Episode #177 "AirJEB"

A place to post misc. feedback to individual eps.
Forum rules
We'd love to have you Reply to posts in this Forum, but please don't create new Topics here. One exception: If we haven't created a thread for a particular episode, feel free to get it started. For other subjects, I suggest creating new Topics in Virtual Hangar=>Other Topics. Thanks.
User avatar
lucaberta
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby lucaberta » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:51 am

Lots of interesting points raised in this episode, I will need to add some comments on the whole ADS-B story.

Meanwhile, since you mentioned something that would inflate and fly, here's my take on this all thing:

Image

It's made in Umbria, Italy, and both a straight float (if one could call it that!) and an amphib version exist.

http://www.polarismotor.it/

This thing flies, and flies well! Not sure if we can say the same of the Goodyear thing... :lol:

Ciao, Luca
Luca Bertagnolio, CPL/ASEL/AMEL/ASES/IR

US States I've overflown or flown in:
Image

User avatar
lucaberta
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby lucaberta » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:27 pm

On using highways in order to land, in Switzerland some parts of the highway system were designed to cater for military operations if needed. This operation started in 1970 and lasted until 1995, and different military exercised made use of highways for Swiss Air Force planes a total of 10 times in these 25 years.

Obviously the median would be paved and perfectly flat, and the operation would simply involve removing some 2 miles of guard rail to widen the road. We don't have highway with many lanes like you have in the US, so both directions have to be used at once!

I just found a most interesting video, unfortunately the audio is in german, but the images are definitely self-explanatory:

http://real.xobix.ch/ramgen/ext/srg_75/ ... g1970_d.rm

The planes used are De Havilland D.H.112 Venom. I particularly like when they taxi under the bridge to join the other planes and the ground crew!

I found many other references to highways used for military planes on another forum, with some nice pictures:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53860

Yes, I know, these are very well scheduled use of highways for aircraft operations, and we were talking about closing highways with a PCL-like system, but c'mon, at least this thing happened some 10 times, while the PCL-to-close-the-highway thing is never going to happen! :D

Ciao, Luca
Luca Bertagnolio, CPL/ASEL/AMEL/ASES/IR

US States I've overflown or flown in:
Image

User avatar
lucaberta
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby lucaberta » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:48 pm

On ADS-B, there is a lot of good information at this FAA link:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... broadcast/

Since southern Florida was mentioned, the FAA has prepared a nice PDF writeup of the current situation, with 11 ADS-B ground stations already up and running:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... -miami.pdf

The quick map of the stations is this:

Image

I am still wondering if the installed equipment provides for UAT to 1090ES injection of traffic, and viceversa. This is quite important, as jetliners use 1090ES for ADS-B, while GA planes use UAT, and they are incompatible technology. David, do you have any more information on whether data is fully shared between UAT and 1090ES traffic?

Ciao, Luca
Luca Bertagnolio, CPL/ASEL/AMEL/ASES/IR

US States I've overflown or flown in:
Image

User avatar
lucaberta
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby lucaberta » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:01 pm

On the close encounter between the United 777 and the Cessna 182, Max Trescott wrote a couple of very informative blog entries.

The first one:

http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_trescott ... audio.html

describes the events, and it very much looks like the Tower was correctly handling both aircraft, and the Tower called the traffic to the 182 first, and only very late to the 777, probably when the TCAS on the 777 was already with a TA. By the looks of it, immediately after that the 777 received an RA, and that prompted the evasive maneuver.

In the second blog entry Max confirms that the new NTSB reporting procedures require crews to report RAs:

http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_trescott ... sions.html

And oh, Jack, on the "little airplane crashed into big airplane", unfortunately this has already happened a few times, two of which in California. one was the C172 and B727 in San Diego, and the other the PA28 and DC9 over Cerritos, close to LAX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498

We better need to avoid this from happening again. Though in this case it was the SFO tower that created the little messy situation.

Ciao, Luca
Luca Bertagnolio, CPL/ASEL/AMEL/ASES/IR

US States I've overflown or flown in:
Image

User avatar
lucaberta
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby lucaberta » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Last two things and then I shut up! :)

First, on the LSAs into Canada, please note that it's only the aircraft that are now allowed to fly into Canada, but you will need to have a PPL in order to fly them into canadian airspace! From the EAA newsbyte at:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-03-16_LSAtoCanada.asp

TC [Transport Canada] still requires pilots to have a private pilot certificate with a valid medical, meaning that pilots flying as sport pilots with a drivers license medical are not allowed.


And last, I thought you guys went to Oshkosh last year? Did you not see this thing on the ramp?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOEPLfIVrNU

(says the guy on the other side of the Atlantic) :D :D

Enjoy Florida and the UCAP 2.0 meetup of tomorrow! Wish I could be there. If weather holds, maybe I will go to Venice and eat at the terminal over there. I will need to be careful when taking off from runway 05 coming back, as this is an uncontrolled field, and you don't want to run into this situation... :lol:

Image

Ah, yes, this is Venezia, Italy, the airport is San Nicolo'/Lido, ICAO code LIPV ;)

Ciao, Luca
Luca Bertagnolio, CPL/ASEL/AMEL/ASES/IR

US States I've overflown or flown in:
Image

User avatar
lucaberta
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby lucaberta » Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:24 pm

One last note on ADS-B, mostly for David or others who might have a better idea.

On this page:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... formation/

in the FAQ I read this:

What equipment is required?

Either the Universal Access Transceiver or 1090 Extended Squitter (1090ES) datalink is acceptable when operating in Class A airspace. However, if operating outside of Class A airspace, you will need to equip with the 1090ES ADS-B capability.

and I don't quite understand.

My understanding was that 1090ES would only be required if flying in the class A airspace, above FL180. That would require an upgrade to the transponder, in order to become mode S and 1090ES compatible for ADS-B Out. Something you don't want to shovel in the throat for many GA planes, which will need to dish out money for the UAT already.

But if we already have an UAT on board, with both ADS-B In and ADS-B Out, wouldn't that be enough also for class B and C airspace?

I smell mistakes in the first sentence, which maybe should have mentioned class E airspace, and not A, and in the second sentence it should be inside and not outside of class A.

I will definitely talk to the ADS-B folks at Sun 'n Fun and hear what they think.

Ciao, Luca
Luca Bertagnolio, CPL/ASEL/AMEL/ASES/IR

US States I've overflown or flown in:
Image

plutocrat03
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:45 pm

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby plutocrat03 » Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:33 am

Since the thread of unusual aircraft has continued, I thought that I could add one of the most unusual aircraft I have run across.

It is a Gibson Twin Plane. A replica is on display in Victoria BC. It is the first powered aircraft to have been built and designed in Canada.

The third image in the web page shows the Gibson Twin Plane suspended from the ceiling. http://www.victorialodging.com/attracti ... ion-museum

I find the arrangement of two propellers driven off the single engine to be interesting.
Attachments
DSC_2500.jpg
DSC_2500.jpg (58.54 KiB) Viewed 3262 times
DSC_2499.jpg
DSC_2499.jpg (55.43 KiB) Viewed 3260 times

Dave Higdon
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:02 pm

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby Dave Higdon » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:49 pm

lucaberta wrote:I am still wondering if the installed equipment provides for UAT to 1090ES injection of traffic, and viceversa. This is quite important, as jetliners use 1090ES for ADS-B, while GA planes use UAT, and they are incompatible technology. David, do you have any more information on whether data is fully shared between UAT and 1090ES traffic?

Ciao, Luca


Luca, et al...Although the FAA has not yet published a final proposal or a full NPRM, the original proposal posted by the agency called for use of both UAT and 1090ES (Extended Squitter)...UAT was the technology tested under the Capstone Project in Canada, if memory serves, and 1090ES is what UPS has been using in the Ohio River Valley for that ADS-B testing for many years.

The FAA said in the past that the system envisioned would use translators in its system to feed info from the UAT airplanes to 1090ES users and data from the 1090ES system to UAT users...the UAT supports free traffic and weather feeds to its users; whether you elect to have ADS-B In capability was, under the initial FAA proposal, up to the aircraft owner...whether you'd want that depends partly on what you get from it -- which tilts the playing field for GA toward UAT; commercial and high-altitude operators generally have existing sources for weather and traffic and 1090ES can be put in place with an updated transponder -- which those users seem to favor. Many of my GA-aircraft owner friends -- those who already have panels with weather datalink and active collision-avoidance gear, are interested less in UAT than in having the cheapest option available to meet the requirements -- whatever they wind up being.

What we wind up with is not yet certain; how soon we have to have it is not yet certain or firm.

We the users, as a collective of the aviation community with different priority triggers, are one of the main hold-ups to the FAA making a decision -- they're getting nudged in different directions by different users...and who knows the priorities of the avionics makers. Most, I believe, would just love to have all this settled so they can go in a direction leading to them supplying a competitive product -- knowing it will meet the rules and, thus, sell.

Similarly, many a pilot who flies frequently and regularly just want a cost-effective solution to whatever requirements, whatever it may be...

Not a helpful answer, eh?

Dave

audioflyer
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 9:40 am
Location: MS

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby audioflyer » Sat May 22, 2010 9:51 am

Just wanted to respond to the story on the Air Force. I've only been an AF officer for a couple of years, so I can't speak authoritatively on the finer points, but I'll give you my personal opinion (not speaking on behalf of my employer :) ). There has been talk for years on the necessity of a separate Air Force, and I'll have to say that I think most of the reason for keeping it separate has to do with history and military tradition. There is currently quite a bit of overlap between the different services, with each of the services doing a little bit of the other one's job. In some areas, it can even be seen as redundant or wasteful. However, because of the historically separate nature of the branches, they each might have found it easier to do the job themselves rather than working intimately with another branch. However, in many ways, this is changing for the better. The US military as a whole is going more and more toward joint operations, with the different branches working together in more and better ways than before. In several cities, military installations have become joint bases, home to multiple branches of the military. The lines have also started to become blurred between active duty, guard, and reserve, with all three being considered part of the total force concept.

Regarding the question, "why have a separate Air Force?", to me, the better question is "why have separate branches at all?" The military is all about organization and structure, and an obvious way to organize the military is according to expertise and domain. By domain I'm referring to land, sea, or in the case of the AF, "Air, Space, and Cyberspace." I'm all in favor of maintaining separate branches of the military, with their separate history and traditions (a big part of military life, I've come to realize). However, working together, sharing information, and avoiding duplication of efforts must be a priority. We have a responsibility to the American public to do our best to manage resources properly and do our job the best way possible, and in my opinion, the only way to do that is by allowing each branch to do what they do best, and integrating our forces to the max extent possible to complete the mission.

User avatar
jackhodgson
Site Admin
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Lookout Point, Nottingham, NH / Nashua Airport (ASH)
Contact:

Re: Episode #177 "AirJEB"

Postby jackhodgson » Sun May 23, 2010 8:50 am

That's very interesting. Thanks for the info.

-- Jack


Return to “Episodes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests