Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

ADS-B - what practical relevance in Europe?

Power-Flarm gives you no azimuth information. It’s thus almost useless for traffic avoidance. I have flown with such boxes…

This is only partially true. It will give azimuth information on ADS-B and Flarm targets. Not on mode A, C, and S. As ADS-B out is possible with most transponders, it would be usefull if everyone would emit ADS-B.

Do note that Flarm uses a license free ISM band. This limits the range a lot.

An active TAS system is about 10 times as expensive as a power flarm. The actual bearing accuracy is installation dependent, if you have a dodgy installation you will get no where near the claimed bearing. Distance indication of an active systems is much better than mode A, C, S receivers, but less accurate than with ADS-B or Flarm.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

According UK NATS 70% of commercial aviation are equiped with ADS-B out.

I think ADS-B will be prefered methode in future. I think the ATC operators 1st choice is ADS-B infomation, 2nd choice secondary radar, 3th choice primary radar. As every step is getting less accurate then the ADS-B signal. I think these will co exist for a years to come.

This is basically the same as with Power-Flarm and/or Garrecht TRX models: ADS-B / Flarm is the highest accuracy warning, then mode S and C, and mode A as least accurate warning, as the typical ADS-B emitting aircraft will do ADS-B, mode S (including mode C and A) the ADS-B position will be displayed, no distance calculation is made on the signal strength as the more accurate ADS-B is available.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

The report also noted that the FAA has warned “general aviation” pilots—mostly private pilots—they shouldn’t rely on ADS-B information to separate their planes from others in the airspace.

The same would be true for other passive receivers, or active TAS systems. They are all aids in helping you with situational awereness. These systems are not TCAS systems.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

At the moment I am in the process of a major Avionic upgrade and I am told that I can’t have the ADS-B out enabled because EASA requires a STC each aircraft type for this and this would cost me £ 12-15 K in EASA paperwork.

Being that the ADS-B out would be connected to two IFR approved GPS units the EASA attitude to safety seems somewhat strange when the UK CAA is experimenting with this sort of equipment using position info from non- IFR approved GPS units.

When you add to this mix the fact that power flare core can be fitted to the aircraft, transmit position data, detect more types of traffic and fitted on a non- hazard basis it would seem to me that EASA is clueless on the subject …… Or my Avionic shop has got it wrong.

Or my Avionic shop has got it wrong.

Unfortunately they are not wrong. For some reason EASA seems to classify some equipment as a major, which in the past was a minor. This is true for ADS-B out on new approvals, and for example dual GNS. Dual KX-155, or Dual GTN is not a problem. One could only guess the CAA/NATS doesn’t agree, and therefore allows the “experiment”.

Another possibility is to use older approvals which where not limited.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

It sounds like little has changed since this farcical guidance which banned “enhanced mode s” emissions from aircraft that do not qualify as such (e.g. below 250kt TAS).

The owner of one of UK’s two biggest shops went on the record a few years ago saying he was ripping out that connection from hundreds of G-reg aircraft, after the above document came out.

In reality many people (including many on EuroGA) have simply got their avionics shop to connect it up anyway, and some well known ones have been openly reported as doing it completely openly.

Also any non-EASA-reg aircraft is likely to be radiating everything available anyway and will obviously continue to do that when flying into Europe, which makes a mockery of any regulation like this.

If I had ADS-B OUT hardware, I would simply connect it up. But then here in the UK, and in nearly all of Europe (Germany excepted perhaps) nobody is going to be checking this anyway.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There are many excisting approvals which allow ADS-B out. It is only some newer approvals which are just refushed. At the other side of the spectrum UK CAA & NATS have introduced this “experiment” to allow uncertified GPS boxes to be used as a GPS source for ADS-B.

Jan is right as well, quite a lot of ADS-B in Germany. The rules for avionics etc are not stricter then in The Netherlands or the UK. Germany avionics testers seem to be quite expensive though. On can choose to do these test elsewhere as well (I do avionics and pitot static on most EASA regs)

Germany has also quite a strong avionics market with Becker, Filser/Funkwerk/Funke however the called now and Garrecht.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

From (a little bit of) experience and from (a lot of) perusing the www, I feel Germany is one of the more G/A friendly countries

Germany has the annual “IFR certificate” which is the point at which you are over a barrel, every year.

I think that is the main issue.

Otherwise, you could do a mod and it will never be questioned afterwards.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Germany has the annual “IFR certificate” which is the point at which you are over a barrel, every year.

So does UK, Belgium, Netherlands (2 years) and most other countries. From a previouse discussion on this forum it seems most prüfers ask 75 Euro per instrument / radio. It seems that most pilots think they are stuck to there prüfer, which is not true, you can choose other acceptable testers as well. I can do the IFR (or VFR) certificate for German aircraft as well for example.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

The UK does not have an IFR certificate.

There is a “radio test” on a G-reg, but none of this affects your legality to fly IFR. Your IFR legality is purely based on whether you are carrying the equipment required for the class of airspace, etc.

Whereas a D-reg aircraft is simply not legal to fly IFR at all, without this “IFR certificate” – even if it contained all the gear in the space shuttle and all of it was 100% perfectly working. There have been many reports where the avionics shop didn’t like something and refused to issue this certificate. One recent example is somebody having just one 8.33 radio, while the shop said “EASA requires two”. Actually EASA doesn’t require two…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top