Peter wrote:
because for collision avoidance and TCAS alerting you need only Mode C which doesn’t give away your identity.
True, but it makes TAS systems expensive, and you would need a TAS, or GTS or Skywatch system which is expensive to buy and install. The main benefit of ADS-B Out is that a very low cost receiver can be used for a systems that performs better then the active traffic systems, hence, better situational awareness for everyone.
Apart from that, a complet TAS system is very hard or impossible to install on many low end and oldtimer planes, as well as gliders.
Peter wrote:
All other methods, potentially better e.g. ADS-B, will have privacy concerns because anybody can receive the data with a dirt cheap receiver which will work over a radius of hundreds of miles. I have seen a demo of one covering most of Europe, though I doubt it was the £10 USB-TV type.
You won’t have such a range with any GA level transponder, likely the image was build up of merged data from several sources. Using triangulating most non ADS-B flights can be followed anyway.
I can understand the privacy item, yet you will see photo on spotters website, could hear your radio calls etc. Many people give up far more privacy using all kinds of free online service than for this safety tool.
Yet mode S can lower work pressure at ATC and reduce issues. I know they are investigating, and possibly allready using in some countries, to use a certain squawk code when you have a certain COM frequency set. For uncontrolled airspace you wouldn’t have to call FIS, just set the transponder code, and TIS could give you a call as they know your callsign, informing you on other traffic or informing you on when you are about to fly into controlled airspace without you being aware.
mh wrote:
Or we have to ask if relying on the “other aircraft” to emitt signals is good idea in the first place …
I don’t think this a valid point, as this is a secondary safeguard. There are also some projects for airborne radar systems for detecting obstacles, and other traffic including drones, making you independ of avionics installation of other aircraft. Selfly is a company which is pushing this technology, flying a TB-10 as test bed.
Silvaire wrote:
What I understand is that AOPA and NBAA lobbied to prevent mandatory aircraft tracking by Government, and ID broadcast to anybody interested, under the ADS-B regulation. They had a good argument because it is unethical in many people’s mind and arguably illegal in the US. FAA agreed because it’s also proved politically impossible in the past (during the prior failed effort to make Mode S mandatory for GA in certain US airspace). I see no logical connection between ‘new clean sheet technology’ and lobbying efforts for autonomy, that strikes me as a hopelessly naive or ‘politically correct’ explanation.
There is absolutely no illegality what so ever, that is pure BS. As far as not understanding what in fact happened, that is your problem and not the result of a politically correct explanation.
Of course I think the privacy concerns are spurious.
I get many emails asking me for a view on some plane somebody wants to buy. 5 mins on google and the plane spotter sites generally deliver a pretty good profile where the said plane has been, and (from the patterns) very likely has never been. One can get a good view of whether it is a hangar queen, too. Often one finds accident reports.
Airborne ADS-B emissions can be picked up over several hundred nm, with fairly simple equipment. Probably not low level GA, due to the earth’s radius.
I was just making the point that given the difficulty with people enabling Mode C (large chunks of low level GA) and given the greater difficulty with people enabling Mode S (bigger chunks of GA, plus whole populations of certain aircraft types) ADS-B will face even more difficulty.
Peter wrote:
I was just making the point that given the difficulty with people enabling Mode C (large chunks of low level GA)
Again this is a different problem, and seems to be very country depend, with UK being the number one.
This is a good point for AOPA UK, or similair situation, to make people aware on the importance of correct transponder usage. For sure this will take time. I think it is also an important part of just culture.
@NCYankee, I have no problem, what I have is a clear understanding. Do you not have any idea of how serious an issue it is if government mandates by law that they track the movements of individual citizens? Or what kind of a reaction that might solicit in a free country? No pilot’s organization lobbying in DC is naive to that reality, that would be totally silly.
Regardless of that, I’d be interested in your view of the motivation and the logical connection between AOPA etc successfully lobbying for an ADS-B autonomous mode and any other factor except legal challenges. Thanks.
Peter wrote:
5 mins on google and the plane spotter sites generally deliver a pretty good profile where the said plane has been, and (from the patterns) very likely has never been. One can get a good view of whether it is a hangar queen, too. Often one finds accident reports.
I’ll email you my N-numbers and you see what you can find. You’ll find nothing since 2004, and one on line record in total since either plane was manufactured. I guess my planes must be hangar queens, eh? Plane spotting is mainly a weird UK thing. I think in the US people interested in flying are too busy flying… often minus ATC, minus radio communication, minus airport movement logs, minus ‘booking in’ or ‘booking out’, minus aircraft ‘Journey Logs’, minus PPR, minus flight plans and minus any other written or photographic record of where they’ve been 
I would say that’s the case more often than not worldwide, to see otherwise is IMHO a very narrow view. I hope in my world at least that it stays that way forever.
Silvaire wrote:
I’ll email you my N-numbers and you see what you can find. You’ll find nothing.
On FAA Register you usually can find owner or holder information, including address. In many European countries this has changed due to privacy concerns and you won’t be able to find the aircraft owners.
Jesse, I was talking about tracking movements and thereby the activity of individuals, not what they own. Government already knows what I own… and charges me property tax to the tune of about $20K per year in total. They haven’t yet taxed me very much on my movements, because they don’t know them.
I was writing from the European POV, illustrating that privacy is not assured anyway. Plane spotters are all over Europe – at least over the main active GA countries.
I understand… Thanks.
If people are really concerned about “big brother”, then they should be more worried about cellphones and credit/charge cards than about transponders.
