Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sabreliner mid air collision

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    And the iPad is available for USD 100????
    No, but if you already have one to:

    -Hold your approach plates
    -Display weather (including possible hail)
    -List all the procedural checklists
    -Display moving map navigational stuff
    -Display a GPS-based takeoff-performance monitor
    -Follow yourself and others on Flightaware
    -Look up complex emergency procedures when things are going bad
    -Keep up with e-mail
    -Skype
    -Watch television and movies
    -Screen submissions to photography websites
    -Keep up with posts on several obscure aviation discussion fora

    ...there really isn't additional cost to add the ADS-B depiction, just download Evan's free app from the App Store!

    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      No, but if you already have one to:
      Ok, the iPad (depending on the model) will also include the GPS. You still need the dedicated receiver, transmitter, and baro-altitude encoding.

      The problem is still with the word IF. Because if you are going to make it mandatory, then the rule cannot be mandatory only if you have an iPad.

      While the iPad is very popular among pilots, you would be surprised to know how many of them don't have one, especially in the range that operate airplanes in a way that a transponder is not required.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Ok, the iPad (depending on the model) will also include the GPS. You still need the dedicated receiver, transmitter, and baro-altitude encoding.

        The problem is still with the word IF. Because if you are going to make it mandatory, then the rule cannot be mandatory only if you have an iPad.

        While the iPad is very popular among pilots, you would be surprised to know how many of them don't have one, especially in the range that operate airplanes in a way that a transponder is not required.
        Concur...

        However, I think maybe Evan could write up a free TPMS app?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Evan, you don't entirely know what you are talking about.
          Fix-ed.

          I'm not thinking in terms of what ADS-B is intended for, I'm thinking of what it can become. If a ground-based PC can receive the sig, a nearby aircraft-based unit could as well. If every aircraft in the sky had ADS-B-out (or an S-transponder, if it does, in fact, amount to the same thing), then every aircraft's position would be 'discoverable', right? If it were possible to bring an inexpensive, certified, panel-installed ABS-B-out unit (or mode S-transponder, as you say) to market in 18 months and also, within the same timeframe, a modestly expensive, certified ABS-B receiver for turbines and revenue aircraft that can receive the ADS-B-out signal directly, how is that not going to help prevent mid-airs? An avionics firm can prototype a unit rather quickly using off-the-shelf chips for GPS, transmission, processors, memory, etc. It's not such a stretch to link it to baroaltimeter data. Six more months to get it debugged and manufacturable... hand it off to the FAA or ARINC or whomever must certify it.

          If the FAA put out an RFP to several ambitious avionics firms, noting that the product would be a required purchase for all GA aircraft that lack it within 18-months (with another six-month compliance window)... oh yes, competing prototypes would be there in six months. Within a year a mass-produced unit would be ready. How is six additional months not enough time to certify a non-mission-critical piece of avionics?

          We could start making the skies a lot safer within two years. I'm comparing the market-driven development cycle to the ass-dragging bureaucratic one. If the ass-dragging bureaucracy speeds up their deadline, the market will be 'incentivized' to make it happen sooner. And they will, because all the tech exists right now.

          If you can afford to own and operate a light, single-engine plane, you can afford the $500-1500 that this thing would cost to install. GA is not exactly a hand-to-mouth hobby (or at least it shouldn't be). Requiring airbags on cars added a lot more expense for car buyers, but they still buy them and it's money well-spent.

          Of course, the necessary enforcement funding probably won't exist...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Fix-ed.

            I'm not thinking in terms of what ADS-B is intended for, I'm thinking of what it can become. If a ground-based PC can receive the sig, a nearby aircraft-based unit could as well. If every aircraft in the sky had ADS-B-out (or an S-transponder, if it does, in fact, amount to the same thing), then every aircraft's position would be 'discoverable', right? If it were possible to bring an inexpensive, certified, panel-installed ABS-B-out unit (or mode S-transponder, as you say) to market in 18 months and also, within the same timeframe, a modestly expensive, certified ABS-B receiver for turbines and revenue aircraft that can receive the ADS-B-out signal directly, how is that not going to help prevent mid-airs? An avionics firm can prototype a unit rather quickly using off-the-shelf chips for GPS, transmission, processors, memory, etc. It's not such a stretch to link it to baroaltimeter data. Six more months to get it debugged and manufacturable... hand it off to the FAA or ARINC or whomever must certify it.

            If the FAA put out an RFP to several ambitious avionics firms, noting that the product would be a required purchase for all GA aircraft that lack it within 18-months (with another six-month compliance window)... oh yes, competing prototypes would be there in six months. Within a year a mass-produced unit would be ready. How is six additional months not enough time to certify a non-mission-critical piece of avionics?

            We could start making the skies a lot safer within two years. I'm comparing the market-driven development cycle to the ass-dragging bureaucratic one. If the ass-dragging bureaucracy speeds up their deadline, the market will be 'incentivized' to make it happen sooner. And they will, because all the tech exists right now.

            If you can afford to own and operate a light, single-engine plane, you can afford the $500-1500 that this thing would cost to install. GA is not exactly a hand-to-mouth hobby (or at least it shouldn't be). Requiring airbags on cars added a lot more expense for car buyers, but they still buy them and it's money well-spent.

            Of course, the necessary enforcement funding probably won't exist...
            Evan, don't invent the wheel.

            A mode C transponder is much cheaper than a mode S transponder and it doesn't need a GPS.

            Most airplanes that you think should have an ADS-B out already have a mode C transponder.

            Most of the airplanes that you think should have an ADS-B in already have a TCAS (and many more have TCAS-like traffic warning systems).

            It would be much easier to expand to an equipped base that fit your desires than install ADS everywhere. Still hard to do in 18 months because you will need time to get the regulation commented, revised, approved, issued and then you need to give the market time to manufacture and install the new equipment. But it would be much quicker and cheaper than anything ADS.

            This Cessna most likely had a mode C transponder.
            The Sabreliner too.
            Most likely neither of them had a TCAS or similar traffic warning system.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Evan, don't invent the wheel.
              Hey, the U.S. Government is already doing that, remember? I would just like to speed that wheel up.

              Here's what I mean:

              2009 – Assuming 2009 market prices for individual system components, a UAT retrofit was estimated at $18,000 and new at $25,000. For a 1090ES retrofit $4,200 and new at $18,000.
              That's absurd. If this was pitched to competing companies that were not in a cozy relationship with the FAA, you could probably know a zero off those prices. With a similar reduction in implementation time.

              Here's the basic plan for 2020. There are incentives for early implementation:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...pping_aircraft

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Hey, the U.S. Government is already doing that, remember?
                They are re-inventing ATC, changing from radar to ADS. Midair avoidance is just a byproduct of ADS, it is not designed for that, and the implementation agenda is not based on midair avoidance.

                Mid-air avoidance was already re-invented, from see and avoid to TCAS (and similar traffic warning systems). A mode C transponder is already widely available, shops are already very well used to installing them, the end-to-end process is much cheaper than ADS-B, and most planes are already required to have one. Most of the planes you want to mandate to have ADS-B in already have TCAS. For the most part, I don't see the gap that you see. Had the Sabreliner been an ATR or CRJ this accident would likely not have happened because the Cessna most likely had a wirking mode C transponder and the other plane would have had a TCAS. But if you see some gap there, cover that gap requesting a wider base of installation of what already exist for midair avoidance.

                What's your problem with that? Why you dislike this and prefer to mandate short term ADS-B out and in instead for midair avoidance? I really don't get it.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  What's your problem with that? Why you dislike this and prefer to mandate short term ADS-B out and in instead for midair avoidance? I really don't get it.
                  Traditional, analogue and widely used by cowboys. Last-century stuff.*

                  Unlike modern FBW, and rote procedure memorization...rote memorization to the point that you pull up relentlessly and are unable to comprehend why the plane makes a wallowing, fast descent.

                  *Implementation will also put a financial strain on cowboy light aviation, further diminishing aircraft numbers and hours flown (including stall recovery and hand-flown approaches where you watch airspeed and control it with pitch inputs) (He likes the "diminish" part).
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    They are re-inventing ATC, changing from radar to ADS. Midair avoidance is just a byproduct of ADS, it is not designed for that, and the implementation agenda is not based on midair avoidance.
                    That's not what I'm reading...

                    ADS-B is an essential part of the planned NextGen airspace upgrade and will create better aircraft visibility at a lower overall cost than before.
                    ADS-B will offer increased safety, efficiency and environmental awareness for pilots and air traffic controllers at a lower overall cost than the current radar system.
                    If mid-air avoidance worked as well by requiring a C-transponder and operational TCAS I would be fine to leave it there until 2020. But is this true and why aren't they doing that?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      That's not what I'm reading...
                      Yes, that IS what you are reading. Read again. ADS will give better traffic visibility than current radar system. That is for ATC purposes. The better safety will be partially (hopefully not totally) offset by packing more airplanes per unit of airspace (reducing current separation minimums).

                      If mid-air avoidance worked as well by requiring a C-transponder and operational TCAS I would be fine to leave it there until 2020. But is this true and why aren't they doing that?
                      It IS extremely efffective. That's why there are virtually no commercial airplanes involved in midairs anymore, in the range of airplanes that the system is installed. Two notable exceptions are the Brasil's GOL vs Legacy in 2006 (where the Legacy had its transponder turned off and hence its TCAS was not working and they were invisible to the GOL's TCAS) and the Überlingen mid-air collision, between a Boeing 757 and a Tupolev Tu-154 in 2002, where the TCAS and the controller gave conflicting instructions and one of the pilots decided to follow the TCAS and the otehr to follow the ATC (after that it was defined that the TCAS has priority over any ATC instruction).

                      Most airplanes (including virtually all that fly in controlled airspace, including for example LSA) are required to have a mode C transponder. Airliners are required to have TCAS. That protects the flying public, but not the private. Two airplanes with mode C transponder (only) don't see each other.

                      If you, as a private, want better protection, you can easily install a traffic warning system (that is similar to the TCAS but without resolution commands). Most new airplanes already come with that as standard as part of the Garmin G-1000 or similar avionics suit.

                      Again, maybe you would want to expand the range of airplanes that are required to have a mode C transponder and/or a TCAS, and I would understand that desire. This would be an incremental improvement from the current situation, since most airplanes would be already complying. But I don't understand your desire to equip in one year the whole range of airplanes with new equipment.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        But I would start by requiring within 18 months: a) ADSB out on all aircraft; and b) ADSB in/out on all turbine aircraft as well as aircraft requiring a flight crew of two or more and/or conducting revenue passenger flights.
                        I will leave the randomness of that "requirement" alone, but 18 months is a pipe dream. I'm not aware of any FAR that went from NPRM to FRM in much less than 3 years, not counting time allowance for compliance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          What about FLARM? Isn't this an inexpensive way to get ADS-B and transponder Mode-C/S into light aircraft? I've read that TCAS should be able to see it.

                          I just saw that the final report is out on this one:
                          http://avherald.com/h?article=48cc420e&opt=0

                          An AvHerald poster notes that most gliders are using FLARM, although apparently not this one on that particular day...

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X