An employee of Uavionix posted this on a UK site:
Some TAS systems in CAT/MIL airframes will reject ADS-B emissions with SIL/SDA = 0.
Is this correct? AIUI, all TAS systems (i.e. certified TAS) will reject SIL=0, and CAT aircraft don’t have any ADS-B IN anyway (TCAS is based on Mode C/S) MIL aircraft, who knows?
I believe ATSAW is part of CAT TCAS capability which is ADS-B In and is quite established with L3 and Honeywell type avionics kit
AIUI, the RA (TCAS 2 resolution advisory) functionality is implemented using 1090ES messages i.e. “ADS-B” between two Mode S transponders, on the two airliners in question.
However, does this display 1090ES ADS-B OUT emitting GA traffic? I have been told by airline pilots that it does not.
TAS systems in CAT/MIL airframes work with your ordinary transponder. Also those are flying in controlled airspace where ATC makes sure you don’t crash into them
ADS-B out is for the other small aircraft to see you on the iPad, which is an amazing solution that works great and make a lot of sense.
This is not about protecting aircraft from aircraft it is all about protecting the CAA from legal action if an aircraft hits a drone.
The CAA can blame the pilots in an aircraft to aircraft collision but it is much harder to justify why they had let a drone loose that can’t see and avoid in class G airspace that requires the pilot to see and avoid other traffic.
Encouraging ADS-B use by subsidies would show they took mitigating action if court action did follow an aircraft/drone collision.
TAS systems in CAT/MIL airframes work with your ordinary transponder.
Of course, for basic TCAS traffic warning the GA target needs to be just Mode C. That bit appears to be well known. Also apparently undisputed is that having Mode S is no additional help versus airliner TCAS.
The Q is whether the statement I posted above correct? Can any airliner or military jet see an aircraft emitting ADS-B? I know the RAF Grobs did install some stuff, after the fleet was upgraded to a TAS605+SN3500 after the famous mid-air.
This is not about protecting aircraft from aircraft it is all about protecting the CAA from legal action if an aircraft hits a drone.
Yes I think this must be the explanation for this subsidy. It is totally out of character for the CAA to do this otherwise. Promoting the “installation” of uncertified gadgets?? Hardly… notwithstanding a number of ex CAA/NATS people being employed by the manufacturers
It must be linked to this :
Well found… I can now see that press release on four sites, all the way to Linkedin
That explains why the CAA is offering the £250 subsidy for such a wide range of gadgets: a drone can be easily equipped to receive the whole lot.
One has to laugh however at this:
in which all airspace users are detected and presented to the UAS operator in order to demonstrate DAA capability equivalent to ‘See and Avoid’ capability of manned aircraft under VFR. [my bold]
The benefit is solely intended to be to the UAS operator.
“equivalent to ‘See and Avoid’ capability” is a joke, as most pilots are well aware…
This demonstration is just for formal purposes.
All this leads to … mandate !!
Peter wrote:
CAT aircraft don’t have any ADS-B IN anyway
Some do. You need a modern enough a/c or a popular enough a/c so that the avionics supplier have developed a mod. And you need a company where the final word is not with the accountants.