Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sabreliner mid air collision

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Victims aboard the Sabreliner, has been identified:
    Military contractor BAE Systems, which leased the Sabreliner jet, released a statement Monday identifying three victims as employees Carlos Palos, John Kovach and Jeff Percy. BAE Systems spokeswoman Amanda Desourdis said all three lived in the Mojave area, in Kern County. Desourdis said the name of the fourth victim aboard the mid-sized business jet was a military contractor whose name was not yet being released
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      But, we're kind of cowboys...and with Av-Gas being so expensive, stuff like GPS, autopilots, and glass-panel displays, and dual Nav-Coms and glide slope receivers, and working radios and working turn coordinators, and healthy vacuum pumps and healthy alternators, and traffic avoidance systems and clear, unscratched, unleaking windows and wheel pants...

      ...if it ain't required, we sometimes go cheap and the sky is almost always big enough.
      And really, all you'll ever need is a stick and some rudder pedals and some basic airmanship.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        And really, all you'll ever need is a stick and some rudder pedals and some basic airmanship.
        I don't really agree with "all you'll ever need", and in fact, you seem to have missed my point that we probably rely on "a big sky" (i.e. luck) more than we'd like to think.

        ...and it's not about "all you need", as much as being unable to understand the violations of really important, nearly universal, rules of good operating procedure...especially by crews that have indeed trained on a lot of specific, important stuff.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          ...if it ain't required, we sometimes go cheap and the sky is almost always big enough.
          Then even complying with the required ADSB-OUT requirement by 2020 would save us. That would make us visible to the system, but would not give us visibility unless we opt for the non-mandatory ADSB-IN. Two traffics with only out in non-controlled airspace still need to rely on see and avoid and big sky luck.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Then even complying with the required ADSB-OUT requirement by 2020 would save us. That would make us visible to the system, but would not give us visibility unless we opt for the non-mandatory ADSB-IN. Two traffics with only out in non-controlled airspace still need to rely on see and avoid and big sky luck.
            And, now that technology has made these things both feasible and affordable, what would be the problem with requiring them both in, say, one year?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              And, now that technology has made these things both feasible and affordable, what would be the problem with requiring them both in, say, one year?
              Portable affordable ADS-B equipment is not approved. You can buy it and use it but you don't comply with the requirement.

              Approved panel mounted equipment + installation is expensive, especially if you add options like IN and TIS.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                And, now that technology has made these things both feasible and affordable, what would be the problem with requiring them both in, say, one year?
                I'm not sure you have a good idea of the economics of light planes, or that there's a lot of things you can do without even having a radio...

                Yeah, sure, we could shut it all down, somehow, I think you'd like that since the typical FBO flight school often teaches some broadly applicable fundamental things since the instructor might be operating many different aircraft.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  I'm not sure you have a good idea of the economics of light planes, or that there's a lot of things you can do without even having a radio...
                  I really don't care much about Cessna's and Tomahawks bumping into one another up there as long as they don't fall on me or anyone I care about. But I would start by requiring within 18 months: a) ADSB out on all aircraft; and b) ADSB in/out on all turbine aircraft as well as aircraft requiring a flight crew of two or more and/or conducting revenue passenger flights.

                  Based on what limited knowledge I have of product development cycles in the ASIC/PLD industry, I think competing products could be prototyped in six months and certified and brought to market within one year using current technology. It wouldn't surprise me at all. The ADSB out units could be fairly inexpensive and the in/out units well within the grasp of turbine and revenue operators. R&D costs could be offset by government grants to keep the price down. Add another six months for compliance. That is still well before 2020. (And, of course, product development should have started years ago).

                  I understand that the FAA doesn't want to stress out the industry but the wheels don't have to grind so slowly either. It is the year 2015 and there are still untrackable aircraft floating around up there. That's pretty insane.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You mention development but omit the next step in the process: certification. And that's why products like this cost so much and take so long to bring to market. Well, designing them to meet certification requirements and then getting them, along with all the associated processes, certified.

                    If there were no certification requirements on what you can put in an airplane, there would be $100 ADS-B out boxes all over ebay by now. But there aren't, and won't be unless something dramatically changes.
                    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                    Eric Law

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      I really don't care much about Cessna's and Tomahawks bumping into one another up there as long as they don't fall on me or anyone I care about. But I would start by requiring within 18 months: a) ADSB out on all aircraft; and b) ADSB in/out on all turbine aircraft as well as aircraft requiring a flight crew of two or more and/or conducting revenue passenger flights.

                      Based on what limited knowledge I have of product development cycles in the ASIC/PLD industry, I think competing products could be prototyped in six months and certified and brought to market within one year using current technology. It wouldn't surprise me at all. The ADSB out units could be fairly inexpensive and the in/out units well within the grasp of turbine and revenue operators. R&D costs could be offset by government grants to keep the price down. Add another six months for compliance. That is still well before 2020. (And, of course, product development should have started years ago).

                      I understand that the FAA doesn't want to stress out the industry but the wheels don't have to grind so slowly either. It is the year 2015 and there are still untrackable aircraft floating around up there. That's pretty insane.
                      Evan, you don't know what you are talking about. I am not an expert either and I expect that there will be several inaccuracies in my explanation below, but I think that the core idea is correct.

                      ADS-B is designed basically to replace the current secondary radar system.

                      Today all planes equipped with a mode-C transponder are visible in azimuth and altitude to ATC's secondary radars and to airplanes equipped with TCAS or any other traffic warning system (of which I mentioned the cheap portable ones). And all planes flying in controlled airspace are required to have a mode C transponder. I don't know what airplanes are required to have a TCAS, but all commercial jets are included.

                      I am quite confident that these two planes had a mode C transponder. Had the Sabreliner had TCAS (or any of them one of the cheap portable traffic warning systems) the accident could have likely been avoided.

                      The ADS-B requires ground infraestructure, that is, radio stations that will receive the data from the ADSB-out units and broadcast it so the ADSB-in units can receive the traffic information. I know that airplane-to-airplane communication of the ADSB information is technically possible but I am not sure what is the status of that. I know that it is complicated to have hundreds of airplanes interrogating each other and receiving answers from each other in a all-on-all network shape, so the idea (I understand) is that the only ground stations will interrogate the OUT units and then the IN units will passively receive the ASDB data sent by the OUT unit, be it directly from the responding plane (short distance) or relayed by the ground station (long distance).

                      Today there are thousands of airplanes already sending ADS-B out data, basically all airplanes with a mode-S transponder, which is basically all the airplanes with TCAS, and then some, which is basically all commercial airplanes and then some. The interrogation today is done by secondary radar stations and other plane's TCAS. You can have a very cheap equipment (basically an antenna and proper transducer) and software to receive this ADS-B out data in your PC. Actually, that's how flightaware and similar sites work: they have a network of voluntary members that receive the radar-like (but NOT radar) ADS-B data and upload it to the site's servers. Of course they depend on someone else making the interrogation, they just passively listen to the answers.

                      ADSB, unlike TCAS and similar traffic warning systems, also requires GPS, which will again increase the cost if your plane is not already equipped with one.

                      ADS-B was designed not as a collision avoidance tool, but as the core of the next-gen ATC. It is much cheaper to install and operate than radar and it allows to broadcast the traffic info the the planes so they can see the same than ATC does. This will allow to increase the coverage to zones where today the cost doesn't justify a secondary radar, and will enable ATC traffic procedures with more point-to-point navigation (instead of airways), continuous climb and descents (instead of steps), and packing more airplanes per unit of airspace, hence reducing fuel consumption and emissions and increasing the capacity of the system (except that more runways will be needed).

                      Rather than accelerating it for before the 2020 target, my forecast is that the 2020 target will not be met.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by elaw View Post
                        If there were no certification requirements on what you can put in an airplane, there would be $100 ADS-B out boxes all over ebay by now. But there aren't, and won't be unless something dramatically changes.
                        There would not. You still need a receiver, transmitter, GPS, baroalitmeter in electronic form, processors, memory, circuity to combine all that, and software. And then, installation.

                        There are no portable, non-TSOed ADSB-out units for USD 100, or 200, or 500.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          ...1) Today all planes equipped with a mode-C transponder...

                          ...2) ADSB, unlike TCAS and similar traffic warning systems, also requires GPS, which will again increase the cost if your plane is not already equipped with one...

                          ...3) Rather than accelerating it for before the 2020 target, my forecast is that the 2020 target will not be met...


                          Snip 1 and 2: Restating- these are not necessarily required to be installed in light aircraft (along with a radio) and if I read you right, the light plane will still not be visible to the other "aircraft which require a crew of two or carry passengers for hire". (except for primary radar and ATC traffic reports and Mark IV eyeball systems).

                          Snip 3: Evan is not necessarily wrong in "demanding" (see footnote) a sped-up time table. Sadly these mid-airs will continue to happen occasionally until the system is online. (and maybe even a few after it's online.) Conversely, I would not argue Gabriel's point as our government rarely meets timelines or budgets. It is, nevertheless sad that we'll be having mid airs in the meantime, so sooner would be better.

                          Footnote: "Demanding", "Requesting", "Wishing for"- Choose whichever you want, although Evan's timetable probably was a bit too aggressive.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            There would not. You still need a receiver, transmitter, GPS, baroalitmeter in electronic form, processors, memory, circuity to combine all that, and software. And then, installation.

                            There are no portable, non-TSOed ADSB-out units for USD 100, or 200, or 500.
                            I was reading a certain magazine last night, and there were implications that the data could link to a certain popular portable computer screen thing. (acknowledging your list of background stuff, but making a crap-eating grin over the interface )
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              I was reading a certain magazine last night, and there were implications that the data could link to a certain popular portable computer screen thing. (acknowledging your list of background stuff, but making a crap-eating grin over the interface )
                              And the iPad is available for USD 100????

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                Snip 1 and 2: Restating- these are not necessarily required to be installed in light aircraft (along with a radio) and if I read you right, the light plane will still not be visible to the other "aircraft which require a crew of two or carry passengers for hire". (except for primary radar and ATC traffic reports and Mark IV eyeball systems).
                                Correct. But my understanding is that airplanes not required today to have a transponder will not be required to have ADSB-out either. Basically, that would be airplanes used exclusivelly around the pattern of Sweet Monkey River field.

                                Snip 3: Evan is not necessarily wrong in "demanding" (see footnote) a sped-up time table. Sadly these mid-airs will continue to happen occasionally until the system is online. (and maybe even a few after it's online.) Conversely, I would not argue Gabriel's point as our government rarely meets timelines or budgets. It is, nevertheless sad that we'll be having mid airs in the meantime, so sooner would be better.
                                ADSB requires an array of ground stations across the country. That will not happen in 18 months even if the government was efficient.

                                My point is that the main goal of ADSB is not to prevent midairs but to make the airspace and ATC more efficient.

                                Want to avoid more midairs? Mandate more transponders and TCAS (or at least some related traffic warning system) in airplnaes now not required to have those. Even that cannot be done in 18 months (you need to preapre the draft regulation, release it for comments, review the comments, prepare the final regulation, release it, and give time for the universe of affected users to adjust). But it can be done miuch faster than implementing ADS-B.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X