Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1693082
Yes, it is a dry, biased and, in my opinion, not very well written document but the implications of the CAA's stance are clear. If you want mandatory ADSB in all aircraft and in all airspace then just ignore and move on. If you want to help shape a more considered approach to EC in the UK then make a cup of tea, translate the document's buzzword questions into normal language and give the CAA the benefit of your wisdom :wink:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=9046

A more concise precise can be found here. Probably worth reading before you get into the CAA propaganda. It is, of course, only an opinion and yours may very well vary. Each to his own :thumleft:

https://pilotaware.com/Documents/CAP177%20Forum.pdf?_t=1557651028
#1693088
Biased?

ADS-B is mentioined 3 times in the document, one of those times is in the glossary.

What they write about a common protocol is entirely sensible but may not suit those who have an anti-ADS-B bias.

On the matter of a standard they write:

Our proposed approach to coordinating the full adoption of EC solutions in targeted blocks of airspace does not seek to promote a particular technology upon which to base the technical functions or standards. However, given the global market, commercial and regulatory developments, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast) enabled and interoperable platforms are considered one of the most likely technologies in the UK to deliver the vision over the short to medium term.

and:

Many airspace users are investing voluntarily in a range of EC solutions that use different technologies, including ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast), Mode S and FLARM (Flight Alarm). Voluntary investment in EC solutions is a positive endorsement of their potential benefits, but without a set of common technical functions and minimum standards for interoperability, solutions based on different technologies are creating a disparate and incompatible environment. A lack of interoperability would mean that the potential for the full adoption of EC solutions to create a full and permanent known traffic environment would not be realised and many of the benefits outlined in part 2 would be lost. This in turn reduces the voluntary incentives to invest in EC solutions.
Nick, BEX, Dave Phillips and 2 others liked this
#1693098
Yes, biased.

They've already made up their mind which road of EC they're going down and it's a bit of a mockery for them to pretend they are 'engaging' meaningfully and considering alternatives. I find it particularly galling that all airspace will effectively become controlled and, if they get their way, ALL aircraft owners are going to have to fund the CAA's Orwellian Nirvana. To add pat phrases such as 'saving lives' only adds disdain as far as I'm concerned. It's more akin to convincing the general public that we need this very system or aircraft will fall from the sky, instead of discussing it sensibly with people who do know what they're talking about.

They are asking for evidence that this approach will work and yet even the USA hasn't implemented their ADSB policy yet, so how can we hope to produce any decent data to prove or disprove their strategy. Even then it won't mean that much as the USA is using two frequencies and isn't requiring everything that flies to be ADSB equipped. The CAA propose one frequency for everything from a 747 to a drone. How or where do they get the evidence that this is the best way forward?

For the avoidance of all doubt, I am certainly not anti-ADSB. My machine will have certified ADSB Out through my Mode S extended squitter and I will have two, panel-mounted, displays with ADSB In (via Pilot Aware). I fly on a daily basis at work with ADSB/C and you will not find anyone who supports ADSB & CPDLC more than me across the oceans etc. It's made my life a LOT easier :thumleft:

I see a sideways grab at more controlled airspace, less freedom for those who wish to fly non-radio etc in Class G, more costs imposed and a headlong rush at a system using today's/yesterday's technology but not tomorrow's. None of that is anti-ADSB per se but I don't like what they're doing and how or what they're pretending they're doing it for.

I have, however, put my fingers to keyboard and responded to the attempt at seeking 'evidence'.
#1693100
The CAA's stance isn't exactly new. I think it was the best part of two years ago that they put their weight behind ADSB as the platform.

Orwellian Nirvana? Wake-up and smell the coffee. Unless the latest green wave of reduced air travel gets a look-in, the only way this is going is with increased commercial use of airspace. If we (GA) stick to the historic line of protecting Class G for non-radio this will ONLY go one way. If we actually become part of a technical solution where most airspace is a Known Environment then we have a strong argument to have access to ares that are currently off limits.
Flyin'Dutch', James Chan, GonzoEGLL and 4 others liked this
#1693103
The FAA Mandates ADS-B from next year for large swathes of airspace; airspace with a similar density to the busy bits of Class G in the South of the UK.

Where is the evidence that one frequency will not suffice in the UK/Europe?
#1693119
Dave Phillips wrote:If we actually become part of a technical solution where most airspace is a Known Environment then we have a strong argument to have access to ares that are currently off limits.

What areas currently off limits will ADSB give access to and how will it work? Are you saying this is just a cheaper alternative to a transponder for existing class D and operationally will function in the same way? And if so, why does this need "most airspace" to be a known environment?
Alan
#1693143
Dave Phillips wrote:Probably the easiest response is to point you here.

Thanks, I had seen that before but have just waded through it again. It's a future strategy document lacking implementation details and I'm afraid it doesn't answer my first question which was about your observation regarding "access to areas that are currently off limits".
Alan
#1693155
Dave Phillips wrote:If we actually become part of a technical solution where most airspace is a Known Environment then we have a strong argument to have access to ares that are currently off limits.


Agree completely.

Except that ADS-B does not create a Known Environment.

This is because it does not convey the pilot's intentions, only their reported, unvalidated and unverified position. The "Known Environment" fallacy is one of the bigger areas of concern with the whole document, and with ADS-B.
#1693158
One very rarely hears of a MAC of Commercial traffic! Where activity is relatively intense, they have miles of protected space around them.

GA is supposed to stick to it's own bits, so any anti-collision warning-system for Commercial Traffic, has little relevance to the GA bimbler.
So, a classic case of bureaucrats spending other peoples' money for them, to address a vanishingly-small problem. - A sledgehammer to crack a walnut...
Those that err on the side of caution already have an adequate warning -system with a sensible cost-benefit ratio (PAW ) Those that enter a hazardous environment (jockying at close proximity in clouds)
have FLARM. -Again, collisions between Gliders are not unknown,nor are collisions between powered GA.

What about Nanolights, SSDR, Powered Parachutes, hang-gliders Surely these present a bigger risk than the person who has spent more on training, than most of these machines cost.

More regulation and red-tape , just to show they are "doing something" :twisted:
#1693159
GA is supposed to stick to it's own bits,


No thanks!

There are runways and airspace to be sharing with others.
Iceman, Flyin'Dutch', gaznav liked this
#1693254
@PaulSS

Even then it won't mean that much as the USA is using two frequencies and isn't requiring everything that flies to be ADSB equipped. The CAA propose one frequency for everything from a 747 to a drone. How or where do they get the evidence that this is the best way forward?


It’s my understanding that the continued use of Mode 3/A (including selling brand new units which stopped in Europe some time ago) is the reason for concern in the USA for 1090MHz mutual interference. That is why they have 978MHz for GA traffic and also a rebroadcast via 978MHz via UAT. The problem with Mode 3/A is that it replies to every single TCAS and Secondary RADAR that sweeps through it in 1030MHz. So in areas of the USA (like San Fran) where there is high densities of air traffic then the 1090MHz frequency can get very congested and cause interference even without adding 1090MHz ADS-B.

However, you were asking for a study/trial evidence. Again it is my understanding that they put QinetiQ on contract back in 2014 and 2015 to study the effects on the 1090MHz spectrum from low-power (sub 70W) ADS-B transceivers in the UK and also the effect of UK low-power ADS-B on TCAS. The results of that trial allowed them to take a quantitative decision to allow 20W low-power ADS-B transceivers (LPAT) under CAP1391.

@cockney steve

What about Nanolights, SSDR, Powered Parachutes, hang-gliders


The only LPAT that is on the market that meets the CAP1391 standard weighs just 120g and has an internal battery that lasts for 12 hours. So I would suggest they are well provided for?
#1693269
T67M wrote:Agree completely......Except that ADS-B does not create a Known Environment.

This is because it does not convey the pilot's intentions, only their reported, unvalidated and unverified position. The "Known Environment" fallacy is one of the bigger areas of concern with the whole document, and with ADS-B.


This is an interesting point and I wonder how "pilots intentions" translate to any soaring flight (glider/hang-glider/paraglider). If I am en-route to a turnpoint then my strategic intention will be to go from A to B, but at any one point in time my heading may alter +/- 45 Degrees to the intended track (to capture lift, or avoid sink), I might stop and circle, my height is always changing, my airspeed will vary depending on the air mass (faster in sink, slower in lift) etc. Basically the one thing you are never doing in a glider is flying straight and level at a constant airspeed.

So while a soaring pilot's general intentions may be predictable the immediate tactical actions are not so, minute to minute, as you react to the airmass you encounter. Typically soaring flight takes place within a corridor maybe 5nm each side of track and several thousand feet deep vertically.

I think the complexities of communicating this is one reason glider pilots can be reluctant to engage with ATC - I once had a controller tell me to "call if your height changes" :?

That said many ATC folk are much more sympathetic - the guys at Lyneham were great when that zone was active and Gloucester are always helpful. As always better understanding on both sides is needed, and at least with ADSB in future you can hopefully be seen.....
gaznav liked this
#1693360
ls8pilot wrote:
T67M wrote:Agree completely

That said many ATC folk are much more sympathetic - the guys at Lyneham were great when that zone was active and Gloucester are always helpful. As always better understanding on both sides is needed, and at least with ADSB in future you can hopefully be seen.....


Heavily snipped.

The better understanding applies to us all whatever we fly/do!

Nick