Proposed Senate Bill would mandate ADSB In as well.
Link to the bill on the Senate Website: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/4D769D21-8592-4F07-A401-E80F036CB14E
Comes out of the hearings about what happened at DCA earlier this year. I've read through it but the transportation attorney in the household won't have a chance before this weekend, but the Bill's preface reads:
"A Bill To require all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, to improve aviation safety, and for other purposes."
I mean it would 90 - 180 days before the FAA would be required to say what exactly that means. Would having my Stratus 3 wired in with the ESG be enough? Dunno until specifics. But that "and for other purposes" clause...think ADSB billing practices are bad now that would seem to break that door wide open.
Now still has to venture through committee to the Senate floor, to the House, so as proposed is not likely to be how it remains, but this is something everyone needs to keep an eye on.
Comments
Definitely a convenient idea from a lay perspective, it might rank up there with the occasional failed effort of seat belts on motorcycles. While on that tangent, am looking forward to seeing what happens when we require motorcyclists to wear air bags.
I love having ADSB-IN. At the same time it is also a weak link as I encounter scenarios where I see a plane that ADSB's display does not paint. And, I pack two different ADSB-IN systems where it is not all that uncommon for one system display to show a plane, and the other does not. Perhaps this is from tolerance filtering, or perhaps it is simply that one of the systems does not see the other plane.
Oh, and fun fact: there are legal scenarios where planes may fly without an active transponder (ie: turned off). No transponder = no ADSB target. So, lets see how Congress cracks that nut.
For the core concern, the DCA incident traces to a known airspace constraint issue. Related, there is some evidence showing that the jet's pilots had started to take collision avoidance actions in the seconds before impact. This suggests that ADSB-IN would not have prevented the DCA incident as the jet's systems were arguably way more advanced than a simple ADSB-IN system for a GA plane.
While ADSB-IN is a good idea in general, the only cure to bad airspace routing is fixing the bad airspace routing.
Great points. Agree 100%. ADSB IN is fantastic, but as jacobsja points out, it's not fool proof.
Prior to ADSB, mode C transponders were required inside the 30 mile class Bravo veil. Then came the ADSB requirement.
I had ADSB IN plus a PCAS integrated with my Garmin GPS to paint (non-ADSB) mode C traffic. Despite having both bases covered, I was amazed at the number of aircraft I couldn't see on the screen because they simply didn't have either device installed. Some didn't have radios, so I couldn't hear them either. Default to "see and avoid".
To be fair, none of the above equipment is required outside the class Bravo 30 mile ring, and I don't blame owners for not wanting to fork over thousands for non-required equipment.
On the other hand, I know of a few aircraft that are exempted from mode C or ADSB requirements (even inside the 30 mile ring) because they don't have electrical systems.
Prior to the midair at DCA, I'd have bet that Congress would've fallen back to "see and avoid" and called it a day. Unfortunately, all our rules are written in blood and I expect new rules because blood was spilled in the DCA crash. It's not a coincidence that the statement hinting at requiring ADSB IN was made at the same time the DCA crash investigation is taking place.
What bothers me is the misappropriation of who pays the price. All the aircraft involved in Sept 11th were commercial jetliners, yet general aviation paid a heavy price. At DCA, a commercial jet and a military helo collided. Despite not being involved, GA is being targeted to pay the price again.
It will be interesting to see how this is handled.
Jim "Doc Griff" Griffin
PA28 - 161
Chicago area