Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Trust and Faith in the Feds?- Off-shoot from EAA/FAA Agreement

  1. #21
    MEdwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    363
    Not a lot of continuing interest in this issue on this board, but I did say I would investigate and report back. Bottom line is, I have been unable to find an engineering analysis that led to the restricted distribution of TIS-B traffic data. But, I have talked to several knowledgeable technical people including a guy named John Collins who is an expert on the subject. They assure me that the reason traffic is not broadcast to everybody with ADS-B In is that there is insufficient bandwidth to do so. It is not politics, coercion, meanness, or social engineering. It is practical engineering considerations.

    I can believe this when I hear that the 1090 MHz band is shared by transponders, surveillance radars, TCAS, ADS-B, and other services. I’m told it is already nearly oversubscribed in busy airspace like the LA Basin. That apparently is the reason the FAA opted to go with a second ADS-B frequency, 978 MHz in addition. That band is less congested, but 20% of it is already occupied by FIS-B weather data, which is broadcast to everybody. When you think about it, yes, there is a whole lot of weather data to be broadcast, but its repetition rate is on the order of minutes. By contrast, the repetition rate for traffic data is on the order of 5-10 seconds. You can do your own assumptions and calculations (I couldn’t find the “official” ones), but when I do that I come out with too many messages, not enough bandwidth.

    Another reason I can believe the bandwidth limitation answer is all the other things the ADS-B design does to reduce the amount of data that has to be broadcast. Most ADS-B ground stations broadcast into geographic sectors (usually four quadrants, but the one at my home field looks like it might be only two or three). So traffic data is broadcast in a particular sector only if there’s an aircraft with an ADS-B Out transmitter in that sector that indicates it wants to receive the data. Further, they only broadcast on one frequency or the other, not both, and the frequency selected is the one that the aircraft’s ADS-B Out transmitter says the aircraft is in a position to receive. Additionally, the other service, ADS-R that retransmits on the other frequency, only does so if an aircraft needs it, and the way you say you need it is, again, by the ADS-B Out transmitter saying what frequency the aircraft needs to receive.

    Near as I can tell, the conspiracy theory that the FAA was intentionally withholding traffic data originated with an editorial by Flying Magazine editor Robert Goyer a couple years ago. He called it “social engineering” and said that if only the FAA had “left well enough alone” traffic would have been broadcast to everybody. That’s just completely false. A broadcast to everybody would have required a completely different design. Of course it could be done. Lots of things can be done for enough money. I suppose the FAA could have broadcast TV pictures of controllers’ radar screens to aircraft in 1965. They didn’t, but not because they were mean and evil and wanted to shut down General Aviation.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    I just stumbled onto this thread and the discussion confirms the thoughts of a couple of older members of our flying club. "ADS-B is complicated, expensive, and will be late in coming." We have one IFR rated aircraft but no "current" IFR pilots so we're strictly VFR guys using our original issue "E-1" eyeballs to stay clear of traffic. I see more traffic around the local $100 hamburger runway then I see flying in or around Chicago's Class B, but I do stay low and south or west of the outer ring. I do use flight following when I can get it, and the traffic they call out is almost always higher which was explained earlier in this thread. While the guys at Garmin are busy providing and marketing products most of us "little" guys will continue to sit on the fence and wait until 2020 or later b/4 spending $$$. I did buy a mini IPad last year and find it useful, maybe I'll spend a few more $$ to upgrade my subscription for weather depiction but that might be overkill given the few cross-country hours/year I fly. The opening statement of this thread indicated that the pilot(s) we're notified by the controller of the "near miss" and if the controller had just given them a "squawk code" without the comment, this thread would not have been posted. I'm glad it was posted, since I got a lot of good information regarding the current status of ADS-B and the FAA's "implementation" progress(?).

    Joe

  3. #23
    Jim Rosenow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Smithville, OH
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by MEdwards View Post
    Not a lot of continuing interest in this issue on this board, but I did say I would investigate and report back.
    Hi, Mike...thanks for the info. I guess the interesting part to see will be in 2020 when 'everybody' IS requesting the info, and how the system handles it then.

    Currently, it's quite under-used. We're not ADSB-out, but ADSB-in on two devices (which means we pretty much see just a/c that have ADSB-out). We just returned from a two-week trip out your way (highly recommend the Pima Air & Space museum!), which included wandering around some in the LA basin. ERAU at Prescott and the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs were hot-beds of 'equipped'-aircraft, but that was pretty much it. I would guess maybe 40-50 other airplanes on the entire 4K+ mile trip, including the LA area. I agree with you it was unnerving watching 30 or so AF###### (that's not cussing...it's the way the AF trainers display on ADSB) targets in a 20 mile diameter :-)

    Jim
    Last edited by Jim Rosenow; 04-15-2014 at 03:25 PM.

  4. #24
    MEdwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Rosenow View Post
    ....thanks for the info. I guess the interesting part to see will be in 2020 when 'everybody' IS requesting the info, and how the system handles it then.
    I wondered about that in an earlier post. I found the answer is a bit counter-intuitive.

    TIS-B only "broadcasts" traffic seen on radar that is NOT ADS-B Out equipped. It filters out the ADS-B Out traffic, because you will be receiving their positions directly from them. By 2020 "theoretically" almost all aircraft will have ADS-B Out, so the TIS-B bandwidth usage should decrease quite a lot. Might work.

    Mike E

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •