Caravan down outside Houston

Acrofox said:
Before the ADS-B out requirement took effect, I was on this side of the fence. Now that we've seen that the cost burden is relatively low, I'm on the other side. It's a huge improvement to safety.

In aircraft where ADS-B out is not suitable, for example, due to a lack of electrical system or transponder, a TABS-compliant beacon should be required. The burden on owners is negligible compared to tiedown/hangar costs/overhaul/fuel/maintenance/etc.

Just my opinion, though. Driving jets full of passengers changed my perspective a bit, I think. There are operational windows where safe operation of the airplane, complex clearances, weather deviations, and so on takes four eyes and at least part of two brains, and it's easy to briefly neglect see and avoid. At jet speeds, that can be enough time to get much too close.

-Fox
Click to expand...
USMCmech said:
If you're not having to meet FAA certification standards and can just meet the same standards of consumer electronics the cost should be a lot lower.

A battery powered portable ADS-B transmitter the size of a iPhone could probably be available for a few hundred dollars.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this issue gives me jock itch because I'm stuck on the fence. The Part 25 jet world operates aircraft with all sorts of bells and whistles required by design & regulation, such as TCAS, all of which are reactions to past accidents. Then there are the pilots flying down low for fun smashing bugs burning 100LL in parts of the National Airspace System that don't even require a radio or transponder. In the interest of saving lives, safety should be enforced across the board no matter the cost but I'm not sure I'm sold on equipping everything currently exempt from 91.215 just yet. Maybe more emphasis on training and understanding the ramifications of transponder exempt aircraft in the NAS, much like loitering in a MOA or across a VR or IR.
 
Last edited:
NovemberEcho said:
What kind of training and licensing, if any is required for paragliding? Motorized or not.
Click to expand...

They're classified as Part 103 ultralights. Minimal oversight as long as you don't meet the definition of any category/ class of aircraft. Most significantly must be 254lbs or less.
 
Last edited:
Murdoughnut said:
Question (because I was trying to interpret this the other day) - is ADSB required below the outer ring shelf, or just within the shelf up to 10K?
Click to expand...

for Class B airspace, anywhere inside the Mode C ring surrounding the airspace, is one of the required areas.
 
CFI A&P said:
The problem with this is the financial burden to owners. There are hundreds if not thousands of aircraft types out there that are exempt for one reason or another. Many of which due to their lack of an electrical system. Now you're talking about thousands of dollars in aircraft modifications, some of which are unique or one off that would require designing or engineering one-off ADS-B compliance.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding callous, tough •. ADS-B isn't tough, and it's not a massive power draw. This can be done. Read on.

CFI A&P said:
Unfortunately this issue gives me jock itch because I'm stuck on the fence. The Part 25 jet world operates aircraft with all sorts of bells and whistles required by design & regulation, such as TCAS, all of which are reactions to past accidents. Then there are the pilots flying down low for fun smashing bugs burning 100LL in parts of the National Airspace System that don't even require a radio or transponder. In the interest of saving lives, safety should be enforced across the board no matter the cost but I'm not sure I'm sold on equipping everything currently exempt from 91.215 just yet. Maybe more emphasis on training and understanding the ramifications of transponder exempt aircraft in the NAS, much like loitering in a MOA or across a VR or IR.
Click to expand...

The financial burden is minimal. If you own and operate an aircraft, you can afford the measly $2000 to install a Uavionix skybeacon. It's cheap, dependable and popular. There's really no excuse not to have ADS-B out anymore. If you really cannot afford that while owning an airplane, I'd be seriously interested in your cost-saving measures while participating in aviation. Cynical, but grounded in reality.

Uavionix is working HARD on a portable ADS-B out solution and, I'm told, making progress with the FAA. I almost feel like they should get a grant from the FAA for this because it's a legit safety-enhancing feature. Hell, for the first time, with ADS-B in/out, untowered operations with pilots using N-numbers to ID themselves is actually useful. :)
 
MikeD said:
for Class B airspace, anywhere inside the Mode C ring surrounding the airspace, is one of the required areas.
Click to expand...
I’ve been curious about that. I used to fly a cub through a class B VFR corridor back in the day. Was wondering if it’s still allowed.
 
L-16B said:
I’ve been curious about that. I used to fly a cub through a class B VFR corridor back in the day. Was wondering if it’s still allowed.
Click to expand...
This is a great drawing for those questions.

1640220678238.png


@tlewis95 should note Class E airspace 10,000 and above.
 
Last edited:
USMCmech said:
If you're not having to meet FAA certification standards and can just meet the same standards of consumer electronics the cost should be a lot lower.

A battery powered portable ADS-B transmitter the size of a iPhone could probably be available for a few hundred dollars.
Click to expand...
www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com

ADS-B for Drones & UAVs | ADS-B Transponders, Transmitters | ADS-B Avionics

Find suppliers and manufacturers of ADS-B for drones and UAVs. ADS-B transponders, receivers, transceivers and transmitters for unmanned aircraft. ADS-B Avionics.
www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com
 
killbilly said:
At the risk of sounding callous, tough •. ADS-B isn't tough, and it's not a massive power draw. This can be done. Read on.



The financial burden is minimal. If you own and operate an aircraft, you can afford the measly $2000 to install a Uavionix skybeacon. It's cheap, dependable and popular. There's really no excuse not to have ADS-B out anymore. If you really cannot afford that while owning an airplane, I'd be seriously interested in your cost-saving measures while participating in aviation. Cynical, but grounded in reality.

Uavionix is working HARD on a portable ADS-B out solution and, I'm told, making progress with the FAA. I almost feel like they should get a grant from the FAA for this because it's a legit safety-enhancing feature. Hell, for the first time, with ADS-B in/out, untowered operations with pilots using N-numbers to ID themselves is actually useful. :)
Click to expand...

Well, I had a long winded response typed out - but it was accidently deleted by the guy that typed it out. The summary is that I don't totally disagree with you and I'm playing a little Devil's Advocate on this one. The largest reason for decline in general aviation is cost (which can be another thread in itself). Not everyone considers $2k as measly and some aircraft, particularly vintage rag and tube airplanes, would require considerable modification to add such a system. Which is why they're exempt under 91.215.

UAvionix has, and is doing great things by entering the market with real solutions that are very affordable compared to the giants in that field. The more people that enter the market, the better it will be for the consumer. Which will be good for the industry.
 
CFI A&P said:
The problem with this is the financial burden to owners. There are hundreds if not thousands of aircraft types out there that are exempt for one reason or another. Many of which due to their lack of an electrical system. Now you're talking about thousands of dollars in aircraft modifications, some of which are unique or one off that would require designing or engineering one-off ADS-B compliance.
Click to expand...

What the financial burden of crashing and burning?
 
ahw01 said:
Nothing unless it's powered parachute

This looks cool

Click to expand...

It might look cool, but tactically this is the dumbest idea. If the Army buys these they are dumber than I thought they were.

Low, slow, loud with zero maneuverability. Even at night you are low hanging fruit to be shot down.

Also this.....
 
Wardogg said:
It might look cool, but tactically this is the dumbest idea. If the Army buys these they are dumber than I thought they were.

Low, slow, loud with zero maneuverability. Even at night you are low hanging fruit to be shot down.

Also this.....
Click to expand...

I don't think it's aimed at them
 
Wardogg said:
It might look cool, but tactically this is the dumbest idea. If the Army buys these they are dumber than I thought they were.

Low, slow, loud with zero maneuverability. Even at night you are low hanging fruit to be shot down.

Also this.....
Click to expand...

Good Idea Fairy runnin high n hard....did I say that?....if Big Army is thinkin that this is SOF compatible...yeah I agree...dumber
Sound signature ought to have been the first clue if "stealth" is a consideration
 
ahw01 said:
I don't think it's aimed at them
Click to expand...
You might be right. I took the description maybe a little to literally. I took teaching an Army Helo pilot to "fly" one as some sort of Demo for the Army. I stand corrected.

P.S. In my defense, "it doesn't take a genius to become an Army pilot"........so I don't expect much from them. :p:D:p

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top