From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

After kramer hit Aeromexico in the LAX airspace in 1987, advanced collision avoidance gear was mandated and I had worry free flights every since.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

After kramer hit Aeromexico in the LAX airspace in 1987, advanced collision avoidance gear was mandated and I had worry free flights every since.

Advanced technology (transponder beacon) is a good thing.

However, your statement reveals that you haven't flown in Los Angeles basin airspace in the past three decades. Burning a taxi light to enhance conspicuity is about all non-TCAS equipped VFR flights can hope for, unless
the PIC is receiving radar traffic advisory service from ATC.


AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION (AIP)
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/AIP.pdf
Page: ENR 1.1-28
25.3 The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program,
Operation Lights On, to enhance the see-and-avoid
concept. Pilots are encouraged to turn on their landing
lights during takeoff; i.e., either after takeoff
clearance has been received or when beginning
takeoff roll. Pilots are further encouraged to turn on
their landing lights when operating below
10,000 feet, day or night, especially when operating
within 10 miles of any airport or in conditions of
reduced visibility and in areas where flocks of birds
may be expected; i.e., coastal areas, lake areas,
around refuse dumps, etc. Although turning on
aircraft lights does enhance the see-and-avoid
concept, pilots should not become complacent about
keeping a sharp lookout for other aircraft. Not all
aircraft are equipped with lights, and some pilots may
not have their lights turned on. Aircraft manufactur-
ersA recommendations for operation of landing lights
and electrical systems should be observed.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

After kramer hit Aeromexico in the LAX airspace in 1987, advanced collision avoidance gear was mandated and I had worry free flights every since.

Advanced technology (transponder beacon) is a good thing.

However, your statement reveals that you haven't flown in Los Angeles basin airspace in the past three decades. Burning a taxi light to enhance conspicuity is about all non-TCAS equipped VFR flights can hope for, unless the PIC is receiving radar traffic advisory service from ATC.

Does the phrase "ADS-B requirement" mean anything to you?


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:52:29 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> >> wrote:

After kramer hit Aeromexico in the LAX airspace in 1987, advanced collision avoidance gear was mandated and I had worry free flights every since.

Advanced technology (transponder beacon) is a good thing.

However, your statement reveals that you haven't flown in Los Angeles basin >> airspace in the past three decades. Burning a taxi light to enhance
conspicuity is about all non-TCAS equipped VFR flights can hope for, unless >> the PIC is receiving radar traffic advisory service from ATC.

Does the phrase "ADS-B requirement" mean anything to you?

ADS-B is a flawed corporate attempt to replace terrestrial radars with a
system that is more easily integrated into Boeing's ATC product under the dubious guise of saving money by decommissioning radar sites.

ADS-B is dependent on GPS, a weak satellite-based signal, thus prone to
failure from a number of natural and manmade sources. Unlike radar, ADS-B broadcasts can easily be spoofed by a pernicious flight to provide deceptive position and other data. (I will refrain from providing examples of how
that deception may be used for nefarious goals.)

All aircraft in all classes of airspace are not required to be ADS-B
equipped.

When/if satellite communications are/become unavailable, terrestrial radar
will be sorely missed. It's only a matter of time.

So, ADS-B is a corporate boondoggle, and has little to do with true flight-safety IMNSHO.

Why do you ask?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:52:29 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Geoff Rove <jgrove24@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:

After kramer hit Aeromexico in the LAX airspace in 1987, advanced collision avoidance gear was mandated and I had worry free flights every since.

Advanced technology (transponder beacon) is a good thing.

However, your statement reveals that you haven't flown in Los Angeles basin >>> airspace in the past three decades. Burning a taxi light to enhance
conspicuity is about all non-TCAS equipped VFR flights can hope for, unless >>> the PIC is receiving radar traffic advisory service from ATC.

Does the phrase "ADS-B requirement" mean anything to you?

ADS-B is a flawed corporate attempt to replace terrestrial radars with a system that is more easily integrated into Boeing's ATC product under the dubious guise of saving money by decommissioning radar sites.

Just how is ADS-B flawed?

Be precise.

You do understand that it is becoming a world wide standard?

There are currently 31 operational GPS satellites and they cover the
entire planet and about 70 additional GNSS satellites.

How many ground based radar sites would you need to cover just the USA
to include Alaska and Hawaii? How do you power and maintain the ones in
the Pacific between the West Coast and Hawaii?

How many ground based radar sites would you need to cover the entire
planet and how would you power and maintain them in areas near the North
and South poles as well as across the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian,
Southern and Arctic Oceans?

How could ground based radar provide information about nearby aircraft
to other aircraft without ADS-B?

ADS-B is dependent on GPS, a weak satellite-based signal, thus prone to failure from a number of natural and manmade sources. Unlike radar, ADS-B broadcasts can easily be spoofed by a pernicious flight to provide deceptive position and other data. (I will refrain from providing examples of how
that deception may be used for nefarious goals.)

How is GPS a weak signal?

Be precise.

Radar is trivialy spoofed and people have been doing so since shortly
after the invention of radar.

All aircraft in all classes of airspace are not required to be ADS-B equipped.

True, however you specifically mentioned the Los Angeles basin.

What can you fly and where could you fly an airplane in the Los Angeles
basin without ADS-B?

When/if satellite communications are/become unavailable, terrestrial radar will be sorely missed. It's only a matter of time.

If satellite communications become unavailable, you will have FAR bigger
things to worry about than the failure of ADS-B.

Maintaining terrestrial radar is a PITA and I do not miss it at all.

So, ADS-B is a corporate boondoggle, and has little to do with true flight-safety IMNSHO.

Likely because you don't seem to understand it nor ever used it on a
long cross country through areas of very dense traffic.

Why do you ask?

You do NOT really want me to answer that.

If it were up to me, ADS-B would be required for ANYTHING that flies
above 500 feet AGL.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:09:17 PM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Geoff Rove <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

After kramer hit Aeromexico in the LAX airspace in 1987, advanced collision avoidance gear was mandated and I had worry free flights every since.

Advanced technology (transponder beacon) is a good thing.

However, your statement reveals that you haven't flown in Los Angeles basin airspace in the past three decades. Burning a taxi light to enhance conspicuity is about all non-TCAS equipped VFR flights can hope for, unless the PIC is receiving radar traffic advisory service from ATC.

AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION (AIP) https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/AIP.pdf
Page: ENR 1.1-28
25.3 The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program,
Operation Lights On, to enhance the see-and-avoid
concept. Pilots are encouraged to turn on their landing
lights during takeoff; i.e., either after takeoff
clearance has been received or when beginning
takeoff roll. Pilots are further encouraged to turn on
their landing lights when operating below
10,000 feet, day or night, especially when operating
within 10 miles of any airport or in conditions of
reduced visibility and in areas where flocks of birds
may be expected; i.e., coastal areas, lake areas,
around refuse dumps, etc. Although turning on
aircraft lights does enhance the see-and-avoid
concept, pilots should not become complacent about
keeping a sharp lookout for other aircraft. Not all
aircraft are equipped with lights, and some pilots may
not have their lights turned on. Aircraft manufactur-
ersrCO recommendations for operation of landing lights
and electrical systems should be observed.

I flew at least 70 commercial flights over the last 30 years and am fortunate that no wondering Orvilles hit my airliner.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

Since you didn't bother to directly address anything I said, it is all
snipped.

Have a look here: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.aviation.piloting/c/Iew66r0knhQ/m/G9eueTVECQAJ
ADS-B is dependent on weak satellite radio signals for positional data
of the aircraft in which it is installed. As you mentioned, such a
system is vulnerable to the vagaries of electromagnetic propagation,
including solar coronal mass ejections, as well as spoofing by the ADS-B
cockpit equipment and higher powered radio transmitters potentially
overwhelming the satellite signal and taking control ...

It is all a bunch of arm waving, ignorant nonsense.

Those "weak satellite radio signals" are at about -135 dBm which, if you
knew anything at all about RF propagation in general and line of sight communications in particular, which you obviously don't, you would know
this is more than enough signal strength for reliable communications.

GPS frequencies are at about 200 times higher ithen that where the "vagaries
of electromagnetic propagation" have an effect.

If there is a solar coronal mass ejection that hits the Earth, you will
have FAR bigger things to worry about than GPS.

The rest is just Chicken Little bull shit.

<snip remaining unread>

Since ALL RF communications is subject to spoofing and jamming,
including ground radar, what would you suggest for an alternative?

Maybe a system of towers across the planet using signal mirrors?

OK, so you are mad because the AN system was turned off and all you can
do now is bitch about ADS-B and remain totally ignorant of the advantages
of the system over ground based radar.

Get over it.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:19:54 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
wrote:

Those "weak satellite radio signals" are at about -135 dBm which, if you
knew anything at all about RF propagation in general and line of sight >communications in particular, which you obviously don't, you would know
this is more than enough signal strength for reliable communications.

Jim,

While you may hold a degree in engineering, it's obviously not in electrical engineering.

According to the dBm to mW conversion Calculators here: <https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/dBm_to_mW.html>, and <https://inductivetwig.com/pages/dbm-to-mw-converter> -135 dBm equals 3.1622776602e-14 Miliwats or 3.1622776601683796e-14 Miliwats respectively.
FCC Part 15 unlicensed radio transmitters are limited to 15 mW. That is low enough for the US government to consider radio signals of that power level
to pose little probability of interfering with other services. If your GPS power figure of -135 dBm is correct, it is five time less than what the
federal government considers a relevant radio signal. I'm sure you are
aware that one Miliwatt is 0.001 Watts. You've got to agree that 3/1000
Watts is a pitifully weak signal.

If the information published on this page: <http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpspower.htm> is correct, the GPS signals is even weaker than -135 dBm when it reaches the earth:

"How much POWER do the GPS Satellites output on the 1575mhz L1
frequency?

One of our anonymous newgroup readers gave this correct answer..

In the frequency allocation filing the L1 C/A power is listed as 25.6
Watts. The Antenna gain is listed at 13 dBi. Thus, based on the
frequency allocation filing, the power would be about 500 Watts (27
dBW).

Now, the free space path loss from 21000 km is about 182 dB. Take the
500 Watts (27 dBW) and subtract the free space path loss (27 - 182) and
you get -155 dBW. The end of life spec is -160 dBW, which leaves a 5 dB
margin."

GPS frequencies are at about 200 times higher ithen that where the "vagaries >of electromagnetic propagation" have an effect.

Are you able to cite a reasonable source that corroborates your dubious assertion?

If there is a solar coronal mass ejection that hits the Earth, you will
have FAR bigger things to worry about than GPS.

Actually, solar coronal mass ejections occur quite frequently. Fortunately, they are seldom aimed at Earth.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/SCIENCE/cme.html

"The frequency of CMEs varies with the 11 year solar cycle. At solar
minimum we observe about one a week. Near solar maximum we observe an
average of two to three CMEs per day."

You can educate yourself about CMEs here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html#q4
Solar Storm and Space Weather - Frequently Asked Questions

And here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html#q13
"Changes in the ionosphere during geomagnetic storms interfere with
high-frequency radio communications and Global Positioning System (GPS)
navigation."

And here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/05/349121/how-can-the-solar-cycle-threaten-technology-on-earth/
"The truth is weAve skated through the solar maxima of the last century
with few problems, apart from having to ground flights occasionally
(like in Sweden in November 2015, when a solar flare caused radar
malfunctions) or dealing with damaged GPS or electrical equipment."

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.piloting

Larry Dighera <LDighera@att.net> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:19:54 -0700, Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

Those "weak satellite radio signals" are at about -135 dBm which, if you >>knew anything at all about RF propagation in general and line of sight >>communications in particular, which you obviously don't, you would know >>this is more than enough signal strength for reliable communications.

Jim,

While you may hold a degree in engineering, it's obviously not in electrical engineering.

Actually I have a BSEE, been an amateur radio operator for about a half century, have worked on radars and IFF (that's transponder to you) as
well as electronic warfare, and spent some time while getting the BSEE
working as an avionics technician.

What are your RF credentials?

<snip totally irrelevant crap about FCC Part 15>

If the information published on this page: <http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpspower.htm> is correct, the GPS signals is even weaker than -135 dBm when it reaches the earth:

Nope, it just shows you know nothing about RF.

you get -155 dBW. The end of life spec is -160 dBW, which leaves a 5 dB

dBm and dBW are two different units like pounds and kilograms, but that
is irrelevant as I know you know nothing about the subject of receiver sensitivity.

GPS frequencies are at about 200 times higher ithen that where the "vagaries >>of electromagnetic propagation" have an effect.

Also you obviously know nothing about antenna gain or propagation of
anykind.

Are you able to cite a reasonable source that corroborates your dubious assertion?

Thousands of them, how many do you want?

FYI, "vagaries of electromagnetic propagation" are pretty much over at
about 30 Mhz and will very occasionally extend up to 100 Mhz. GPS runs
at about 1500 Mhz.

Also, the term "electromagnetic propagation" generally refers to
propagation between two points on the Earth, not between a point on the
to a point in space.

If one were to listen to your sage advice, all the amateur radio
operators on the planet would give up satellite communications with hand
held radios and whip antennas because what they have been doing for many decades is obviously impossible.

If there is a solar coronal mass ejection that hits the Earth, you will >>have FAR bigger things to worry about than GPS.

Actually, solar coronal mass ejections occur quite frequently. Fortunately, they are seldom aimed at Earth.

Yeah, so what?

It only counts if one hits, just like an asteroid or anything else
comming from space.

Been hit by an ateroid lately?

Perhaps in your zeal to bad mouth ADS-B you missed the words "hits the
Earth".

<snip irrelevant crap>


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2