Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 04:53:36 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Canada to get ADS-B
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Canada to get ADS-B  (Read 12527 times)
Tomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« on: August 08, 2006, 05:41:47 AM »

Some may already have read the press release (07-19-06), but for the rest of us...

It appears Canada is about to get ADS-B, starting with the area over Hudson Bay.  For those who don't know, ADS-B is a type of "radar signal" that aircraft will transmit and contains GPS information.  Press release here:
http://navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Newsroom\NewsReleases\2006\nr0719.xml
Logged

Serving you with CYVR... =)
Tomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2006, 05:46:25 AM »

Now, here are my questions/comments for debate...   grin

I think it's great that that ATC will have access to ADS-B traffic, but...

 - With Air Canada as Canada's largest airline and most of their fleet not ADS-B equipped, do you think this move could be a huge burden on the airlines?  Or are they "ready" for it?
 -  Do you think FL290 is a good altitude to restrict air traffic?
Logged

Serving you with CYVR... =)
Lexxx
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2006, 10:39:42 AM »

Spinning radar sites are incredibly expensive to run and are going to disappear as this next technology evolves. The cost of maintaining radar sites eventually finds its way into the cost of your airline ticket, and this technology runs at a fraction of the cost of the current radar.

Nav Canada, through a convoluted method, gives as much money as possibly back to the airlines after collecting fees from them. It's their mandate. Some people can legitimately argue that at times they have given away too much money, but Nav Canada really does embrace new technology and it'll be hard to argue this isn't a good move.

If it'll save the airlines millions in fuel cost over the long run, I doubt they'd balk at slightly increased unit installation costs.

lexxx
www.ykf.ca
« Last Edit: August 08, 2006, 10:42:13 AM by Lexxx » Logged
Scrapper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2006, 02:25:30 PM »

This is an incredibly good idea both for airlines and nav canada, as it also means increased traffic through those areas that were previously not radar covered and therefore required procedural control of aircraft instead (which requires much greater seperation between aircraft)

I have a quick question for any nav canada controllers out there though that might be able to answer this... won't this make the job slightly harder since right now, most planes stick to flight planned routes from one nav aid to another, on specific air routes, whereas when planes are able to transmit their locations, they'll be able to go directly from one place to another... won't that make air control more confusing instead of less, with planes no longer sticking to specific routes between locations? (I agree though that even though this might be slightly more chaotic, it greatly increases usable airspace and decreases distances and fuel costs for the airlines, which I guess is the whole purpose of the job... expeditious and safe flow of traffic from point a to point b...)

someone write back and comment on this...
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2006, 03:01:12 PM »

It appears Canada is about to get ADS-B, starting with the area over Hudson Bay.  For those who don't know, ADS-B is a type of "radar signal" that aircraft will transmit and contains GPS information.

Interesting.  Here in the US when I hear and read of the ADS-B technology, I think of cockpit-uplinked NEXRAD radar and traffic, both of which being the "advertised" benefits of the ADS-B network slowly rolling out across the continental US (and, I believe, already live in Alaska) over the next several years. 

Canada's use of the technology seems like a completely different spin and benefit of it.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Tomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2006, 03:42:11 PM »

I believe London Heathrow will require all air traffic to use ADS-B within 2 years, and either way, many of European aircraft are already using/sending ADS-B signals.

As for Scrapper's question... I'm not a controller, but... pilots are already able to fly direct from one place to another via GPS.  That doesn't mean they fly direct as it definately would create conflicts.  All airports have their own arrival and departure routes to maintain seperation, and I don't think anything would change with ADS-B.  If anything, there would be less seperation between aircraft with the added GPS information.

I have a quick question for any nav canada controllers out there ... won't this make the job slightly harder since ... they'll be able to go directly from one place to another

...snip...
Logged

Serving you with CYVR... =)
babotika
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2006, 04:24:42 AM »

Not a controller either, but rather close to the ATC world.

Having ADS-B coverage won't allow airlines to file anything - far from that. However it will allow controllers to reduce the lateral separation required in non-radar airspace, which by the way is 10 minutes in trail (which for an aircraft flying at 400ks ground speed is ~67nm)
Controllers can also use the position information to approve shortcuts which wouldn't have been possible before, but airways and such won't disappear overnight IMO.

Bottom line: Will it allow for more directs? Probably. Will it eliminate the NCA/NARs I highly doubt it.

As for the airlines, I don't think they'll complain about being able to fly where they want more often. Lower separation minima = more place = a greater chance of flying optimum routes/altitudes.
Remember when domestic RVSM? It required changes on some aircraft (okay, to a lesser degree) but think about the savings.

Finally Air Canada isn't the major user of the airspace in question. It's the US/European carriers flying Europe <-> Central/Western USA that'll notice the change most.

S.
Logged

w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2006, 10:59:59 AM »

ADS-B has tremendous advantages over current radar technology.  Like others have said, it will open up areas where non-radar methods have been used.  The Capstone project in Alaska is an example.  Alaska was selected because of the lack of radar due to wide expanses of wilderness and mountain ranges which were not conducive to radar technology.  Bush pilots were experiencing accidents at an alarming rate and the FAA provided the Alaskan pilots with free ADS-B receivers to attempt this experiment. 

The ADS-B receivers not only provided controllers with traffic information on these aircraft, which went previously unseen, but gave pilots terrain information.  This reduced accidents in Alaska significantly.  There have been recent issues with separation standards between FAA and NATCA.  You will always have some bugs...that's why you experiment. 

ADS-B is also useful for traffic information exchange between pilots.  The ultimate goal would be for the computers onboard to resolve conflicts using this technology.  There are some serious issues that will need to be resolved with cockpit/contoller separation responsibilities.  This will get us to that  Jetson's-like scenario we've all thought about.

I was involved in GPS/RNAV procedure development for 5 years as a NATCA rep.  One of the issues we had with ADS-B was for non-participating aircraft.  They don't show up on radar screens and they don't show up on the aircraft situation display.  Those concerns were realized on 9/11.  At least we could see the targets of the hijacked aircraft once they turned the transponders off.  Aircraft without ADS-B receivers would still appear on controller's scopes with some sort of radar backup.  Possibly a skeletal backup radar system resembling the current Center radar locations without the Terminal radar locations would be adequate to provide coverage.  I'm not involved in it anymore, and I really don't anticipate seeing it during my career.  Satellite technology has unbelievable potential in aviation to move us into the 21st century.  The FAA has been doing a poor job of making it a realization.  That's why I am no longer involved.

w0x0f   
Logged
Scrapper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2006, 01:09:31 PM »

tomato, I'm not talking about within terminal control zones near airports, but enroute stuff... I agree with the other stuff posted by babotika and w0x0f... the main advantage of this will be to reduce spacing between non-radar aircraft... they will no longer need to be seperated longitudinally by time clearances... however, I also agree that if an aircraft is not equipped with this equipment, they will not show up on any display... which would require THEM I guess to continue to be longitudinally seperated? who knows? I'm looking forward to hearing more about this once it starts to be implemented...
Logged
Tomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2006, 03:16:15 PM »

Scrapper... my bad, sorry I was just using that as an example.

I'm curious... how do they maintain 10 minutes of seperation over areas with no radar coverage?
Logged

Serving you with CYVR... =)
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2006, 03:57:01 PM »

I'm curious... how do they maintain 10 minutes of seperation over areas with no radar coverage?

10 minutes is the standard separation minimum when applying longitudinal Separation, not lateral.  Lateral separation is acheived by clearing aircraft on different airways or routes whose widths or protected airspace do not overlap.  Controllers often use vertical separation in non-radar as well.  Here is the USA's method for providing longitudinal separation:

Quote from: 7110.65
Section 4. Longitudinal Separation
6-4-1. APPLICATION


Separate aircraft longitudinally by requiring them to do one of the following, as appropriate:

a. Depart at a specified time.

b. Arrive at a fix at a specified time.

PHRASEOLOGY-
CROSS (fix) AT OR BEFORE (time).

CROSS (fix) AT OR AFTER (time).


c. Hold at a fix until a specified time.

d. Change altitude at a specified time or fix.

This method combined with several very specific restrictions allows controllers to separate aircraft in a non-radar enviroment...but the aircraft routings are hardly ever direct and often require the pilots to go out of their way or take an altitude for longer than they'd prefer.  A typical non-radar clearance sounds like this:

"Air Canada 901, cross the windsor vortac at or after one five three two, maintain flight level 210 until four-zero miles northeast of the Windsor vortac, cross three-five miles southwest of the Brunswick vortac at or below flight level 320, cross one-seven miles southwest of the Brunswick vortac at and maintain flight level 390.  Report crossing the Brunswick vortac."

 
Logged

Regards
JD
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2006, 04:59:22 PM »

JD,

Stop it!  Your killin' me!   huh

That brings back some bad memories of OKC.  Of course yours are much more recent.

w0x0f 
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2006, 06:37:10 PM »

JD,

Stop it!  Your killin' me!   huh

That brings back some bad memories of OKC.  Of course yours are much more recent.

w0x0f 

I know....I had a flashback myself when I wrote that.  C'mon, you love a trip down memory lane....although when you went to OKC, total non-radar procedures were much more practical in the feild.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2006, 07:57:00 PM by davolijj » Logged

Regards
JD
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2006, 09:58:31 AM »

I think that was an old guy joke.

Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2006, 01:22:39 PM »

I saw it before the edit. It was an old guy joke. Dang kids these days got no respect for their elders, do they?   

 grin
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!