Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

UK CAA £250 subsidy for ADS-B device

Here

Local copy

Obviously the £250 is trivial towards any certified solution. And many of the vast variety of non-certified devices are mutually incompatible. And having a quick read of the debates on the UK chat sites, nobody has realised that almost none of the non-certified devices will be visible on any certified ADS-B IN installation (i.e. on basically any modern fast aircraft). And that for safety versus CAT you actually need a straight Mode C transponder only; ADS-B is not used for proximity / collision avoidance in that sphere.

So the motivation isn’t clear – other than that a lot of the players in the discussion are employed by the manufacturers of the various gadgets (e.g. Uavionix).

Interestingly in that table they categorically state that certified ADS-B IN installations see SIL=1 emitters, of which they give “Sky Echo 2 (SIL-1 Device) CAA CAP 1391 approved” as an example. CAP1391 context is e.g. here and other searches here dig up more old stuff. CAP1391_E2_APR2018_pdf

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Interestingly in that table they categorically state that certified ADS-B IN installations see SIL=1 emitters, of which they give “Sky Echo 2 (SIL-1 Device) CAA CAP 1391 approved” as an example.

Always been true, only SIL = 0 emitters are not displayed on certified ADS-B In systems.

KUZA, United States

£250 is not entirely trivial – it’s the difference between a Garmin GTX335 without the internal ADS-B and one with it in already. On an LAA permit aircraft, the cost of the installation can be very small if the owner has the knowledge and skills to do the installation themselves. If it encourages permit aircraft owners who are doing a transponder upgrade to buy one with ADS-B instead of one without, it’s a win.

Andreas IOM

Peter wrote:

lot of the players in the discussion are employed by the manufacturers of the various gadgets (e.g. Uavionix).

Let’s keep calm. 2 from uAvionics and 2 or 3 from PilotAware. All have declared their interests.

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

What I really do not “get” is why anybody would want to go for any ADS-B OUT device which does not show up in the ADS-B IN system of a modern fast GA aircraft.

I know we have done this to death in so many previous threads but it is utterly disingenuous to make anyone believe they are somehow going to “see and be seen” for the purpose of avoiding a mid-air.

And what other purpose could be claimed?

Conspicuity to ATC? No, because even if ATC here used ADS-B they would use only certified stuff.

Conspicuity to the CAA for detecting infringements? That would be scandalous, especially with the £250 inducement, but technically very easy. It is trivial to pick up the signals, with one receiver covering a vast area, and then the infringements identified in that data (a trivial software exercise) would be checked out with ATC radar data recordings (because the ADS-B stuff would likely be inadmissible).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

One of the aim (not really stated explicitly by the CAA) is to avoid mid air collision within GA and even more at the lighter end of GA. Another aim is to allow for more BVLOS drones.

Peter wrote:

anybody would want to go for any ADS-B OUT device which does not show up in the ADS-B IN system of a modern fast GA aircraft.

In the examples given by the CAA, either there is no ADS-B out or the ADS-B out is with SIL=1 ( SkyEcho, certified GNSS)

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

What I really do not “get” is why anybody would want to go for any ADS-B OUT device which does not show up in the ADS-B IN system of a modern fast GA aircraft.

Because (a) there aren’t very many modern, fast GA aircraft, and (b) they’re not worried about hitting you because you’re way up high!

I believe this is aimed at low-level spamcan GA which is never going to spend the money on certified solutions and is primarily concerned with not hitting each other.

EGLM & EGTN

I can well believe the drone angle mentioned by Xtophe above. Nothing else really makes any sense, looking at CAA history over the last 20 years.

The numbers of piston GA planes flying in CAS are very low.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I missed out.
I’ve recently spent the best part of 2k upgrading a 330 to 330es to achieve SIL-1 Adsb out
(Hopefully if I don’t see them they will see me)

And installing (temporary permenant) Pilot aware system with additional antennas as I believe this currently sees the biggest amount of aircraft, of any solution, and will see almost anything emitting, if in range of a ground station.
We’re also looking to install 3 ground stations too.

United Kingdom

I just ordered a skyecho 2 from pooleys.

At £500 for a tiny bit of extra warning of some traffic is a bit rich, especially flying club aircraft. Make it £250 and it becomes easier to justify the portable toy that it is – and if it helps me avoid a collision at one of the many pinch points down south under the London TMA then it’s money well spent…

Learning & burning
Thruxton, United Kingdom
53 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top