Jump to content

Talk:Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a debate

[edit]

"The ongoing debate amongst hobbyists is to display real-time activity on personal screens and then delay five minutes on networked displays." This sentence is inaccurate. To provide 5 minutes delay on networked display is a practice. If that practice is debated, it would be useful to know what the other sides of that debate are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armence (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Implementations

[edit]

I propose that the material recently added on "Alternate Implementations" be moved to its own article. The added material is not an alternate implementation, it is an alternate technology entirely. PhilosopherBruce 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the new sections should be moved to their own article, and would do this if I felt comfortable creating the new article. Could somebody with more experience do this? --Johnb210 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well be me, I guess. So I just created the article "Automatic Independent Surveillance-Privacy". Not that I have any particular experience, but one has to learn sometime, right? --PhilosopherBruce 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of DO-205

[edit]

Hi everyone,

DO-205 is a data communication standard for avionics information. I nominated it for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DO-205. Thank you.

--Kevinkor2 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How

[edit]

How does the FAA actually plan to safely control traffic using this system? I'm a controller and I have flown an airplane with ADS-B, while it is a useful tool for pilots, there is no way it should be used a means of separating air traffic. If they want this system to work, every aircraft would have to have this costly technology installed. Even then, air traffic controllers would still be needed to work the traffic, this system is only replacing radar signals with satellite. The person responsible for this scheme is FAA administrator Marion Blakey, who recently announced she was going to work for Raytheon after her term in office ends. Andercee 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be a replacement for the current ATC system. It is only to be used as a supplement, and mostly in areas that need. Some examples include: in Alaska, the mid-west, and other moutainous areas where radar is limited. Also, in congested areas not assosciated with airports, such as high-volume training areas (like all of Florida). This technology is mainly intended for general aviation, which does not really have any other traffic-awareness other then radar/ATC. So again, this is meant to supplement that, not replace it. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is untrue. The FAA has mentioned several times that they see a day when ADS-B will replace radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.71 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you read any news articles about this they all speak of antiquated technology that is constraining our current air traffic system They all say that ADS-B technology will fix everything. Just search google news for NextGen. NextGen is being billed as a fix all when, like we both said, should only be used as a supplement.Andercee 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextgen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andercee (talk • contribs) 21:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I want to correct myself before someone else does it. Blakey is going to work for AIA (Aerospace Industries Association).http://www.aia-aerospace.org/aianews/pr_detail.cfm?Content_ID=525 Andercee 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would every aircraft need it? You can currently take off and fly without a radio or transmponder. Those that do swivel their head and look outside. More and more of the country is making it harder to fly near large airports without a transponder. They could very easily mandate ADS-B to all aircraft wanting to use this airspace. I believe the FAA is developing a system where aircraft are under human control during take-off and landing at large airports, but transition to "Free-Flight" outside of these areas. Even while under human control (text messages no doubt) the pilots can use ADS-B to sequence their arrivals. You see this a lot at the really large airports, where pilots use ADS-B and TCAS to position themselves on approach or departure. It makes flying easier. If you've ever had to S-Turn a 747 on landing behind a prop-job, you'll know how valuable the extra information is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.142.161 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The long-term perspective is indeed an ADS-B mandate for aircraft in controlled airspace. ADS-B is just a cheaper and better replacement for secondary radar. Just like TCAS, Mark-X and Mode-S are now mandated in certain airspaces, so will ADS-B be. And ADS-B is a fairly cheap technology - Australia seems to be able to implement it nationwide for about AUS$ 5000 per airframe. Compared to the cost of even a single secondary radar, this is very cheap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that ADS-B can, and should be installed on everything moving in air eventually, and then perhaps on things that don't move (towers, etc). You are correct, ADS-B is never going to be that reliable until every aircraft is equipped. The FAA has done wonders to make sure that ADS-B remains overpriced, first by setting up the system on two different frequencies, one for airliners, another for everyone else. Second by requiring that all ADS-B out implementations be permanently installed and TSOed. The first is so unbelievably stupid I hope it is self evident (if not, go have a look at the Cerritos, California accident). Fortunately the avionics manufacturers are capable of overcoming the roadblocks that the FAA put in the way, and are producing dual frequency capable units at lower and lower prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.71 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADS-B and General Aviation

[edit]

I am conflicted about whether or not to include the following link: ads-bforga.blogspot.com. I read the guidelines about external links and figured I'd solicit some feedback from other users -- I am involved with that research but I am not the only contributor. It's a blog keeping track of work related to General Aviation; GA is currently one of the more worry-some stackeholders from the FAA's perspective due the possibility of user push back. Because of that I fee like it would be important to include at least a link to that topic. Nodapic (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to adding a GA section to the current artical to keep the average pilot updated on the law that will come into affect January 1, 2020? There is currently an ADS-B page on Wiki dedicated to General Aviation pilots, however it would be much better suited to simply become a section of this ADS-B artical. AuburnADS-B (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VDL mode 4

[edit]

It was claimed in the article that "VDL Mode 4 systems required by airlines in Europe as a mean for more efficient ATC service", giving [1] as a source. The source does not mention VDL Mode 4 in any way. It relates to ADS-B in general. In fact, it relates to the Eurocontrol CASCADE program, which prefers 1090ES. I removed the claim until someone can provide a source. --Muhandes (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VDL Mode 4 is in use in Sweden (and may be required there for certain classes of aircraft), but there is no Europe-wide mandate for VDL-4. The SPI/IR will require aircraft to provide ADS-B via 1090 Mode-S signals, starting 2015. But even that is in draft status, as far as I know. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equipage

[edit]

I have replaced occurrences of this word with "equipment." In standard English, equipage is mainly a horse-and-buggy term, whereas in this article it is being used (improperly) as a synonym for "equipment." Remember, the FAA and other aviation authorities dictate air regulations, but they do not dictate English usage, and this rather obvious and distorted borrowing from modern French will lead educated readers only to confusion, since they will of course be thinking of the correct definition of the word. Leave the jargon (especially the jargon that conflicts with standard usage) to the bureaucrats. There were only three or four occurrences in the word, probably in texts lifted from other documents. Agateller (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no complaint with the change to "equipment", but equipage is a common term of art in the U.S. aviation business. Tungsten58 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's far better to use a plain English word where the meaning is the same, rather than a term of art known to aviation insiders on one continent.--Light.olive (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyradar ADS-B rcvr

[edit]

I think you may want to add something about this product. Works well with iPad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.74.161 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Adoption

[edit]

This article fails to mention the international aspects of ADS-B. Whilst the USA is adopting NextGen, Europe is also pushing ADS-B forward through the SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) programme. Technically they're very similar, but ADS-B is not, as the article is written, an FAA or USA only technology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.92.144 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the European Commision has made "ADS-B out" mandatory in Europe. The full regulation can be found here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:305:0035:0052:EN:PDF Implementation date is 07.122017 latest.80.156.43.136 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page very difficult to follow

[edit]

The page is currently extremely difficult to follow and there is some very basic information missing. Some parts seem unnecessarily technical, and other parts appear to be extracts from an instruction manual (eg "You will also need to add a certified GPS" - why exactly would the reader of an encyclopaedia article need to do that?)

I am a technical reader (PhD in solid state physics and I work with about 10,000 pages of legislation for a living) but I could not make head nor tail of this article.

My questions are:

What is it? I can see that it's a technology for monitoring aircraft location and velocity, but how? Is there a central infrastructure? Can I buy an ADS-B receiver and stand outside my house and download the whereabouts of all aircraft within reception range? Presumably someone does that and collects the data centrally, but who, and how centrally? Do ADS-B compatible systems network together to convey this information globally, by peer-to-peer networking? I can see that aircraft are responsible for determining their own locations and then broadcasting that information, but it's unclear where it goes from there.

If ADS-B is a service, per the second paragraph, who provides the service? Are there competing providers and are they interoperable? Or is it merely a technology, per the first paragraph?

What is the ADS-B system mentioned in the second paragraph? Is there some commercial, national or supranational body administering it? The article mentions that the FAA will "pay for administering and broadcasting all the services related to the technology". Is this correct? Why would the FAA pay for a system which is used globally?

As you can see, despite a very long (too long?) and detailed article, an interested reader is left with essentially no idea of what ADS-B actually is. I'm sorry if this sounds very critical, and it's clear a lot of people who know a lot must have devoted a lot of time to this article, but for someone who doesn't already know a lot about it, it seems to assume way too much knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcman (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal:TIS-B

[edit]

Traffic Information Service – Broadcast (TIS-B) is a stub and unlikley to expand with substantial overlap with this article. - Technophant (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 months an no response? I'll remove the request now. ~Technophant (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms subsection

[edit]

With this edit I removed the entire acronyms subsection. References to these should be provided by WP:wikilinks. - Technophant (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen or dash

[edit]

After wondering what the hyphenated word "surveillance-broadcast" meant, it seems to me that "Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B)" should be "Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS–B)" with an en dash rather than a hyphen. Official literature has a variety of forms including hyphen, en dash and em dash, sometimes spaced, sometimes unspaced. So I think we can decide what is grammatically correct and use that. Nurg (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military Aircraft

[edit]

How does this work with military flights. I am speaking of non combat type or routine US flights. I understand the need for operational security, but if military flights are hidden then some degree of safety is compromised. Markbeckstrom (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like routine military flights use ADS-B, as the tracking sites on the Web will show you. I would imagine that in a shooting war situation, civil aircraft wouldn't be operating in the same area anyway, or collision with a military flight would be the least of their safety concerns. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You correctly surmised is has to do with operational security. Denying any and all potential adversaries information they may use to their advantage is a critical element of operational security. As for safety, military flights remain in contact with ATC at all times while in the U.S. and international airspace while engaged in peacetime and training operations. The only exceptions involve training in military use airspace, such as restricted areas and MOAs. Even then, they usually monitor Guard (212.5/243.0).Clepsydrae (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History Section Needed

[edit]

The few references to ADS-B development scattered throughout the article are scant. A History and Development section would greatly enhance knowledge and understanding as to why ADS-B became necessary in the first place. Clepsydrae (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD|Go for it!. Write it and cite it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragement! Alas, when I've attempted similar projects in the past, I'm often reverted. While I love writing, including technical writing, I prefer not to waste my time on revert wars. I was hoping to encourage someone with more fight in the game to include it, themselves. Clepsydrae (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. You realize that you've wasted your time pointing out "Something should be done about this" ? If you're not going to do it, no-one will. True, we don't need 10,000 words giving the details of every meeting held over 20 years. But a *concise* overview of the high points of the reasons for development, possible ancestors and alternatives, all with citations, would be nice to read and would be of great value to the encyclopedia's users. The article took 20 years to get this far. Maybe in the next 20 years, someone will feel motivated to add history, providing of course the article doesn't disappear in the mean time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Outdated!

[edit]

Your list of countries with information about the mandated technology is old and for now wrong. For example CHINA:

you describe a early US project to try to emerge the huge asian region with UAT. Today, most infrastructure of this test - project is no more in service. In the 2018 document of the ICAO Asia the secretary wrote :

"APANPIRG has decided to use 1090MHz Extended Squitter data link for ADS-B data exchange in the Asia and Pacific Regions. In the longer term an additional link type may be required."

One should update this content. Outside USA, the UAT is rather non existant and 1090 ES is worldwide recognized standard. 217.79.194.135 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA vs. "countries"

[edit]

Currently there is one section "In the United States" followed by another section "Implementations by country". Which also contains some info on the United States. This seems inconsistent and probably confusing. One solution might be to move the entire US section to a place under "Implementations by country". But as the section on the US is quite large and elaborate compared to the information on other countries I think a better option would be to simply rename "Implementations by country" to "Implementations in other countries", and move its US-subsection to the 'main' US section. I think I will rearrange it like that unless there are objections (or better solutions) within a week or so. MichielN (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in the lede

[edit]

Would it be more useful to have e.g. the "FAA NextGen ADS-B implementation.jpg" image in the lede rather than an ad for a specific manufacturer's device? Or even no picture at all, as suggesting that this particular device is what ADS-B is mainly about just misleads the reader. 85.76.84.181 (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Agreed we don't need to promote products here, and a photo of a little grey box of electronics could illustrate scores of articles; at least the FAA picture shows airplanes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automatic_Dependent_Surveillance–Broadcast&oldid=1199209844"