FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Constructive topics of interest related to aviation that do not match the other section descriptions below (as long as it is somewhat related to aviation, flying, learning to fly, sport pilot, light sport aircraft, etc.). Please, advertisements for Viagra will be promptly deleted!"

Moderator: drseti

Post Reply
CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by CTLSi »

As I predicted, the FAA is going to allow non TSO'd equipment in LSA and experimentals to meet the ADS-B mandate.

Flight Design provides a complete solution under this amendment with Dynon and Garmin 796 WAAS GPS.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FA ... 533-1.html
bottleworks
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:39 pm
Location: Not Here!

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by bottleworks »

(I'm gone. Everything deleted! Can't stand the ignorant data spread here).
Last edited by bottleworks on Fri May 08, 2015 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by dstclair »

CTLSi wrote:As I predicted, the FAA is going to allow non TSO'd equipment in LSA and experimentals to meet the ADS-B mandate.

Flight Design provides a complete solution under this amendment with Dynon and Garmin 796 WAAS GPS.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FA ... 533-1.html
It's a good thing that the FAA cleared up the language but this does not mean that a 796 now meets the TSO performance criteria. FD, Dynon or Garmin would need to state that is the case and provide the data to back up the assertion. I'm not aware this has been done.
dave
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by MrMorden »

dstclair wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FA ... 533-1.html

It's a good thing that the FAA cleared up the language but this does not mean that a 796 now meets the TSO performance criteria. FD, Dynon or Garmin would need to state that is the case and provide the data to back up the assertion. I'm not aware this has been done.
I think it depends on what definition we ascribe to the term "performance". As a position source, there is little doubt that a 796 is as good as a 430W, they both have WAAS accuracy to within a few meters, and that should be good enough. If you are talking about *all* aspects of a TSO, such as resistance to interference in all attitudes, antenna gain, ect...probably not.

I believe that traditionally LSA/EAB manufacturers do not have to prove they meet every aspect of a TSO (after all, that would be essentially the same as getting the TSO and just as expensive if required), but instead simply need to be functionally equivalent for the task they are designed for. That's why you can have a $5000 Skyview system in an LSA that does everything a $50,000 Avidyne or Garmin setup does in a certified airplane like a Cirrus.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by dstclair »

I believe that traditionally LSA/EAB manufacturers do not have to prove they meet every aspect of a TSO
There's the rub :D

EAA has a great position paper on equipping an experimental for IFR (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-com ... operations). An excerpt that seems to apply here:
As with transponders and other equipment discussed previously, GPS equipment must meet the performance requirements of the applicable TSO (in this case, C129), but there is no specific requirement for the equipment to be built under a TSO authorization. However, if the equipment is not built under a TSO authorization, it is up to the owner/operator to verify and document that the equipment performs within the required specifications. It is also the owner or operator's responsibility to document the necessary flight-test data showing that the installation performs within the required accuracy parameters.
By extrapolation, an LSA manufacturer (or other party) would need to document the 796 performed to the level of the TSO.
dave
User avatar
designrs
Posts: 1686
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by designrs »

There's a lot of grey area about performance certification. It's not a matter of parking your plane on the "X" at an avionics shop and recording location accuracy. It's more like when some satellites go offline from malfunction or from being obscured (and they do), can your unit compensate and still be accurate?

Also, ADS-B also provides additional parameters in the data stream settings pertaining to reliability. For example, if you use a portable two variables are set in the data stream out which basically are the equivalent of saying "this data is not certified to be accurate".

The FAA is still assessing the functionality and reliability of ADS-B as a basis for the next generation of ATC. At present, due to the limited number of aircraft using the technology, there is not a sufficient sample group for them to study. When they do have greater numbers to study they want to be assured as much as possible of the quality of data that they are evaluating.
nbjeeptj
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:34 am
Location: Gilbert SC

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by nbjeeptj »

How would this apply to a SLSA in my case a AMD 601xl, as far as installing it, and getting a OK from the builder that no longer exist?
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: FAA Amends ADS-B Rule For LSA

Post by 3Dreaming »

nbjeeptj wrote:How would this apply to a SLSA in my case a AMD 601xl, as far as installing it, and getting a OK from the builder that no longer exist?
It is my understanding that if there is no one handling support of the aircraft whether it is the original manufacturer or someone else, that you will have to change the registration from SLSA to ELSA. Someone at the FAA told me they were having to go after some aircraft because of this lack of a supporting group, and that the owners were not to happy about it.
Post Reply