Should ADSB out/in be mandatory for all general aviation aircraft?

[Matt45609]

This question seems to divide some pilots, reasons for which are beyond me. As a GA pilot, the amount of close calls avoided even with ADSB is staggering (can't rely on other pilots as much as you can rely on yourself). I'm wondering if anyone else agrees that both ADSB out and in should be mandatory in general aviation, as even one collision (as we have seen a few this year) is far too many.

Pilots I have spoken to about this have argued that making ADSB compulsory causes an additional financial burden to them, however, I argue that one can not out a price on their lives and in comparison to the roughly $10,000 spent on obtaining a private, this is a reasonable expense.

Let me know your thoughts.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've had this argument with a lot of people (here in the UK, but I fly in the USA every couple of years also). I have certainly gone to significant lengths to ensure that the aeroplanes I fly regularly have electronic conspicuity in and out. It takes little effort to establish that using a radar service alone doesn't provide the protection you might wish, and certainly there are places in both our countries where the risks associated with a mid-air collision aren't trivial.

ADSB isn't strictly the only game in town, gliders worldwide use FLARM, and in the UK a lot of GA uses the PilotAware protocol, particularly on microlight aeroplanes. But the big issue in my opinion isn't so much the signal out, as the willingness to have something in the cockpit receiving and displaying transponder returns. Personally my favoured solution there is SkyDemon coupled with PilotAware Rosetta, and a separate Mode-S or (better) ADSB-OUT transponder. That means I'm seeing ADSB-out, Mode S, PAW and Flarm equipped aircraft out there, and can be seen by anything with ADSB-IN or PAW; it's imperfect (I won't, for example, be seen by a glider carrying only FLARM), but that system probably sees three times as much traffic as I do with my calibrated Mk1 eyeballs.

What helps a lot is ensuring that this kit can be cheaply fitted across Europe CS-STAN has gone a long way to enabling that, along with rebate systems for the purchase of equipment. I'm unsure if the FAA have done anything similar.

And yet I think that the vast majority of flying school aeroplanes both sides of the Atlantic are still refusing to fit anything along the lines of PAW/SkyEcho/ADSB-IN, so are reliant upon useless radar services, and flawed lookout. Near me we have a mid-air about five years ago between a C152 and a Gambri helicopter, both school aircraft, neither carrying any form of traffic display, from the same airport, below the level of effective radar cover (either primary or secondary) killing two instructors and two students. That could have been avoided with well under £1000 worth of equipment between the two aircraft.

I'd prefer to rely upon persuasion - after all is it really necessary to mandate kit in an ultralight flown over somebody's own farm? But if persuasion isn't working, and it appears not to be, then maybe you're right and we have to start legislating.

G

[TheOddOne]

I think the ONLY solution is mandatory ADS-B in/out. There was recently an Airprox down our way where a fully equipped PA28 with ADS-B in/out came pretty close to a glider equipped with FLARM. Neither could see each other electronically and the PA28 pilot only saw the glider at the last minute. There were other factors but if the glider had ADS-B out then the PA28 pilot would have been able to take timely action. I think some glider sites have been experimenting with a static ADS-B transmitter but I haven't heard how this is going.
Another issue for me is the proliferation of domestic electronic devices in GA cockpits and even airliners. In my experience, these are often mounted obscuring the view of instruments or the view out of the window. We have all certificated panel mount equipment, Garmin actually with ADS-B out and in. Unfortunately, although Garmin use the GDL protocol, they won't (as far as I know) allow 3rd party devices to access their displays. Thus, if we want to stick to proper panel mount certified displays, we can't see Rosetta outputs. This is why I think the only way forward is mandating ADS-B in/out and outlaw all the other systems. I think the CAA were too wishy-washy with what they were prepared to give the rebate for. If I'm wrong about the GDL stuff and there IS a work-round for displaying Rosetta or FLARM etc on a panel Garmin device, I'd be delighted to hear about it.

TOO

[Maoraigh1]

I agree with TOO. I have only Mode S. I've thought of adding ADS-B out, but will wait for something better than what is available in the UK at present. I have no glass at present, and would like ADS-B in as well, but displaying all traffic is a must.
The drone equipment develooments should offer a solution soon. I have 225 Kg available for fuel, humans, baggage and additional equipment.

[First_Principal]

TOO has it. Whatever protocol is determined to be the best (let's say ADS-B) should be mandated as the only protocol, and it should be maintained as open-source with the technology available to all manufacturers. This comes from someone who breaks out into a rash whenever 'regulation' is mentioned!

At present it seems a bit like having half the radcoms on AM, another 25% on FM, and the remainder on SSB, DMR, or some other weird system - never the twain shall communicate (with apologies to Rudyard K)!

FP.

[ETOPS]

Maoraigh1

I have only Mode S. I've thought of adding ADS-B out, but will wait for something better than what is available in the UK at present.

I hope I don't upset you by firmly putting my experience of this here but here goes....

My set up was a new TQ KTX2 Mode S transponder. I already owned a PAW Rosetta so had that wired into the KTX2. This gave me both an existing Mode S output for my local ATC plus an ADSB output for the benefit of those aircraft nearby able to receive that signal. I disregarded completely the propriety PAW signal I was transmitting and, very importantantly, ignored the SIL 0 naysayers who don't fully understand that term.
That is because all my flights were in class G airspace so my ADSB SIL 0 signal was completely visible to most other light types who were receiving it via PAW or their ATOM/GRID system. It's extremely important to note that any airliners nearby would detect me not via ADSB SIL 0 but my Mode S transponder signal (TCAS being a transponder based system)

So my advice is to shelve any predudice against PAW, talk to them about their new soon to be released offering, and look to a future of ADSB compliance. Remember ATOM/GRID in gives you a near complete air picture,,,

[ETOPS]

Sorry - forgot to mention all of this was displayed on my i-phone and Bluetoothed to my headset so allowing me to keep a heads up scan for traffic called by "Monica"..

[Fl1ingfrog]

There are many who fly only to do just that and have nothing more than a radio onboard - which most of the time is switched off. I doubt that many of these airman have ever had anywhere near to an airmiss but perhaps they are simply unaware. For myself, having flown for over 40 years I have only experienced one airmiss. It was with a fast jet returning from a NATO exercise over the North Sea, I was flying with a student on a navex, the fast jet pilot was told about us by radar but he mis-identified another aircraft for us.

With regard to all this kit for which so many crave I ask myself the question; why not me when hoards of pilots around me have an airmiss on a weekly basis and I have only had one over a life time.

[IFMU]

With regard to all this kit for which so many crave I ask myself the question; why not me when hoards of pilots around me have an airmiss on a weekly basis and I have only had one over a life time.
33 years, 1200+ hours, and two near misses for me. Hardly seems staggering.

[Genghis the Engineer]

33 years, 1200+ hours, and two near misses for me. Hardly seems staggering.
So about one every 600hrs, that sounds likely, my per-hour score is similar.

Now find out the total number of hours flown annually, divide by 600, and you see a very strong case for electronic conspicuity and detection!

G

[scifi]

Hi, I fly mostly over Wales, and as I type this, there is just one Eurofox at 3500ft over Clocaenog Forest, in the whole of Wales.
We already have coloured lights on each wing-tip, HISLs as well, Mode S and some radar coverage. All of which was mandated as safety requirements.

As you might be aware, our Welsh Government has reduced the speed limits in each town and village to 20 mph. This has the undesirable effect that school-kids now jump off the pavements into the road even though they see cars approaching. In the past they jumped very quickly onto the pavement when a car was spotted.

So maybe all this tech has the adverse effect that pilots will be looking more at their Gizmos, instead of out of the windows.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I agree that there should be one and only one protocol, and ADS-B seems to be best indicated. However, being certified and all that, ADS-B equipment must be expensive. I think authorities are hesitating, not to say reluctant, to impose yet another costly bit of equipment, after 8,33 radios and mode-S transponders. It may all be very well for owners/operators of upper class planes, say a PC-12 or a Beech Baron; but someone who bought a second-hand ultralight for perhaps 20.000 euros and already had to spend 5.000 on avionics upgrades will not be looking forward to more investment in that corner.

Let us also not forget that, if once a mode-S transponder is present, ADS-B in and out are relatively easy to implement, indeed I think many mode-S transponders already have an option for ADS-B out. The crux comes with displaying the data from ADS-B in.

[Jim59]

I agree that there should be one and only one protocol, and ADS-B seems to be best indicated.

A viewpoint presumably based on the type of aircraft you fly and how you fly. The transponder and ADS-B technologies are percolating down from the commercial aircraft world where electricity is abundant, being within 5 miles and 1000’ of another aircraft is too close and speeds are high – up to 250 kts at any level outside controlled airspace.
GA includes balloons, (airships?) parachutists, gliders, hang gliders, helicopters, aeroplanes, paramotors, UAVs etc.. Why assume that what you want is appropriate or even practicable for all other airspace users. Some categories of aircraft (I guess a parachute or paramotor is an aircraft?) routinely fly in close proximity and don’t even carry a battery. If ADS-B did not already exist a technically superior solution would be devised using the best bits of e.g. FLARM as well as transponder technology. For sure a modern solution would not need the maximum permitted ADS-B peak transmit power of 500 Watts. FLARM works on mW powers and ground receivers can receive at ranges of up to 30 km.

[BEagle]

Currently EASA seems to be looking at SRD 860 MHz systems (on 868.2, 868.4 and 869.525) rather than 978 MHz UAT ADS-B.....

Whatever becomes the UK preferred system must also be compatible with EASA EU systems, surely?

[Discorde]

Perhaps introduce low-cost mandatory data-out transponders* (transmitting on a world-wide standard specified frequency set) for all aerial vehicles and sending:

- ident
- GPS posn
- pressure alt (based on 1013 hPa)

but non-compulsory receivers so pilots had the choice of what they wanted (if anything) displayed.

*with mandated periodic accuracy checks

[RatherBeFlying]

I've had PowerFlarm on my glider for a decade. It shows the position of ADSB emitters quite well and if unable to make radio contact with potential conflicting traffic, I get out of their way, just as I do with Flarm emitters.

I also have a Mode S transponder that I updated to ADSB Out. GPS antenna placement in a carbon fiber glider is not easy, but I did find a spot for a small antenna. Installation was a royal pain in the constricted space behind the instrument panel and the space taken up by the harness.

Gliders spend a lot of time in thermals in a 45° bank at <= 50 kt bringing satellites in and out view at a rapid rate which degrades the position accuracy. You can see the same effect with GPS test app on your phone by holding it at a 45° angle and turning your body.

Certification authorities have set up a number of expensive hoops to jump through in a demonstration that perfection is the enemy of the good enough. In the air 10m accuracy is more than sufficient.

​​
​​​​​

[Fl1ingfrog]

The clamour for rules and regulations is a sign of our times. People are less likely these days to have their own mind but want rules and machines to make the simplest of decisions for them. It is a mistake to believe that making a rule/regulation will always solve the problem. The idea of mandating the carriage of ADSB or any other machine fits into this thinking. My late father was always telling me; " be careful making rules because they may not solve the problem but will always create rule breakers.

[IFMU]

So maybe all this tech has the adverse effect that pilots will be looking more at their Gizmos, instead of out of the windows.
I do agree with this.

I do plan to add ADSB to my aircraft, but I'm old enough to know to look out the windows.

[ETOPS]

but I'm old enough to know to look out the windows.

As I mentioned in my earlier post I hardly ever look at my “gizmos” as the audio output is my preferred warning. See and avoid remains my inflight focus and has kept me away from non-emitting traffic.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem with ADSB is the cost. In Canada we have gone with a space based solution. This makes some sense given the huge size of Canada but it requires antenna diversity which limits the range of available products all of which cost around 10 K. If the UK is going the same route everyone should push hard for a ground based system like the US UAT. It is dramatically less expensive and works just as well.

I fly gliders and I hate FLARM. It is a total scam with users that are completely beholden to an unregulated monopoly and which has numerous operating deficiencies. The regulators should have stopped this in its tracks and forced an open source solution.

[MechEngr]

I can recall at least 3 cases where expert pilots had mid airs with other expert pilots under "see and avoid."

There is a non-zero chance that there are far more near misses than pilots are aware of.

Ground based fails when there are intermediate obstacles. Cost is a problem that should no longer be a problem, given the ubiquity of cellular communications, but the smaller market and regulatory hurdles and the out-dated specification are all to blame for keeping the cost up.

A suitable ADSB-In system is within the capacity of any hobbyist to realize for around $200 or less, including the ability to alarm on proximity.

The Canadian system, Aireon, seems like a replacement for ATC use of transponders and primary radar, rather than a system to alert small aircraft to each other's presence; of course it is over capable of separation, but that won't count if not every uses it. Using Iridium is a tech upgrade over transponders, but that is being eclipsed by Starlink.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The problem with ADSB is the cost. In Canada we have gone with a space based solution. This makes some sense given the huge size of Canada but it requires antenna diversity which limits the range of available products all of which cost around 10 K. If the UK is going the same route everyone should push hard for a ground based system like the US UAT. It is dramatically less expensive and works just as well.

I fly gliders and I hate FLARM. It is a total scam with users that are completely beholden to an unregulated monopoly and which has numerous operating deficiencies. The regulators should have stopped this in its tracks and forced an open source solution.

It's important to appreciate that there are two different reasons for ADSB. (1) ATC seeing aircraft, (2) Aircraft seeing aircraft.

A space based solution, in a huge country like Canada, arguably is the way ahead - I can see that, FOR ATC USE.

The size of the country is totally irrelevant when it comes to aircraft seeing each other, as if they're not within a few miles of each other, it doesn't matter - they don't need to see each other.

A lot of the problems with the plethora of systems are caused by the fact that some (ADSB) are being driven by air traffic controllers, and some others (FLARM, PAW) are being driven by pilots. Hence the significantly different approaches.


Even in a tiny country like the UK however, a ground based solution is deeply flawed. I did a bit of work a couple of years ago after a mid-air fatal - I flew a mode-S equipped aircraft to the overhead of the location of the crash, and then climbed up until ATC could see me on secondary radar. This was over a large area of very flat landscape about 300ft AMSL and well under 50 miles from at-least three radar equipped major airports - I was at 1400ft before ATC could see me on secondary, and 2000ft before they could see me on primary. That clearly shows that ATC cannot be at the core of collision avoidance solutions. Safe and workable solutions MUST be based upon aircraft seeing each other electronically.

G

[RatherBeFlying]

My base lies between two mountain ranges in Canada. My transponder replies to the satellite on the ground. Another glider pilot told me his PowerFlarm sees my ADSB return 50 km away.

[Fl1ingfrog]

My transponder replies to the satellite on the ground. Another glider pilot told me his PowerFlarm sees my ADSB return 50 km away.

I don't think you mean transponder which is line of sight to a beacon on the ground. I'm presuming that you mean your ADSB

[Matt45609]

The clamour for rules and regulations is a sign of our times. People are less likely these days to have their own mind but want rules and machines to make the simplest of decisions for them. It is a mistake to believe that making a rule/regulation will always solve the problem. The idea of mandating the carriage of ADSB or any other machine fits into this thinking. My late father was always telling me; " be careful making rules because they may not solve the problem but will always create rule breakers.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I disagree that mandating ADSB reflects a clamouring for rules and regulations. It's the same as mandating seatbelts on cars. Yes, it's an extra step before hitting the gas, but it's equally an extra barrier before hitting the windshield. The same principle applies with ADSB.

And as for 'machines making decisions for us', let's not disregard the fact that human flight itself is a product of the synergy between man and machine. Aviation depends on and evolves with technology, thus safety is improved. I'd certainly rather my machine tell me that an aircraft could hit me in hazy conditions than waiting for the MK1 eyeball to tell me.

So maybe all this tech has the adverse effect that pilots will be looking more at their Gizmos, instead of out of the windows.

Yes, although auditory annunciators exist to solve this issue. My Garmin, for example, audibly alerts me to aircraft within proximity, negating the need to constantly monitor the display.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I disagree that mandating ADSB reflects a clamouring for rules and regulations. It's the same as mandating seatbelts on cars. Yes, it's an extra step before hitting the gas, but it's equally an extra barrier before hitting the windshield. The same principle applies with ADSB.

And as for 'machines making decisions for us', let's not disregard the fact that human flight itself is a product of the synergy between man and machine. Aviation depends on and evolves with technology, thus safety is improved. I'd certainly rather my machine tell me that an aircraft could hit me in hazy conditions than waiting for the MK1 eyeball to tell me.
I'd say that the case for mandatory electronic conspicuity is stronger than the case for mandatory seatbelts.

If I have a very hard landing, and am wearing my harness - then the chances of my dying are significantly lower for wearing the harness, than if I wasn't. Ultimately it's me who lives or dies.

If I am flying in marginal visibility and am using both a transponder and some form of traffic receiver, then the chances of my having a collision with another nearby aircraft are much lower. It is me, my passengers, and whoever was in the other aircraft who live or die.

So the electronic conspicuity technology protects other people, not just me - unlike the harness which really only protects me.

This isn't a case for ADSB as a specific technology, it's for EC/receiver/display generically. The argument about which technology is best is separate.

G

[ETOPS]

I've come to the point where my only advice to fellow pilots is "emit something" in fact anything will be better than nothing. I'm happy with my set up and still follow the VFR mantra of "see and avoid" but have simply added "hear and avoid" as well.

[RatherBeFlying]

I don't think you mean transponder which is line of sight to a beacon on the ground. I'm presuming that you mean your ADSBNope. Transponders reply to interrogations wherever they came from including satellites. Receivers pick up the reply. ADSB data is appended to the reply.

[Fl1ingfrog]

These arguments are very persuasive but miss the point. The mandatory wearing of safety harnesses are of a different kind. In a world of surveillance such as street cameras with face recognition and speed cameras. Here in France they are installing speed cameras that do much more; they will also detect should you inadvertently cross the solid white centreline and more. With all this high tech big brother is on our backs whenever they can be. It is announced today by NatWest Bank that they are tracking their customers spending habits and telling them to stop eating meat and to drive electric cars to save the planet; god knows what their calls will be to pilots flying gas guzzling aeroplanes. Say goodbye to your bank account.

One of the joys for many is to get airborne and away from all these earthly pressures, 'the freedom of flight' as it was once called. I can empathise with all that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

When CVRs were brought into the airline world, the unions got together and refused to accept them until there were clear commitments that the data would only ever be used for safety, and not disciplinary purposes. GA organisations aren't as powerful as airline unions, but perhaps we should pursue a similar line between us all?

G

[Fl1ingfrog]

Nope. Transponders reply to interrogations wherever they came from including satellites. Receivers pick up the reply. ADSB data is appended to the reply.

Well, yes it is correct to refer to a satellite channel as a transponder channel but we are referring, when using the term to the transponder radio fitted into an aircraft that responds to transmissions emitted by a ground based beacon known as as 'Secondary Radar'.