ICAO Flight Plan Coding For Skyview ADS-B

[swatson999]

OK, so now that we have the ADSB-472 *dual band* receiver, how would we code an ICAO flight plan?

The options, per the DUATS tool, are:

ADS Equipment Types:
-No ADS-B Capabilites-
B1 - ADS-B Capable - 1090 Out
B2 - ADS-B Capable - 1090 In/Out       

-No UAT Capabilities-
U1 - UAT Capable - UAT Out
U2 - UAT Capable - UAT In/Out       

and some other stuff about VDL and ADS-C and FANS and whatnot.

So would we select B2?  Because we're not UAT *out*.

Does seem something is missing in the ICAO options:

1090 Out/Dual 1090-978 In

FWIW: UAT is NOT an ICAO device, only for the FAA. The UAT options were added by the FAA for filing flight plans that operate only within the US. I personally am not making any changes to my ICAO equipment codes, at least for now. I hope Dynon will soon chime in and let us know what we should use when we file a flight plan after consulting with the FAA.

Why am I not surprised that this is another confusing CF by the FAA?

Why they didn't just do what the rest of the world is doing and make everything 1090 Out and In, I have no idea. Sigh.

So it seems filing whatever/whatever/whatever/EB2 would now be correct with the dual-mode receiver.

 

[gtae07]

Why am I not surprised that this is another confusing CF by the FAA?

Why they didn't just do what the rest of the world is doing and make everything 1090 Out and In, I have no idea.  Sigh.

So it seems filing whatever/whatever/whatever/EB2 would now be correct with the dual-mode receiver.

The FAA had concerns about the bandwidth of 1090 given the enormous GA population compared to other places. So they created another method that was intended for "little" airplanes. Of course, in the FAA's infinite wisdom, they completely misunderstood what the owners and pilots of those "little" airplanes would want. It's much like watching a chess player (call him A) who plans his moves assuming that his opponent (B) will make the most advantageous move not for himself, but for player A. It's the same thing they did with Light Sport, where they genuinely and honestly believed that LSAs would overwhelmingly be used for training people for Part 103 ultralights and similar flying.

Anyhow, the requirements and restrictions on a 978/UAT out system made it impractical for a lot of potential users, so they went with a 1090 system instead.

It's like the FAA doesn't use focus groups or a "red team" to vet out real-world reactions to its schemes.