access to >=class D requires ADSB SIL>=1 then yes.
I'm no certainly expert, but I can't see the advantage of SIL1 or higher at the moment.

SL
User avatar
By gaznav
#1620166
Straight Level wrote:
gaznav wrote:Hi Russ

Pushing out ADS-B is great, but pushing out SIL = 1 is going to be really important if you want to be seen by higher-end ADS-B In users .
Best, Gaz


Is it though?
What's important, to seen by the high end at flight level nose bleed, or the rest of us pootling about in class G also outputting SIL-0
Isn't this just a red herring with the intention to make us part with £££££££££?
When access to >=class D requires ADSB SIL>=1 then yes.
I'm no certainly expert, but I can't see the advantage of SIL1 or higher at the moment.

SL


Hi SL

I think it is because the ATC ADS-B In will be able to see it - so it will be effectively a really cheap alternative to a transponder. I am also optimistic that it will meet Class D and TMZ needs in the near future :thumleft:
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1620170
GrahamB wrote:
Full Metal Jackass wrote:There are a number of issues with that, for example the Trig TN72 doesn't come with a GPS antenna (+£300), is only for experimental aircraft


I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn that the TN72 is approved by EASA as a minor change, but only in conjunction with a Trig transponder.


So, let me get this straight. I should be delighted because I could purchase a TN72 and the requisite Antenna and, in conjunction with an (e.g.) TT31 Transponder (to fit my rack), I will then have ADS-B out for the reasonable sum of just over 3K, without any installation costs :?:

Excuse me for not jumping for joy when the same solution in a non certified aircraft means the cost is simply connecting the GPS from the PAW to the Transponder......

In any case, for the same money I could simply fit a Freeflight 1201 and keep my GTX330ES in place or upgrade one GNS430 to WAAS and gain (e.g.) LPV approaches. The issue I have is why the extortionate price for a GPS source when a 10 quid unit performs just as adequately.....
skydriller liked this
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1620171
kanga wrote:
Full Metal Jackass wrote:..

And what benefit does that bring for those of us who fly certified aircraft? The square root of SFA.....


use any of the gizmos but velcroed, not screwed, in ? :)


In the immortal words of Manuel:

Que¿
User avatar
By kanga
#1620176
I naively assumed that the requirements for only certified gizmos to be fitted only by certified fitters in a CofA aircraft applied only to hardware permanently fitted to the aircraft. Happy to be corrected, as ever
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1620179
kanga wrote:I naively assumed that the requirements for only certified gizmos to be fitted only by certified fitters in a CofA aircraft applied only to hardware permanently fitted to the aircraft. Happy to be corrected, as ever


Unfortunately the local Cirrus Service centre is extremely keen on everything being legal and above board. I ask them whether I could connect a GPS20A ($800) to the GTX330ES to give me ADS-B out, I also said that I wanted the unit 'temporarily installed, for test purposes' but was told that connecting anything to an (external) antenna would be considered a permanent fixture and hence not legal. If the unit had an internal antenna which wasn't fixed to the aircraft and the cables could be easily disconnected without dismantling the rack, then they would be ok with it..

PS: just in case you ask why I don't think about extending the port from the GTX330ES and connecting the output of the PAW to it - firstly, extending the port is not allowed, secondly no-one seems to know what NMEA sentences the transponder requires in order to accept the GPS coordinates - at least Trig can't say whether their TN70 or 72 are compatible.....
By Straight Level
#1620190
gaznav wrote:
Straight Level wrote:
gaznav wrote:Hi Russ

Pushing out ADS-B is great, but pushing out SIL = 1 is going to be really important if you want to be seen by higher-end ADS-B In users .
Best, Gaz

Is it though?
What's important, to seen by the high end at flight level nose bleed, or the rest of us pootling about in class G also outputting SIL-0
Isn't this just a red herring with the intention to make us part with £££££££££?
When access to >=class D requires ADSB SIL>=1 then yes.
I'm no certainly expert, but I can't see the advantage of SIL1 or higher at the moment.
SL

Hi SL
I think it is because the ATC ADS-B In will be able to see it - so it will be effectively a really cheap alternative to a transponder. I am also optimistic that it will meet Class D and TMZ needs in the near future :thumleft:


Hi Gaz,
So at the moment, no real advantage of SIL=1
Has there been any firm dates for 'ADSB' Class D and ADSB TMZ, if not, "near future" could be years away.

SL
User avatar
By gaznav
#1620192
Well, technically you could do it now in TMZs if the ANSP agrees. So if you call the ANSP and say you have ADS-B Out and that is acceptable to them then you can go ahead. That is probably better for them than just a radio call if that is what they want from non-transponding aircraft?

All flights operating in airspace designated by the competent authority as a TMZ shall carry and operate Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) transponders capable of operating on Modes A and C or on Mode S, unless in compliance with alternative provisions prescribed for that particular airspace by the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP).


So in summary, it is not up to the regulator, but the ANSP. If you have SIL = 1 and the ANSP has a suitable ADS-B In capability then it could be very quick indeed!
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1620203
gaznav wrote:PPS. Our major ANSP, NATS, have recently invested in the space-based ADS-B ATM surveillance system. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ake-aireon

Here is what it can do: https://aireon.com

I really don’t believe they would be investing many millions of pounds if they weren’t serious and that they didn’t believe ADS-B is the way ahead?


I am genuinely terrified of the thought of any ATC provider relying on ADS-B for separating traffic. ADS-B is such an incredibly badly thought out technical standard that it is totally trivial to spoof, including the SIL value, allowing anyone to make aircraft appear and disappear anywhere. Without the cross-checking of primary and/or secondary radar, ADS-B is a terrorist attack waiting to happen.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1620215
T67M

Oh come on, there are so many easier ways of causing upset in controlled airspace. I won’t spell them out here but there are many many ways to cause chaos if need be and would cost as little as a couple of quid before even bothering with a high tech ADS-B spoof. I believe the FAA already have some measures in place for such an unlikely occurrence for their 2020 deadline - again it would be foolish to completely spell those out here.

Best, Gaz
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By Straight Level
#1620792
gaznav wrote:Well, technically you could do it now in TMZs if the ANSP agrees. So if you call the ANSP and say you have ADS-B Out and that is acceptable to them then you can go ahead. That is probably better for them than just a radio call if that is what they want from non-transponding aircraft?

All flights operating in airspace designated by the competent authority as a TMZ shall carry and operate Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) transponders capable of operating on Modes A and C or on Mode S, unless in compliance with alternative provisions prescribed for that particular airspace by the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP).


So in summary, it is not up to the regulator, but the ANSP. If you have SIL = 1 and the ANSP has a suitable ADS-B In capability then it could be very quick indeed!


(Sorry the reference for that is: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20 ... AndTMZ.pdf)
[/quote]

Gaz,
Bit of wishful thinking going on here , the reference doesn't note even mention ADS-B and "alternate provisions", doesn't translate to ADS-B either.
Are there ay ANSPs in the UK that have specifically stated that ADSB is an acceptable alternative for TMZ entry?
What happens to your Skyecho when the ANSP says they require a minimum of SIL=2 to enter their TMZ under a special provision?
Yes, NATS splashing some cash, but will we get use of whatever system (if any) is implemented.
All beginning to sound similar to the Mode S promises that were made and what a debacle that turned into.
Hope I'm wrong.

SL
Last edited by Straight Level on Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9