C180_guy wrote:And another thing - I don't appreciate the extreme price increase right after purchasing Aerovonics. Way to build a customer base.

First of all, the price increase is hardly what I would call "extreme"...

Second, if you actually had placed a deposit towards an order, uAvionics appears to be honoring the price offered when you did so. At least, that's what I'm reading in other forums.

I did not place a deposit for such an order, so in my opinion, I have no reason to be upset that the price is going up somewhat. I put no skin in the game, and odds are that Aerovonics would have needed to increase the prices themselves, since their certification efforts were taking longer and costing more money than they expected.

From my perspective, the last thing I want is for them to sell their products at a price that cannot support their long-term business model, so that I wind up with an "orphaned" product down the road...

And finally: Guys, let's get a grip on ourselves and remember the (very liberal) forum rules here. Tone it down, please. We can disagree and still be civil about it... (Heck, we might even learn something...)

Good news for those concerned about privacy and ADS-B 1090 ES: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/07/new-program-extends-ads-b-privacy-to-1090es

It's not anonymous to the government, but it sounds like it will block private tracking services and the odd person on the ground with an ADS-B receiver from determining aircraft ID, even if the pilot is flying IFR or using flight following. If the application is like the BARR (now LCDD) program, it's made for business owners, but it can also be filled out by individuals.

Ironically, "Aircraft equipped with Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) ADS-B avionics, including dual 1090/UAT-equipped aircraft, cannot participate in the PIA program, although they are able to continue using the UAT’s anonymous mode if they are not on an IFR flight plan or receiving ATC services."

Does it matter? A couple of years ago, some creative noise NIMBYs in our area created an noise complaint bot that skimmed tail numbers from services like FlightAware and filed noise complaints with our airport's on-line noise complaint link. They also posted lists of the aircraft that had been skimmed, along with owner registration information on their web site. They went to some effort to track down the real owners of aircraft registered under LLCs, trusts and the like. I'm not sure how they did that or how accurate they were, but it was disconcerting to have enemies of GA posting names of individual aircraft owners. The airport quickly instituted a CAPTCHA that froze out the bot, but the airport couldn't stop the skimming of tail numbers or the posting of owner information.

While there are downsides to tracking, there are also benefits. Now that we have two pilots in the family, I'm leaning towards unblocking my tail number. It's nice having Flightradar 24 tracking our newly-minted private pilot. I suppose that getting Spider Tracks would provide the best of both worlds.

FWIW.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:Good news for those concerned about privacy and ADS-B 1090 ES: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/07/new-program-extends-ads-b-privacy-to-1090es

It's not anonymous to the government, but it sounds like it will block private tracking services and the odd person on the ground with an ADS-B receiver from determining aircraft ID, even if the pilot is flying IFR or using flight following. If the application is like the BARR (now LCDD) program, it's made for business owners, but it can also be filled out by individuals.

Ironically, "Aircraft equipped with Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) ADS-B avionics, including dual 1090/UAT-equipped aircraft, cannot participate in the PIA program, although they are able to continue using the UAT’s anonymous mode if they are not on an IFR flight plan or receiving ATC services."

Does it matter? A couple of years ago, some creative noise NIMBYs in our area created an noise complaint bot that skimmed tail numbers from services like FlightAware and filed noise complaints with our airport's on-line noise complaint link. They also posted lists of the aircraft that had been skimmed, along with owner registration information on their web site. They went to some effort to track down the real owners of aircraft registered under LLCs, trusts and the like. I'm not sure how they did that or how accurate they were, but it was disconcerting to have enemies of GA posting names of individual aircraft owners. The airport quickly instituted a CAPTCHA that froze out the bot, but the couldn't stop the skimming of tail numbers or the posting of owner information.

While there are downsides to tracking, there are also benefits. Now that we have two pilots in the family, I'm leaning towards unblocking my tail number. It's nice having Flightradar 24 tracking our newly-minted private pilot. I suppose that getting Spider Tracks would provide the best of both worlds.

FWIW.

CAVU

Thanks for posting!

Inreach works well for tracking family members. Even a phone with tracking enabled works well as long as they aren't out of cell range.

You also bring up a great point about how ADS-b's lack of privacy can be abused. In addition to this, I read an article a while ago that suggested that tracking private jets owned by large corporations might give some insight into unannounced mergers and such. I think the FAA has a lot of pressure from a lot of people to provide a more private solution.

Here is a quick comparison on how this works differently than anonymous mode with a UAT978 ads-b out solution:

1090ES Privacy: Your aircraft always transmits a unique ICAO code, except that with 1090ES privacy, you use a private code that is only known by you and the FAA. It's basically just an alternate private ICAO code that isn't linked to your aircraft registry.

978UAT Anonymous mode: Your aircraft can transmit a random ICAO code as long as the ads-b solution can confirm that your transponder is squawking 1200.

As previously discussed, due to the fact that your ads-b install cannot transmit the random ICAO code until it can confirm you are squawking 1200, the ads-b install's ability to confirm that will dictate how anonymous you are.

CAVU wrote:Good news for those concerned about privacy and ADS-B 1090 ES: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/07/new-program-extends-ads-b-privacy-to-1090es

It's not anonymous to the government

How is this good news for folks concerned about privacy? So, even AOPA is admitting the anonymous mode adsb downgrade is not really anonymous to the gummit? Enjoy your automated reg. violations and user fees.

For some reason this topic, maybe because the idea of a government mandate raises blood pressure to begin with, has caused some members here to forget the main rule of conduct at BCP:

Be cool.

I'm pretty tolerant of douchebaggery in general, and there's no ban on profanity, but when it crosses over into direct insults or abuse, I have no problem ejecting people out the airlock, if that's any kind of deterrent.

Thanks

C180_guy wrote:

CAVU wrote:Good news for those concerned about privacy and ADS-B 1090 ES: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/07/new-program-extends-ads-b-privacy-to-1090es

It's not anonymous to the government

How is this good news for folks concerned about privacy? So, even AOPA is admitting the anonymous mode adsb downgrade is not really anonymous to the gummit? Enjoy your automated reg. violations and user fees.

It's relatively good news because it's better than having everyone and their brother be able to track you by name using an iPhone when you fly over their house. I think Dogpilot already covered the existing capability of the "gummit" to track us. Yes, ADS-B will make it easier for the gummit to violate pilots if someone decides to use it that way. What are you going to do about it?

Keeping out of airspace covered by ADS-B isn't an option for me. I'm not going to quit flying over it, and I'm not going to spend the rest of my days pissing into the wind about things I can't change. YMMV.

CAVU

Has everyone heard about the private, for-profit company called "Vector"? They offer a service similar to the red light camera developers, where they solicit airport authorities and sign them up on a contract whereby they invoice pilots for new "made up" fees and the airport authority doesn't have to do anything except cash checks.

https://www.vector-us.com/planepass

Comment from someone on another forum:

"Vector is a disease. Their latest scam is using adsb billing by simply flying over an airport."

I've heard from a guy I know who is based on a field that has this "service". He started getting an invoice from Vector every time he flew in or out of his home field. He never pays them, owes them over a thousand dollars and has told them to sue him. So far they haven't. So far I haven't heard of anyone getting sued. The first case could be interesting as it will force the airport authority to prove it has the right and that it does not violate terms of FAA grants by restricting access to part of the national transportation infrastructure. At least I hope they'll be required to clearly publish landing fees.

I guess one more reason I'm happy that I chose to go with the GDL-82, although we can't run anonymous in urban areas where so far, Vector is most active, going after the higher volume GA airports.

Pierre

I went ahead and bit the bullet as I'm located in Class D. I bought a tailbeacon due to its ease of installation and cost, plus I already have a GDL-39 for the weather and traffic. I had originally planned to go with a GTX-345 but the more I pondered this setup, the less I wanted to shell out $6,500+ to have it done. The install on the tailbeacon took my mechanic longer to fill out the paperwork than it did to install the actual hardware, and with a $1,995 price for the hardware, being compliant for $2,100 out the door was a no-brainer for me. The only downside for me was that my tailbeacon is mated to a Kt-76a which isn't exactly the most sophisticated piece of equipment, and the knobs can be cumbersome compared to the digital units with buttons. Oh well, nothing I can't live with....

Pierre_R wrote: "Vector is a disease."

Pierre

Pretty much sums it up.

We have Vector at my home base. The pilots resisted, but the County insisted and spent $1 million to install cameras at both ends of the runway. This was done to appease a handful of very wealthy noise NIMBYs who got the attention of a couple of County Supervisors and their Congresswoman. (Wealth is relevant because they have a) time on their hands ("I can't talk on my phone in the garden" etc.), b) all of their real needs are more than sufficiently met, and c) money talks.)

The cameras grab tail numbers and the system does flight tracks as well. The County also hired a full time employee to review flight tracks and send reminder letters to the owners of aircraft that did not follow our VOLUNTARY noise abatement procedures. We never agreed to that. About 20% of the letters are where someone deviated significantly from practices we've had in place for 50 years (e.g., traffic pattern on the north side, not the south). The other 80% are for mice nuts. So far, the only fees that have attached are for 135 operators.

The County likes the Vector system because they use it to respond to the handful of noise complainers. Most of the complaints, it turns out are about jets on their way into SFO, so having the system allows the County to tell the idiots they're barking up the wrong tree. And, of course, it's not their money they're spending on the system or on the employee. So, noise NIMBYs created an opportunity for bureaucrats to expand their empire and spend money, and Vector is there to scoop it up. None of this improves safety or benefits pilots and passengers.

Vector is the camel's nose in the tent. I will be vacating the tent (state) in a few years, but it's a sad state of affairs. The best thing you can do is raise a ruckus and fight like hell if Vector ever comes knocking at your airport. But, even before then, do everything you can to promote the benefits of your airport and aviation with local government officials. Inoculating them against infantile whining is the best way to defend your airport and to create airport management that prioritizes pilots, passengers and airplanes.

CAVU

CAVU, what airport is this?

Kurt

Kurt,

It's KSQL, San Carlos, CA. The system (and the employee) are modeled on Truckee.

CAVU

Found a thread on BT about those Vector cucks:

https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewto ... 5&t=163070

Unfortunately it look like you have to be a member to view the discussion

Mapleflt wrote:Unfortunately it look like you have to be a member to view the discussion

BT is a free forum. It is the biggest and most active GA forum and is not in the least bit restricted to Beech owners. I figured most folks on here were also on there.

C180_guy wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Unfortunately it look like you have to be a member to view the discussion

BT is a free forum. It is the biggest and most active GA forum and is not in the least bit restricted to Beech owners. I figured most folks on here were also on there.

FWIW, https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/ is at least as large.

Vector sounds like a bunch of mall cops. They can write tickets but no one has to pay them. What a waste of everyone's time and resources.

What has to happen before there's legal recourse? Does the FAA have to mandate it and set fee guidelines or can local agencies put laws in place that provide legal recourse if someone doesn't comply and pay up?

It is always mind boggling to me that politicians get away with enacting these unenforceable laws which burn through public resources to appease such small but well funded segments of the population.

I used to live in Europe and this Vector thing kind of reminds me of what they have going on over there. There were speed cameras EVERYWHERE, the first time I got a ticket in the mail (it was maybe $30 euros) a co-worker said I should just throw it out and forget about it. Being a visitor in another country (Belgium) and knowing I was going to need them to let me back in regularly over the following years I decided I should probably pay it. I went into the post office (where the ticket said to pay it). When I showed the post man that ticket he laughed at me, crumpled it up and threw it in the trash behind the counter, he said "nobody pays those!". I received about 10 more tickets over the following 2ish years living there, all went in the trash, never heard another word about it.

I wish Washington state use tax was like that.... something I could ignore....

Mapleflt wrote:FWIW, https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/ is at least as large.

Never heard of it until now thanks for sharing. But, did you look for a Vector thread?

rw2 wrote:
FWIW, https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/ is at least as large.

POA has less than half the members, not that that is a bad thing.