Better ADS-B Product

[vlittle]

ADS-B, in my opinion is primarily for the benefit of ground stations.  Because the FAA introduced the UAT as an option in the US for ADS-B out and ADS-B in, there is a significant risk that some aircraft will be blind to other traffic in non-radar areas or other countries (Canada for example).

Systems that use 1090-ES for ADSB-out constantly 'ping' their position, even when outside of radar surveillance.  These pings can easily be picked up by other aircraft, using passive traffic monitors, such as the Monroy ATD-300+.  If everyone is using 1090-ES then it's easy to provide reliable anti-collision detection in remote areas, such as mountain passes that may have a lot of VFR traffic.

Systems that use UAT for ADS-B out will not be detected by these passive traffic monitors.  If the majority of aircraft are using 1090-ES, then pilots will tend to depend on traffic reporting from their traffic monitor and forget that there may be UAT traffic in the area.

It makes more sense to standardize ADS-B out as 1090ES and allow ADS-B in to be either transponder or UAT based. 

Unfortunately, that's not the way the system in the US is designed.  Therefore, I think that it makes more sense to build an ADS-B in receiver that will provide both UAT and transponder based reception. That will eliminate the problem discussed above... providing traffic detection in both radar-surveillance area and non-radar areas.  Done properly, it will also detect Mode-A and C traffic, similar to the Monroy device.

So my suggestion is for Dynon to make an integrated traffic monitor, capable of receiving Mode A/C, Mode S-ES, Mode S/TISB and UAT-TISB/FISB.  This will make it useful in any country and provide traffic avoidance outside of radar surveillance.

 

[southtarnation]

Bump. Id like to see a response to this.

 

[ricardo_godoy]

Monroy ATD-300 is compatible and switable with skyview?? Zaon XRX its out of production now....

 

[Dynon]

From their brochure (I can't find their manual), it looks like the monroy only outputs traffic data via ARINC-429 and not in any serial format (TIS format is the one that most products emulate and is supported by SkyView). SkyView doesn't support traffic via ARINC-429, so it doesn't look like the ATD-300 is compatible

 

[ricardo_godoy]

which today would be compatible with Dynon equipment, to be used as a warning to traffic transponder mode A / C and S?? in several countries, such as Brazil, have no coverage ADS-B ..

 

[Dynon]

The two main ones - though they're a bit Europe-centric with their support for flarm/powerflarm, are the http://www.funkeavionics.de/39.html?&L=1 and the http://www.air-avionics.com/air/index.php/en/products/collision-avoidance/trx-1500-the-flexible-collision-avoidance-system

 

[vlittle]

My comment was not about external traffic monitors per se. It was about the dangers of depending on ADS-B traffic information in a heterogenous environment.

A proper (safe) ADS-B -IN device should detect ground-based traffic uplinks plus transmissions from nearby aircraft on both UAT and 1090-ES AND passive mode C transmissions. In the US, unless all three are implemented, or at least mode-s/mode-c, the risk of collision can increase because of blindness to certain traffic.

As for the Monroy device, it was originally specified to provide serial traffic info, and I purchased a unit based on that promise. Unfortunately Monroy changed plans and only supports ARINC.

Vern

 

[dynonsupport]

Vern,
In the USA, SkyView clearly annunciates if it has solid traffic coverage. If the ADS-B link includes all traffic (Mode C, Mode S, or ADS-B), then we indicate "FULL" traffic. In this situation, ALL aircraft that can be seen by any passive traffic device are shown (only non-transponder aircraft are hidden).

In areas where no radar coverage is available and thus only ADS-B targets are shown, "ADS-B PARTIAL" is displayed.

Thus, the operator always knows the level of their traffic coverage.

 

[vlittle]

I repectfully disagree. When you have no datalink, you are blind to transponder based traffic. Passive transponder traffic monitors will indicate traffic in remote congested (mountain valley) areas that are sending 1090 ES pings or (sometimes) mode c being excited by TCAS interrogations.

UATs will see none of this traffic. Aircraft that depend on UAT In will never see transponder based traffic when the datalink is unavailable. Hence my contention that a dual mode device is desirable, providing both UAT-in and passive transponder-based monitoring (mode c and mode s-es). This also solves the roll out problem until 2020. Finally, it will provide traffic notification in Canada, where ADS-B is not being widely deployed.

Of course, nothing works if an aircraft does not have a transponder. I strongly recommend that all
aircraft be equipped with ModeS-ES for ADS-B out.