Talk:Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Alternate Implementations

I propose that the material recently added on "Alternate Implementations" be moved to its own article. The added material is not an alternate implementation, it is an alternate technology entirely. PhilosopherBruce 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the new sections should be moved to their own article, and would do this if I felt comfortable creating the new article. Could somebody with more experience do this? --Johnb210 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Might as well be me, I guess. So I just created the article "Automatic Independent Surveillance-Privacy". Not that I have any particular experience, but one has to learn sometime, right? --PhilosopherBruce 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of DO-205

Hi everyone,

DO-205 is a data communication standard for avionics information. I nominated it for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DO-205. Thank you.

--Kevinkor2 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How

How does the FAA actually plan to safely control traffic using this system? I'm a controller and I have flown an airplane with ADS-B, while it is a useful tool for pilots, there is no way it should be used a means of separating air traffic. If they want this system to work, every aircraft would have to have this costly technology installed. Even then, air traffic controllers would still be needed to work the traffic, this system is only replacing radar signals with satellite. The person responsible for this scheme is FAA administrator Marion Blakey, who recently announced she was going to work for Raytheon after her term in office ends. Andercee 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not meant to be a replacement for the current ATC system. It is only to be used as a supplement, and mostly in areas that need. Some examples include: in Alaska, the mid-west, and other moutainous areas where radar is limited. Also, in congested areas not assosciated with airports, such as high-volume training areas (like all of Florida). This technology is mainly intended for general aviation, which does not really have any other traffic-awareness other then radar/ATC. So again, this is meant to supplement that, not replace it. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read any news articles about this they all speak of antiquated technology that is constraining our current air traffic system They all say that ADS-B technology will fix everything. Just search google news for NextGen. NextGen is being billed as a fix all when, like we both said, should only be used as a supplement.Andercee 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextgen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andercee (talk • contribs) 21:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I want to correct myself before someone else does it. Blakey is going to work for AIA (Aerospace Industries Association).http://www.aia-aerospace.org/aianews/pr_detail.cfm?Content_ID=525 Andercee 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would every aircraft need it? You can currently take off and fly without a radio or transmponder. Those that do swivel their head and look outside. More and more of the country is making it harder to fly near large airports without a transponder. They could very easily mandate ADS-B to all aircraft wanting to use this airspace. I believe the FAA is developing a system where aircraft are under human control during take-off and landing at large airports, but transition to "Free-Flight" outside of these areas. Even while under human control (text messages no doubt) the pilots can use ADS-B to sequence their arrivals. You see this a lot at the really large airports, where pilots use ADS-B and TCAS to position themselves on approach or departure. It makes flying easier. If you've ever had to S-Turn a 747 on landing behind a prop-job, you'll know how valuable the extra information is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.142.161 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The long-term perspective is indeed an ADS-B mandate for aircraft in controlled airspace. ADS-B is just a cheaper and better replacement for secondary radar. Just like TCAS, Mark-X and Mode-S are now mandated in certain airspaces, so will ADS-B be. And ADS-B is a fairly cheap technology - Australia seems to be able to implement it nationwide for about AUS$ 5000 per airframe. Compared to the cost of even a single secondary radar, this is very cheap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)