Canada Phasing In Space-Based ADS-B Starting In 2023

25

Aircraft using controlled airspace above 12,500 feet in Canada will have to be equipped with ADS-B capable of transmitting to Nav Canada’s Aerion space-based ADS-B system by Feb. 23 of 2023. The firm date was announced jointly by Nav Canada and Transport Canada. To be compliant, aircraft must have ADS-B antennas on the top of the aircraft capable of transmitting 1090 MHz extended squitter signals to satellites. Belly-mounted antennas used to communicate with the U.S. ground-based systems will not be enough. Many of the airliner, charter and business aircraft that routinely use Class A (IFR-only controlled airspace above 18,000 feet) and Class B (controlled airspace between 12,500 and 18,000 feet for IFR and CVFR traffic) included in the mandate likely already have the “antenna diversity” required for Aerion. But Nav Canada has warned that a future mandate for low-level controlled airspace is on the way and that will be a costly obstacle to many U.S. light aircraft operators who want to fly to Canada.

The company said the mandate for Class C, D and E controlled airspace will be phased in starting no earlier than 2026 to allow time for equipage. For Canadian light aircraft operators who want to use controlled airspace around major airports and larger cities, the mandate will require installation of both belly- and roof-mounted antennas or the use of a device, like the uAvionix TailBeaconX, that can transmit both up and down. That requirement ensures Canadian aircraft will also be compliant with U.S. requirements. But for U.S. operators, the vast majority of whom have already spent thousands of dollars to install ADS-B systems that do not have antenna diversity, it means installing a device that can power a roof-mounted antenna or buying one of the dual-purpose systems before they can conveniently fly to Canada. 

Nav Canada suggests that the U.S. is the outlier when it comes to ADS-B because the rest of the world is going with space-based systems. “The equipage requirements of Canada’s ADS-B mandate are in line with a growing number of other countries in the world, and the adoption of satellite-based surveillance technology ensures long-term alignment with the global aviation system,” the company said in its announcement.

Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AVweb. He has been a pilot for 30 years and joined AVweb 22 years ago. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.

Other AVwebflash Articles

25 COMMENTS

  1. “Nav Canada suggests that the U.S. is the outlier when it comes to ADS-B …”

    Once again, the card carrying slow learners on Independence Ave SW have failed us. Why they couldn’t have required dual diversity right from the get go eludes me. Just wait until their bean counters figures out that maintaining the 600+ ADS-B ground stations is too expensive — just like all the FSS that are no longer there — they’ll be eying space based ADS-B as a way to ameliorate those costs. And guess who will ultimately have to both comply and PAY!

    • Be careful buying into the propaganda. All things are not as they appear. Ground based ADS-B works great, and is FAR CHEAPER than Space Based ADS-B. (unless you are NavCanada who is a majority stakeholder in Aireon.)

  2. This IS the system the FAA should have waited for–and the one the rest of the world will use as there is no need for ground stations–but the FAA didn’t listen! NOT mentioned is the cost for non-compliant U.S. aircraft (especially turbines) forced down to non-fuel efficient altitudes.

    The “right thing to do?” Have the FAA give a credit to the compliant aircraft owners for the stupidity of the FAA—even if it is only a portion of the new system. The FAA was warned (I was at the Oshkosh meeting), but they implemented it anyway.) Have Canada TEMPORARILY allow flight at more fuel-efficient altitudes—perhaps up to FL 180 for 3-5 years. This will give the industry time to come up with a compliant fix, while not disrupting cross-border travel.

    What will the effect be on Canadian aviation (and those that depend on aviation)?

    Fewer higher performance U.S. aircraft using Canadian airspace. Imagine doing some of the trips we do–Minnesota to Thompson or Churchill, Manitoba–600 nm+ north of the border–at 12,500 feet or below.
    Loss of revenue for Nav-Canada’s air traffic control system.
    BIG negative on the Canadian hospitality business—and the worse the farther from the border, as aircraft costs skyrocket due to lower altitudes and increased fuel burns—and the impact on fuel reserves for an alternate, and decreased range.
    Changes on Canadian FBOs and airports, as U.S. operators will do more fuel stops before leaving the country and “tankering” fuel due to high fuel burn and as a contingency for a possible diversion. It’s one more failure of governments (BOTH of them) to come up with a policy that fits real-world operations. Also—the negative of the environmental side—all that extra fuel burned unneccessarily.

    Time for some of that “International Diplomacy” that hasn’t been used lately–give the industry time to work this out, and have the FAA issue a NEW “ADS-B CREDIT AS THEY DID INITIALLY! This will also give the FAA time to implement the space-based system we SHOULD have had!

    The GOOD NEWS is that Canada will have the air traffic control system that the U.S. SHOULD have had—and that system is a benefit for Canadian aviation as aircraft can be tracked even in remote areas (and even on the ground at a remote airstrip!)

  3. As I understand it, 1090 has a limited amount of “space/bandwidth” for the number of aircraft equipping with 1090 ADSB units. The USA has the largest number of flying aircraft. Part of the decision making regarding the use of 978 is it’s unlimited “bandwidth” to accommodate our much larger aircraft population with diversity of types allowing the fixed “space” on 1090 to be used by airliners anticipating global growth of the overall airliner population over the next couple of decades. Naturally, this will cause some problems for those US airplanes equipped only with 978. However, most of the most popular ADSB offerings are dual band. I would wager the largest number of US based ADSB equipped aircraft are dual band making this 1090 mandate outside US borders not as much of a problem as some are surmising. Naturally for those equipped with 978 only, they will have to make a decision to add 1090 to their aircraft or fly within the US borders only.

    I like the idea that the US has both 978 and 1090 with the addition of ground based ADSB locations. Ya never know how those might be handy when the GPS signal gets scrambled or shut off for whatever reason. Radar combined with ground based distribution may be a legitimate back up when the inevitable happens.

    • No GA aircraft owners I know have 978? Most of them have either a Big “G” or a Stratus box. If I were Big “G”, I’d be designing a box similar to the remote GDL-82 to enable dual diversity transmission.

      • No GA aircraft owners I know personally have aircraft without electric starters, but clearly they exist. There definitely are some aircraft out there that are 978-only. But I suspect those pilots aren’t likely to be flying into Canada or Mexico, or they would have purchased a dual-band system in the first place. The bigger cost will be upgrading to diversity for those who don’t have it.

    • Your thinking is very accurate. So this raises a question, if bandwidth issues exist, will Space based ADS-B be effective in places like Ontario, Ottawa and Toronto? Also, Space Based ADS-B does not currently detect 978, Only 1090.

  4. 50% of the flying in the world happens in the United States. It is not possible for the FAA to be an outlier even if the whole rest of the world were to align with Canada (which they’re not) for a space-based system.

    It helps to remember that the domestic ADS-B rules and system were set in regulatory stone more than a dozen years ago and were in development/discussion for a decade before that. Space-based networks simply were not envisioned or anticipated at that time. For that matter, the developers didn’t even have the imagination to anticipate dual-band receivers. The network software had to be changed to accommodate that after it became a thing.

    One important thing that ADS-B users (the AOPA) got from the dual-band system was the ability to transmit in anonymous mode when using a 978 device. Air traffic control needs to know the location, direction, and speed of all of the targets in the air. They don’t need to know the identity of those targets.

    Mode S transponders (even before the Extended Squitter function) already had the registration number included as part of the standard/basic broadcast. So anonymous was never a possibility for that equipment.

  5. Arieon built inadequate space payloads. They didn’t have high enough gain antennas, didn’t have enough antennas, and/or didn’t have good enough receivers.

    Now they are burdening the users with fixing their problem. Thus a private company will make more profit by requiring the ALRAEAYD compliant users to spend more money.

    Further, Aireon has not releases data that would allow independent review of the reliability of tracking bottom mounted ADS-B antennas. On smaller GA aircraft, that reliability is likely to be sufficiently high. It certainly will be high enough for sparse areas ( like most of Canada) when augmented by ground based receivers in denser areas. This whole thing is a transfer of burden to cover up a system that was poorly built.

    This is an outright lie: “Nav Canada suggests that the U.S. is the outlier when it comes to ADS-B because the rest of the world is going with space-based systems.” There are zero other countries with a space based ADS-B mandate. This is attempting to cover up their inadequate system by making it seem like it was the US problem when that is completely false.

    It also looks bad when former NAVCANADA decision makers are now joining the Aireon board.

    Mike C.

  6. “Mode S transponders (even before the Extended Squitter function) already had the registration number included as part of the standard/basic broadcast. So anonymous was never a possibility for that equipment.”

    That’s wrong. All you had to do was not publicly provide the ICAO address to registration mapping and not make it algorithm based. Most countries are like that, the US isn’t.

    Anonymity comes not from hiding the ICAO mode S address, but from making it secret who has what address.

    Mike C.

    • Mike – making something “not published” is not the same as making it secret. The plane spotters in countries other than the US have relished the challenge set by unpublished Mode S addresses. They camp out at the side of the runway with binoculars and an ADS-B receiver, and collect tail numbers and ICAO addresses. Then they publish the results on the Internet. I can’t explain this strange “hobby” but I think the person who scores the most addresses wins. The effect however is that it is definitely not a secret what any airplane’s ICAO address is.

  7. “This IS the system the FAA should have waited for–and the one the rest of the world will use as there is no need for ground stations–but the FAA didn’t listen!”

    That’s a lie. The ADS-B system existed WAY before any space based concept was put forth. The FAA system is ICAO compliant, so it was much more than just the FAA.

    The campaign to make this seem like it is perfectly normal to burden users for Aireon’s flaws is starting and posts like the above are part of that.

    Mike C.

  8. I get all the opinions about one system vs another.
    We all know Canadian Aviation is a Pain inthe behind. We also Know that the FAA is also a pain.

    Ny question is: After all the money I have spent is Stratus (Aparreo) going to provide a solution that will make my ESG capable of top and bottom antenna? I live in Northern Idaho and The Stratus s3 does not do well in this mountainous are. I have S3 with antenna on bottom and a Skyradar DX with bottom antenna. Strangely enough, the Skyradar show much more traffic and works better that the S3!!
    I contacted Apparo re the top antenna situation. All I could hear was the guys shoes tap dancing..
    Anyone hear anything about solutions other than a whole new system??

  9. I get all the opinions about one system vs another.
    We all know Canadian Aviation is a Pain inthe behind. We also Know that the FAA is also a pain.

    Ny question is: After all the money I have spent is Stratus (Aparreo) going to provide a solution that will make my ESG capable of top and bottom antenna? I live in Northern Idaho and The Stratus
    S3 does not do well in this mountainous area. I have S3 with antenna on bottom and a Skyradar DX with bottom antenna. Strangely enough, the Skyradar show much more traffic and works better that the S3!!
    I contacted Apparo re: the top antenna situation. All I could hear was the guys shoes tap dancing..
    Anyone hear anything about solutions other than a whole new system??

  10. As per previous comments, a major consideration for space-based is the sheer volume of 1090 transmissions generated by the fleet of aircraft aloft within the USA. Aeron’s receivers orbiting at nearly 500 miles altitude are flooded with transmissions when over America; if you look at one of their depictions of worldwide traffic you see most of the planet peppered with white dots, but much of the USA is basically covered in solid white. This isn’t Aeron’s fault, it is a consequence of the initial ADSB design parameters, which did not envision a single receiver ~500 miles up having to deal with “hearing” the transmissions from half the Eastern Seaboard.

    • True, It is not Aireon’s fault. BUT, it is Aieron’s PROBLEM. Ground-based ADS-B does not have these issues. forcing users/taxpayers to foot the bill to address the problem is unethical.

  11. Will this Canadian satellite based system give to GA the same ADS-B IN services as the US ground station based UAT system, including weather, airspace limitations, NOTAMs FIS-B —- ? Will the band with allow all that information to all aircrafts … ?

  12. The users need to be asking questions:
    -What benefit does space based ADS-B bring to me?
    -Will there be a efficiency gains? If so, explain.
    -What is the separation is now, and what will it become once space based ADS-B is implemented.

LEAVE A REPLY