I'm not planning to be an "early adopter" either, thanks for the correction Timberwolf what's 10Mhz between friends

Great plan to wait. I got fucked hard on the navworx fiasco then got the uavionix which also turned out to be a turd. Not in the sense that it didn't work, but traffic targets coming in would disappear giving you a false sense of security. It's just easier to pay a bit more and stick with the proven garmin stuff.

Why do you say the uAvionix system is a turd? That is the system that I have been considering.

Timberwolf wrote:I've equipped all of my planes with 1090 as that is the international standard and most countries seem uninterested in the 978mhz side of what we have in the states.

Yup, that's what I'm doing also. Flying in Mexico it's a requirement.

It's interesting that no one else is adding 978. For me, the availability of weather is such a massive benefit to ADS-B that it's a mystery that not everyone would lobby for it.

rw2 wrote:

Timberwolf wrote:I've equipped all of my planes with 1090 as that is the international standard and most countries seem uninterested in the 978mhz side of what we have in the states.

Yup, that's what I'm doing also. Flying in Mexico it's a requirement.

It's interesting that no one else is adding 978. For me, the availability of weather is such a massive benefit to ADS-B that it's a mystery that not everyone would lobby for it.

So are you guys mounting dual antenna setups as well? Sounds like that is likely going to be a requirement in Canada, but hopefully wont be enforced as testing has proven one on the belly works fine.
I'm thinking that supplying weather through the satellite system would use up to much bandwidth and cost them to much. But I could be wrong there.

rw2 wrote:

Timberwolf wrote:I've equipped all of my planes with 1090 as that is the international standard and most countries seem uninterested in the 978mhz side of what we have in the states.

Yup, that's what I'm doing also. Flying in Mexico it's a requirement.

It's interesting that no one else is adding 978. For me, the availability of weather is such a massive benefit to ADS-B that it's a mystery that not everyone would lobby for it.

Well, that depends on where you’re flying. If you are operating in mountainous terrain in the US, at least, don’t expect much weather data to come via TIS-B. This data is transmitted via Ground Based Transmitters in the US, and line of sight reception is required. There are SIX GBTs in the entire state of Montana, for example.

The other day, I was at 5000 agl just south of the busiest airport in Montana, and no TIS-B weather data. My XM Weather signal was perfect as usual.

If you’re in relatively flat country and/or you’re flying at altitude, it’s a good deal.

I’m installing a uAvionics unit in my plane to provide ADS-B out. All I want is for my plane to show up on someone’s screen that they are staring at, looking for traffic.

MTV

mtv wrote:….I’m installing a uAvionics unit in my plane to provide ADS-B out. All I want is for my plane to show up on someone’s screen that they are staring at, looking for traffic.

Tailbeacon.
Installing mainly because it's impractical to avoid those areas where it will be required.

mtv wrote:Well, that depends on where you’re flying. If you are operating in mountainous terrain in the US, at least, don’t expect much weather data to come via TIS-B. This data is transmitted via Ground Based Transmitters in the US, and line of sight reception is required. There are SIX GBTs in the entire state of Montana, for example.

Yup. Though in the mountains I'm not launching a single engine piston with a low max ceiling into anything I need in-flight radar for.

qmdv wrote:...I have a son in Utah and a daughter in Seattle area that will be off limits. ...

Dunno about Utah, but in the Seattle area ADS-B will only be required within the mode c veil (within 30NM of KSEA),
and within NAS Whidbey's class C.
If you can stay out of those, and avoid KPDX's class C on the way north, you should be OK.
They might not be the most convenient choices, it might be a bit longer drive for the daughter to pick you up,
but there's some airports outside KSEA's mode C veil where you can park-- esp north.

Does anyone in the community have knowledge or an opinion on an earlier idea presented wherein S&R response could become parcelled together with ADSB services. I'm assuming it would have to be the 1090 Mhz specification for total coverage.

Thoughts, pontifications anyone I see this kind of "double dipping" as have serious safety of flight value if technologically possible ?

Mapleflt wrote:Does anyone in the community have knowledge or an opinion on an earlier idea presented wherein S&R response could become parcelled together with ADSB services. I'm assuming it would have to be the 1090 Mhz specification for total coverage.

Thoughts, pontifications anyone I see this kind of "double dipping" as have serious safety of flight value if technologically possible ?

I'm trying to figure out how they'd work ut Bryce. Do they have someone watching all the flights to see any unscheduled stops? If so, how do they know I didnt just stop to take a leak? Or see a stream I wanted to fish? And at what point do they start trying to use it for enforcement purposes? Then theres the whole anyone can see where your plane is, and it wouldnt take a terribly smart person to figure out if my plane is 12 hrs away from home that I'm probably 12 hrs away from home and my house may be a good place to clean out... maybe I'm overthinking it, I just dont care for a government over reach...

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Does anyone in the community have knowledge or an opinion on an earlier idea presented wherein S&R response could become parcelled together with ADSB services. I'm assuming it would have to be the 1090 Mhz specification for total coverage.

Thoughts, pontifications anyone I see this kind of "double dipping" as have serious safety of flight value if technologically possible ?

I'm trying to figure out how they'd work ut Bryce. Do they have someone watching all the flights to see any unscheduled stops? If so, how do they know I didnt just stop to take a leak? Or see a stream I wanted to fish? And at what point do they start trying to use it for enforcement purposes? Then theres the whole anyone can see where your plane is, and it wouldnt take a terribly smart person to figure out if my plane is 12 hrs away from home that I'm probably 12 hrs away from home and my house may be a good place to clean out... maybe I'm overthinking it, I just dont care for a government over reach...

All very valid considerations, thanks

Mapleflt wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Does anyone in the community have knowledge or an opinion on an earlier idea presented wherein S&R response could become parcelled together with ADSB services. I'm assuming it would have to be the 1090 Mhz specification for total coverage.

Thoughts, pontifications anyone I see this kind of "double dipping" as have serious safety of flight value if technologically possible ?

I'm trying to figure out how they'd work ut Bryce. Do they have someone watching all the flights to see any unscheduled stops? If so, how do they know I didnt just stop to take a leak? Or see a stream I wanted to fish? And at what point do they start trying to use it for enforcement purposes? Then theres the whole anyone can see where your plane is, and it wouldnt take a terribly smart person to figure out if my plane is 12 hrs away from home that I'm probably 12 hrs away from home and my house may be a good place to clean out... maybe I'm overthinking it, I just dont care for a government over reach...

All very valid considerations, thanks

File a flight plan and look on Flightaware right now. Your position is public already.

I think it is just a matter of time before an algorithm will signal flight anomalies and perhaps initiate follow up? I don't think that we have begun to understand the possibilities with existing technologies.

daedaluscan wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Does anyone in the community have knowledge or an opinion on an earlier idea presented wherein S&R response could become parcelled together with ADSB services. I'm assuming it would have to be the 1090 Mhz specification for total coverage.

Thoughts, pontifications anyone I see this kind of "double dipping" as have serious safety of flight value if technologically possible ?

I'm trying to figure out how they'd work ut Bryce. Do they have someone watching all the flights to see any unscheduled stops? If so, how do they know I didnt just stop to take a leak? Or see a stream I wanted to fish? And at what point do they start trying to use it for enforcement purposes? Then theres the whole anyone can see where your plane is, and it wouldnt take a terribly smart person to figure out if my plane is 12 hrs away from home that I'm probably 12 hrs away from home and my house may be a good place to clean out... maybe I'm overthinking it, I just dont care for a government over reach...

All very valid considerations, thanks

File a flight plan and look on Flightaware right now. Your position is public already.

I think it is just a matter of time before an algorithm will signal flight anomalies and perhaps initiate follow up? I don't think that we have begun to understand the possibilities with existing technologies.

I know, that's why I rarely file flight plans. I do itineraries and have my SPOT with me that sends to a couple specific people. A follow up is hard to do in remote places with no cell reception. I torn on it both ways. I see the utility, but I see down sides as well. Our local flight school can't even switch frequencies when leaving the zone so nobody on route has any idea that theres potential traffic doing flight training in "training areas" that only the flight school knows about. I've put about 400 flights through one of them before I ever found out it existed. Theres a lot of transiting traffic that flies directly through one of them. ADS-B would be great for such a situation, but then again, training people right would make a big difference as well...

I'm similar I rarely file a flight plan, friends and family know there I'm headed. However in the case of an "unfortunate" outcome the comfort a properly functioning ELT offers is welcomed. So if this can be further enhanced via ADSB and replace the traditional ELT while offer collision avoidance awareness that would/could be very useful. I equally don't welcome full "eyes on" either, can we have our cake and eat it too !!!

A1Skinner wrote:Then theres the whole anyone can see where your plane is, and it wouldnt take a terribly smart person to figure out if my plane is 12 hrs away from home that I'm probably 12 hrs away from home and my house may be a good place to clean out...

There is a guy on PoA that claims to be selling his plane for this reason. He can't avoid the ADS-B required zones, so he's punting on aviation because he doesn't want his house robbed.

Seems pretty paranoid to me.

1) I have insurance.
2) It wouldn't tell the burglar if anyone else is home.
3) It wouldn't tell the burglar who is flying the plane. Might be someone else.
4) A burglar with the level of sophistication necessary to know about and utilize aviation information is probably also sophisticated enough to sit at starbucks waiting for your car to go by.
5) Millions upon millions of people go to work every day at the same times, and sophisticated burglars could easily take advantage of those patterns also, but don't.

This scenario doesn't pass the sniff test for being an actual worry.

rw2 wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:Then theres the whole anyone can see where your plane is, and it wouldnt take a terribly smart person to figure out if my plane is 12 hrs away from home that I'm probably 12 hrs away from home and my house may be a good place to clean out...

There is a guy on PoA that claims to be selling his plane for this reason. He can't avoid the ADS-B required zones, so he's punting on aviation because he doesn't want his house robbed.

Seems pretty paranoid to me.

1) I have insurance.
2) It wouldn't tell the burglar if anyone else is home.
3) It wouldn't tell the burglar who is flying the plane. Might be someone else.
4) A burglar with the level of sophistication necessary to know about and utilize aviation information is probably also sophisticated enough to sit at starbucks waiting for your car to go by.
5) Millions upon millions of people go to work every day at the same times, and sophisticated burglars could easily take advantage of those patterns also, but don't.

This scenario doesn't pass the sniff test for being an actual worry.

Haha. I'll agree with you. For me it's more the using it for enforcement purposes that I really dont like. I'm sure it will come...

No you can't double dip and install 1090 and 978. The uavionix works fine for the out portion. However if you are using it for traffic, it has issue with disappearing targets. One second you see it, the next it's gone. It doesn't have code to prioritize targets that are closest. This it just dumps everything it sees and overloads the feed line. There's a big thread on vaf about it for anyone interested. Go with a dedicated transponder or another option for the in portion if you're stuck on that route or connecting to a screen for the experimental crowd. For those with certified the 345 will also display everything on your 650/750

So somehow we went from an ADSB discussion to home invasion, yikes I really don't want one now

Is it against the regs to just put a switch on the ADS-B encoder, or transponder, whatever? Need real stealth mode and you're not in Class C or B airspace? Flip.

Yeah, you'd lose the traffic avoidance features. But it seems mutually exclusive with the situations where you'd desire stealth.