You write, “Transport Canada intends to require…” ADS-B transponders. But the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) has been objecting that it is Nav Canada which is announcing the requirement. But NavCanada apparently does not have the authority to issue this kind of mandate, only Transport Canada does. Has that regulatory mismatch been cleared up? It seems like this would be a relevant part of the story to include.
For more on COPA’s advocacy about the ADS-B mandate, see copanational dot org /advocacy-updates/ , and search for “ADS-B MANDATE IN CANADA”. (Why can’t COPA have separate URLs for each advocacy issue? Sigh.)
Denso COPA web weenies do not provide a Search function, but you can just scroll down until you see the subject with a long paragraph.
After that paragraph is an old pitch about using space-based ADS-B OUT as a substitute for 406ELTs, including statistics on when ELT was effective and reasons when not.
We don’t need transponders either… or radios… or lights… why did we ever put engines on things with wings. Yea, it is all very silly. Air Route Control Facilities… are they really needed? Why is someone always telling me what I can or can’t do in the air?
Yea, that is how dumb fighting ADS-B really is…
I’m sure most people thought the Wright Brothers were nuts too for putting an engine on a glider with wings…
My understanding is also that 978Mhz was picked (or rather, anything not 1090Mhz) because with the population of aircraft in the US, 1090Mhz would have become saturated (because ADS-B is always transmitting, not waiting to be interrogated). With fewer aircraft flying in most of the rest of the world, that wasn’t going to be the same issue.
But as it turned out, a lot of US aircraft got dual-frequency boxes, so they’re effectively using both frequencies. I don’t know how that affects the frequency saturation issue, or if that even was actually an issue, though.
1-NavCanada has the majority ownership in Aireon. Aireon’s other shareholders are becoming increasingly unhappy with the lack of return on investment. So…NavCanada is pushing the equipage issue onto users so they can “claim” they are increasing the usage of space-based ADS-B. #propaganda
2-Space-based ADS-B is a REDUNDANT source of surveillance for NavCanada in MOST areas. NavCanada will see no operational gain, which means users see no gain. BUT…they still force equipage. follow the money.
It’s time to get educated folks. Get off the bandwagon and educate yourselves.
Your statement is not 100% accurate. The US uses BOTH 1090 and 978 frequencies. Why? Because of the frequency congestion due to traffic volume. The 1090 frequency is not solely used by ADS-B.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your safety statement because ADS-B is more accurate than radar. In the event of an accident, more accurate data is available.
Don’t mix up the transmitting frequency (“out”) with the receiving frequencies (“in”). When you state that a lot of U.S. aircraft got dual-frequency boxes that 978Mhz +1090Mhz combo only applies to the “in” part. The frequency saturation issue, if any, would only be applicable to the single “out” frequency chosen, not the “in”. If the “in” frequencies mattered it would be like saying the more television antennas on the roof tops of apartments in a city the more frequency saturation. ADS-B ground stations and aircraft rebroadcasting of data could care less how many airplanes are receiving that signal (just like a TV station’s transmitter broadcasts in the blind). And as for “out” data transmitted by the approved onboard aircraft ADS-B equipment the FAA does not allow both frequencies to be used for transmitting from a single aircraft. FAA specifically states not to have two “out” transmitters onboard. It’s a pick one or the other “out” frequency and stick to it. So an aircraft either transmits on 978Mhz or 1090Mhz but should never legally have both.
Roger. You must be talking about an ADS-B receiver, not approved rule-compliant transmitter. Mainly because approved equipment is a transmitter and by itself will not give you any onboard data for any device or app. And since you have an Aeronca that has never had an engine-driven electrical system installed you can’t actually install approved equipment (ADS-B or UAT “out”) in your aircraft without risking a violation. This is due to the “always on” portion of the rule mandating that if an aircraft is equipped, the approved equipment must be on and operating at all times the aircraft is operated anywhere in the air or surface of the United States (not just rule airspace). This means your battery is going to eventually die on a long flight and even though your ADS-B system switch is still turned “on” because the battery failure will instantly flag the the ADS-B system that you are not in compliance. Non engine-driven electrical system aircraft are effectively regulated out of participating in the system making you an invisible target to all the new Amazon drones and pilotless VTOL commuter air taxis. I can empathize as I am a partner in a Luscombe 8A.
I believe your summary is incorrect, Jim. Aircraft without an electrical system are not required to have ADSB-out. No specification as to how that electrical system is powered. (and engine driven systems also are subject to failure so your reasoning is equally suspect.)