ADSB Out ???

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

N804RV

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
223
Location
Mount Vernon, WA
My plan for avionics/instruments was originally going to be just minimum legal VFR + a radio, transponder, and blind encoder. But, the ADS-B mandate makes that plan unworkable for me. I plan to finish my build by this time, 2018. So, I might as well plan to for this eventuality now.

After all, I really want to be able to penetrate class-B veils when the need arises. This means now, I must have a TSO'd position source. I'd like to fly in Canadian airspace. So, now, not only do I need a TSO'd position source, it must be TSO-166b.

Now, it seems illogical to have this great panel mounted GPS and not have ADS-B "in", right? So, now I need an ADS-B reciever. You see where this is going?

What are some of you guys' thoughts on this subject as the ADS-B deadline approaches?
 

skier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
1,078
Location
CT
I also always thought I wanted just the basic VFR panel (like in a cub), but also now think that I want ADS-B out capabilities. As you say at that point you may as well add ADS-B in as well. I also look at it as safety when thinking about flying with drones in the same airspace.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,225
Location
Port Townsend WA
Wait for ADS-B out to get cheaper soon, when the UAV guys increase demand and make cheaper, simple, light devices.
 

Off Field

New Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
1
Location
Venice, FL
The ADS-B mandate will be a WAAS GPS and an extended squitter transponder. There is no requirement for "in" but the government is adding that as a "benefit" to those participating to help encourage growth. It is my feeling that between now and then many new products will emerge.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,110
Location
Orange County, California
Wait for ADS-B out to get cheaper soon, when the UAV guys increase demand and make cheaper, simple, light devices.
^ Definitely this. The whole situation for ADS-B "in" is still in flux. GA has a different spec than commercial, and the whole thing may change radically before they put it into practice. I'd wait until the very last possible moment before committing to an "in" technology. IMHO, worry about the "out" spec for now, and use something like a PCAS if you're worried about drones, or just want collision-avoidance in general. Drones are going to have transponders if they're flying in the NAS, just like everyone else.
 

pwood66889

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
1,633
Location
Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
Roger the wait. I'm thinking that your average smart phone could serve as the intelligence for a squitter, et al.
PCAS sounds nice but it will not allow "B" air space penetration and it works with your transponder which I am trying not to buy for the few years between now and 2020.
Any body know of any airspace that one can get into with ADS-B "out" as if they had a mode C or S transponder?
Percy in SE Bama
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,013
Location
Memphis, TN
"Any body know of any airspace that one can get into with ADS-B "out" as if they had a mode C or S transponder?"
I am not sure what you asked here.
A mode S transponder with one of the add on boxes will be able to be used for ADS-B out. ADS-B will essentially replace all normal transponders used today.
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
930
Location
Marietta, GA
My plan for avionics/instruments was originally going to be just minimum legal VFR + a radio, transponder, and blind encoder. But, the ADS-B mandate makes that plan unworkable for me. I plan to finish my build by this time, 2018. So, I might as well plan to for this eventuality now.

After all, I really want to be able to penetrate class-B veils when the need arises. This means now, I must have a TSO'd position source. I'd like to fly in Canadian airspace. So, now, not only do I need a TSO'd position source, it must be TSO-166b.

Now, it seems illogical to have this great panel mounted GPS and not have ADS-B "in", right? So, now I need an ADS-B reciever. You see where this is going?

What are some of you guys' thoughts on this subject as the ADS-B deadline approaches?
As I recall, non-electric aircraft are exempt. So, is "non-electric" an option for you? One of my thoughts has been to install an extra battery and go with a total loss electrical system. Turn the radio on when necessary, but otherwise use minimal electricity for anything other than starting.
 

N804RV

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
223
Location
Mount Vernon, WA
As I recall, non-electric aircraft are exempt. So, is "non-electric" an option for you? One of my thoughts has been to install an extra battery and go with a total loss electrical system. Turn the radio on when necessary, but otherwise use minimal electricity for anything other than starting.
If I were building a purely local-day-vfr aerobatic fun-fly bird, that would certainly work. I wouldn't need, nor want anything more than the absolute minimum "G-O-O-S-E-A-C-A-T" list.

But, I want an aircraft that is also capable of flying through the "mode-C veil", doing the occasional cross-country, and even fly in Canadian airspace. You know, all the things a 50 year old, typically equipped spam can can do today.

Like several have already said here, I'm gonna wait till the last minute to finalize my RV's panel. Even then, I'll be scrounging for the next to most recently out-of-style 2nd hand stuff.
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
930
Location
Marietta, GA
But, I want an aircraft that is also capable of flying through the "mode-C veil", doing the occasional cross-country, and even fly in Canadian airspace. You know, all the things a 50 year old, typically equipped spam can can do.

What part of that couldn't you do? I think the only restriction might be that you couldn't enter class B airspace. Careful panel design and efficient use of battery power would take you a long way.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,750
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
As I recall, non-electric aircraft are exempt. So, is "non-electric" an option for you? One of my thoughts has been to install an extra battery and go with a total loss electrical system. Turn the radio on when necessary, but otherwise use minimal electricity for anything other than starting.
Put in a solar panel and you don't have any of the issues of forgetting to charge the batteries etc. Pretty small ones (a good square feet or so) is typically enough for normal operations. Top of the instrument panel often is a great place for them.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,013
Location
Memphis, TN
The rules are written so that even if you are squawking 1200 on the transponder in E airspace you have to have ADS-B. Only way out is no electrical. When you want to enter A,B,C airspace you will have two squawk codes; one for the transponder one for the ADS-B. For most situations they will be the same code, but in times of trouble they can give you alternate codes to help with verification of your aircraft. There is a standby mode like squawking 1200, but when they ask you to put in another code your aircraft is IDed; owner is put in the meta data fro ATC.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,945
Location
US
Slightly off topic: The ultimate plan (as I understand it) is eventually eliminate transponders as we know them, and for aircraft to instead provide ADSB-out positional info that they have derived from GPS.
In another development, the FAA also plans to eventually eliminate VORs and have aircraft depend on GPS for navigation. DHS announced in 2008 that eLoran was to be the ground-based backup to GPS ( see: International Loran Association ), but apparently there's not been much real action to make that happen (and why the heck is DHS involved in such things?).

GPS is susceptible to physical destruction, either deliberate or accidental (the satellites are all at the same orbital distance. A bad collision or other source of space junk could make that "location" untenable indefinitely). It seems that we're putting all our eggs in that GPS basket, which may not be smart. GPS is fantastic when it works, but it's not especially "hard".
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,750
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Note that Galileo is coming online in the not too distant future and that Glonass is also put back into operation.

While betting on one of those systems would be irresponsible (even with perfect integrity checks), 3 different ones, controlled by 3 major powers seems like a pretty safe bet to me?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,013
Location
Memphis, TN
ADS-B is going to save VORs for a time. The plan is to add the necessary equipment to them as they are already in place. In time they will turn off the service, but because they will be on location, the switch off will be later for most of them. Some new ADS-B stations will be added where there are few VORs. ADS-B is combining things like GPS, DME, ModeS in more advanced forms.
Galileo and GPS are going to have some type of shared second signal.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,945
Location
US
Note that Galileo is coming online in the not too distant future and that Glonass is also put back into operation.

While betting on one of those systems would be irresponsible (even with perfect integrity checks), 3 different ones, controlled by 3 major powers seems like a pretty safe bet to me?
Well, as far as physical damage from accidents/a large cloud of space junk, all the satellites for the major systems are not only a few thousand miles apart in altitude. Now (obviously) "space is big" and it would take a heck of a big cloud of small bits to degrade them all at a speed faster than they could be replaced, but it's probably not something to be disregarded. The debris field wouldn't need to circle the planet--due to orbital mechanics, if the junk cloud is at the right altitude all the satellites at that shell will eventually get a chance to pass through it. And it only takes a tiny speck of stuf at these velocities to incapacitate a satellite. There are some pretty cavalier attitudes in some nations about creating large debris fields in space.



ASAT capability (kinetic/laser/directed energy, etc) is within the capability of more entities every year. Items in space and not in geosynchronous orbit are eventually within line of site of a lot of countries.

But, more to the point, the 3 satellite based systems don't offer true meaningful redundancy unless aircraft already have receivers that work on all three. I don't know about Europe, but it's not common in the US civilian market as far as I know.

I'd think a ground-based backup would be the most secure answer. Ideally, one that would work with the receivers already in place (something like like ground-based WAAS or DGPS).
 
Last edited:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,750
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Well, as far as physical damage from accidents/a large cloud of space junk, all the satellites for the major systems are at about the same altitude. Now (obviously) "space is big" and it would take a heck of a big cloud of small bits to degrade them all at a speed faster than they could be replaced, but it's probably not something to be disregarded. There are some pretty cavalier attitudes in some nations about creating large debris fields in space.
I always understood the orbits of at least Galileo were chosen to avoid that? Not true? Our satellites will be twice as far away as Moscow is from here. Ought to be enough ;-)
But, more to the point, the 3 satellite based systems don't offer true meaningful redundancy unless aircraft already have receivers that work on all three. I don't know about Europe, but it's not common in the US civilian market as far as I know.
I understood (lots of hearsay from my side) that modern receivers are at least dual-capabe (Galileo/GPS). Most smartphones nowadays can receive all 3 (?).
I'd think a ground-based backup would be the most secure answer. Ideally, one that would work with the receivers already in place (something like like ground-based WAAS or DGPS).
How hard would it be to put in 3 extra "satellites" around every airport, simply broadcasting GPS/Galileo signas?
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,110
Location
Orange County, California
...I understood (lots of hearsay from my side) that modern receivers are at least dual-capabe (Galileo/GPS). Most smartphones nowadays can receive all 3 (?)....
There's a lot of dual-constellation equipment out there, but my understanding that most of it, to date, reads GPS and Glonass. With the Galileo constellation finally going up, it's only a matter of a short time before a majority of units will accept all three. And now the Chinese are talking about their own (somewhat more limited) system as well. That's four.

GPS has been up and operating since the 1980's, and there hasn't been a significant disruption due to one of the satellites being disabled in that entire time. Short of WWIII breaking out and someone deliberately sniping the satellites - and with three (or four) distinct constellations up there - I don't think we have much to worry about. And if WWIII does break out, well, I don't think the accuracy of light-plane navigation will be anywhere near a major concern for any of us.
 
Top