Six ADS-B Myths Dispelled

[CTLSi]

......

[SportPilot]

.......

[BrianL99]

All in one place, a tidy summary and set of conclusive statements from an expert.


How there will be no 'cheaper' alternative despite some guessing there may be one to alleviate costs.


http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/ ... 2tpKEku.99

The word "cheaper" does not appear in the article, nor does the article list the above as one of the author's "conclusive statements".

The author quotes Steve Brown, who speculates that the FAA won't re-write the ADS-B rules. Neither Brown nor Pope make any comment on whether "cheaper" solutions will arrive on the market.

The mandate doesn't take place for more than 5 years ... a lifetime in the high-tech, electronics world. Who would have believed 5 or 6 years ago, we'd be buying 50" TV's for $400 ?

[CTLSi]

.....

[CTLSi]

.....

[CTLSi]

.....

[drseti]

The mandate doesn't take place for more than 5 years ... a lifetime in the high-tech, electronics world. Who would have believed 5 or 6 years ago, we'd be buying 50" TV's for $400 ?

Point well taken, Brian. That's precisely why I have decided not to attempt 2020 compliance just yet.

[Jack Tyler]

While we haven't seen a recommended retail price from Appareo yet (for their ADS-B Out partner to the Stratus), I expect that product will be one likely example of how the marketplace is responding to the mandate, both in equipment and installation costs. And as Paul's statement illustrates, many of us are delaying our decision on how to comply, just enlarging the potential market and therefore its financial incentive.

As pilots and a/c owners, we sometimes view the aviation landscape thru a straw, zeroing in on only that small slice that most directly affects us. I found this morning's WaPo article on the broader set of pressures related to NextGen to give an interesting perspective on the current NextGen playing fields - financial, political and public transport demand among them. See what you make of it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tra ... 9&hpid=z16

I can imagine Huerta's position, when testifying before the panel, to be the one we've all heard before: the FAA has met its own ADS-B implementation goal and absolutely intends to stick with the January 2020 mandate deadline. And the likely Committee response will be: 'A hope is not a plan, a plan is not a result, and you are continuing to miss deadlines we've established by statute.' Not that it will affect the culture of the FAA by itself, but I'm beginning to wonder how long Huerta will remain as Administrator. After all, a Republican Congress is going to have a continuing bias in favor of less regulation and its various impacts on the marketplace.

[snaproll]

While we haven't seen a recommended retail price from Appareo yet (for their ADS-B Out partner to the Stratus), I expect that product will be one likely example of how the marketplace is responding to the mandate, both in equipment and installation costs. And as Paul's statement illustrates, many of us are delaying our decision on how to comply, just enlarging the potential market and therefore its financial incentive.

As pilots and a/c owners, we sometimes view the aviation landscape thru a straw, zeroing in on only that small slice that most directly affects us. I found this morning's WaPo article on the broader set of pressures related to NextGen to give an interesting perspective on the current NextGen playing fields - financial, political and public transport demand among them. See what you make of it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tra ... 9&hpid=z16

I can imagine Huerta's position, when testifying before the panel, to be the one we've all heard before: the FAA has met its own ADS-B implementation goal and absolutely intends to stick with the January 2020 mandate deadline. And the likely Committee response will be: 'A hope is not a plan, a plan is not a result, and you are continuing to miss deadlines we've established by statute.' Not that it will affect the culture of the FAA by itself, but I'm beginning to wonder how long Huerta will remain as Administrator. After all, a Republican Congress is going to have a continuing bias in favor of less regulation and its various impacts on the marketplace.

Jack,
When I contacted Remos, they advised "wait and see" as they expect changes due to some holes in the rules. For instance, the GPS source and transponder must be certified but there is no mention of a certified altitude encoder. Like many aircraft, the Remos uses the Dynon panel as the altitude encoder which outputs to the transponder, and the Dynon 100 (EFIS-D100) is not certified. Their position is changes are expected and investing now in equipment may result in a system which will require modification before 2020 to actually meet the mandate. I don't know the answers, but will keep listening... I appreciate your insight.

[Jack Tyler]

Now that's interesting; thanks for that, Don. Most of us no doubt remember just a month or two ago that both the FAA and GAMA were urging early compliance, which of course means choosing between the systems that do exist vs. those that are being developed. GAMA produced some stats on how avionics shops' workload limits can't even modify all the a/c within the remaining time frame...but they assumed a huge number of a/c seeking compliance. Remos seems to be seeing the same segmented marketplace I do, wherein an existing suite of installed avionics for a sub-group of a/c might need a less expensive and complex upgrade if we give the marketplace a chance to adjust. And then there's the FAA's 'fine print' on what will be allowed as the 2020 timetable draws near.

Don, your example happens to fit nicely with the public position AOPA has taken, which is that the FAA should be accepting of compliance options that lower cost but require some regulatory adjustments.

[dstclair]

For instance, the GPS source and transponder must be certified but there is no mention of a certified altitude encoder. Like many aircraft, the Remos uses the Dynon panel as the altitude encoder which outputs to the transponder, and the Dynon 100 (EFIS-D100) is not certified.

Don -- the altitude encoder doesn't have to be TSO'ed today for experimental and S-LSA aircraft so not requiring for ADS-B would be maintaining the status quo. The encoder must comply with 91.217(b) and Dynon will provide a letter of certification to the spec. After that, the system need comply with 91.411 and 91.413 which make no mention of TSO.

I'm not holding my breath but the FAA could make the entire process more palatable by creating test similar to 91.411 for WAAS position sources. This would ensure the appropriate level of accuracy while allowing for non-TSO'ed devices.

[CTLSi]

......

[MrMorden]

Don -- the altitude encoder doesn't have to be TSO'ed today for experimental and S-LSA aircraft so not requiring for ADS-B would be maintaining the status quo. The encoder must comply with 91.217(b) and Dynon will provide a letter of certification to the spec. After that, the system need comply with 91.411 and 91.413 which make no mention of TSO.

I'm not holding my breath but the FAA could make the entire process more palatable by creating test similar to 91.411 for WAAS position sources. This would ensure the appropriate level of accuracy while allowing for non-TSO'ed devices.

It's fairly clear to me that the FAA really does not like what the Sport Pilot rules have grown into, and they see LSA as aircraft that in some cases must be tolerated (for now), but not accommodated in any way. For that reason it would not surprise me at all to see TSO requirements develop for each piece of the ADS-B equipment chain. This would serve to keep as many LSA as possible where the FAA wants them, as far from "real" aviation as possible.

[snaproll]

Latest article...
Congress Enraged by the FAA’s $40B White Elephant
http://a.msn.com/00/en-us/BBeHw77

In my case, I have Class C airspace 30 mile north and routinely fly into LAX's 30 mile zone now requiring Mode C and requiring ADS-B Out in 2020. On OXR, estimate 1 out of 4 owners are considering ADS-B Out, the rest are planning on avoiding the airspace. Don't know if that's the norm, or an anomaly...

Below is some of my correspondence with the FAA Guru - doesn't help...


From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Question regarding ADS-B Out
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:10:52 +0000

Shelby,
Appreciate the response. Will contact the aircraft manufacture of my S-LSA which has a "Special Airworthiness Certificate" and see what unit they are approving for installation. Under the S-LSA rules, the manufacture must approve or issue an LOA for installation. It would still be a good idea for the FAA to address the S-LSA issue in future Nextgen publications for clarification. VR.. Don



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Question regarding ADS-B Out
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:44:29 +0000

Hi Don.

Official answer remains unchanged:
• Uncertified Equipment ◦ The FAA strongly discourages the use of uncertified ADS-B Out equipment even in experimental aircraft. Air Traffic Control cannot use the data from uncertified transmitters—this means ATC cannot provide flight-following services or separation services to these aircraft. Data from the uncertified transmitters is not displayed on certified ADS-B-In displays. Therefore, pilots in aircraft with certified ADS-B equipment won’t be able to “see” pilots with uncertified equipment.

◦ Uncertified GPS units may be installed on amateur-built and light-sport aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates. However, uncertified equipment, including an uncertified GPS, may not be installed on aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. Additionally, these position sources do not comply with 14 CFR 91.227 and will not be permitted to operate in airspace requiring ADS-B in 2020 without prior approval from ATC.


FAA recommends a WAAS GPS that is compliant with TSO-C145c or TSO-C146c. These units are readily available for general aviation and provide sufficient performance to meet the 14 CFR 91.227 requirements. GA vendors offer stand-alone receivers and package them with ADS-B transmitters or with GPS Navigators.



Thanks,

Shelby




Shelby Keefe/SAIC
Sub-Task Lead - NextGen Initiatives Support Services Contract
Flight Technologies and Procedures Division - Surveillance Broadcast Services (DC)
Email: [email protected]





From: Don [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Keefe, Shelby CTR (FAA)
Subject: RE: Question regarding ADS-B Out

Shelby,
Any further guidance regarding aircraft with "Special Airworthiness Certificates" and the requirements based on the ASTM rules? VR.. Don

[CTLSi]

......