787 blacklisted by some ATC operators

A software problem with the 787 ADS-B transponder has led to the aircraft to be blacklisted by AirNav Canada, who provide air traffic control services in Canada. This means that certain services, such as reduced separation, are not available to the aircraft.

Australia has also blacklisted the aircraft from ground positioning services at three airports. They are reluctant to give it a full Blacklist because that would limit the aircraft to 29,000 feet in Australian airspace.

The problem does not represent a safety issue, and new aircraft have updated software. Boeing is releasing an advisory bulletin, but it's up to the airlines to fix the issue. It has been traced to an issue with the data packets after certain turns are made. The packets arrive with either Latitude or Longitude but not both. This causes the transponder to briefly extrapolate where the aircraft is based on previous positions. This leads to incorrect positions being briefly sent out. The system quickly corrects itself and displays the correct position.

www.flightglobal.com...

Good article pal! Quite a shame though, the 787 is a great piece of technology, but personally, for me, the 777 has been and always will be the king of the skies

a reply to: Zaphod58

hey zaph, question for you. why'd they go with some new transponder system instead of sticking with what works from the previous models? what arevtge advantages they were hoping for with the new system over the old? finally is the term black list used here like the general term blacklist or is it some aviation lingo?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

All aircraft are required to have an ADS-B transponder by 2020. It's a huge advantage over older transponders because it will broadcast it's position to ATC in places that normal transponders can't, such as on oceanic flights, as well as to other aircraft in the area, allowing for better self traffic management.

In this case Blacklist means that they're not eligible for certain services. Over Canada they can't take advantage of reduced separation minimums. If Australia adds them to their Blacklist they have to remain below 29,000 feet, which will reduce their fuel savings.

Do you know if Boeing intends to use this on all of their upcomming models? I wonder if they had something like this on flight 370 ifbit would have helped locate it better...

a reply to: TripSquared314

They did. All aircraft will have them, but most commercial aircraft already do. It's how flight tracking websites like FlightAware and Flightradar24 track flights.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not quite correct but close enough!

a reply to: Gurumuka

No, but it's a lot easier to put it that way than to have to go into a detailed explanation, especially from my phone.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree. Wasn't having a dig mate!

a reply to: Gurumuka

Oh I didn't think you were, no worries.

you know much that is hidden...oh great one...interesting there...

do you have any info on how the overcrowded airports back in the 80's...allowed the ..." one minute and one mile " separation minimum on approach to get sidestepped? my buddy's dad worked for the FAA ...we observed the interval go down to 13 seconds....or landing side by side....I had to ask...

edit....curious because that's when I quit flying....devastated 15 years of career training

a reply to: GBP/JPY

For many years it was thirty seconds separation. Made for fun doing a MITO with water burners. The FAA was willing to waive the one minute rule, if the airport could demonstrate the ability to land them that close, and had a proven model for doing it.