What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA to limit ADS-B/FIS B (traffic) in 2016

Walt

Well Known Member
According to the FAA website if your system does not meet the GPS perfomance parameters below then you will no longer be able to receive ADS-B services after 2016.

So for those of you on the fence about equipping with a position source meeting these minimum performance requirements (which our experimental EFIS GPS's do not) this may be some "incentive" to rethink that (bottom line is your will lose traffic services for those broadcasting with a non-certifed GPS position sources)

Quote from the FAA site:
"However, beginning on January 4, 2016, the following criteria must also be satisfied in order to receive ADS-B IN services: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."


I personally plan on asking the FAA why the restriction and how that is going to improve safety at every opportunity I have while attending Oshkosh, I suggest everyone do the same, let them know how you feel !
 
Last edited:
ADSB-IN Weather Too?

Not clear to me from the FAA site referenced, it appears to discuss only traffic advisory but "weather" is an ADSB-In service as well, will that be cancelled as well. May help in XM weather subscriptions planning. Probably can't afford to equip on their "new" schedule yet if it cancels weather too.
 
FIS B is the weather and tfr info. TIS B is the traffic data. The website indicates that both those would be unavailable, which is pretty disappointing given that they gave us until 2020 to equip and now it appears they are punishing us for not equipping earlier than their own deadline. I don't see how they could block weather info though as that is broadcast to all.

I for one plan on waiting as I am confident prices will come down considerably before 2020. Ashame that they are taking away a bit of my situational awareness for no reason.

If somebody who is blocked from this data has a mid-air, the FAA might have some 'splaining to do...
 
Last edited:
Weather via ADS-B is broadcast in the blind to the whole world, and does not require ADS-B out capabilities to receive. Jan 4 date on the web page is in a section specifically addressing ADS-B traffic services ("How do I receive ADS-B In Traffic Services and what do I see today?"), which are predicated on having ADS-B out capabilities that meet whatever requirements the FAA has in place at the time. Looks like they're phasing in the need to meet the 2020 spec in order to receive traffic data services. A little sooner than I would have thought, though.
 
Last edited:
I dropped Bill Moffet a note this morning to get his take on this. When I get a response, I'll forward it.

I know he was planning on updating the GPS in his products with less expensive certified GPS, but I didn't think it was in this time frame. I seem to recall he was planning like next summer.

bob
 
Limitations

I suspect the volume has overwhelmed them & their service levels have suffered. This is a way of managing their service levels.

I don't suppoort this approach as volume exercise is an excellent way to improve service levels. And, demonstrate scalability!
 
ADS-B order now on hold

This morning I was ordering some oil filters and e-z turn lube from Spruce. I also had a Pathfinder ads-b in the cart to use with Avare on my Nexus 7. I took the ads-b out of the cart after reading this thread. Not going to spend $539 on something I can only use for 6 months. Why would the FAA put a limit on a service which has the potential to save lives.
 
This is speculation but hey, that's what we do here!

The FAA offered "free" weather as an incentive to have owners install ADSB. Sort of like the government offering subsidies to individual states to create exchanges, but I digress.

But that gambit didn't work as planned. They did not foresee, cheap, portable solutions coming on the market that would allow users to take advantage of the free stuff while not stepping up to the plate and buying the full ADSB solution.

They really, really want everyone to install the full ADS-B out capability (as it is so much better than mode C radar and allows much greater density in congested environments). Since at the current pace 2020 ain't happening they have come up with a new plan.

Take away the free stuff unless you have full ADS-B installed. Keep in mind this was the original plan and no one envisioned cheap, ADS-B "in" solutions when this was first developed.

Expect a firestorm. Expect little, or no, relief.

This is all about better ATC density in terminal environments. In other words, primarily Part 121 operations and high end GA operations (biz jets, king airs, etc.) that are the majority users of Class B terminal airpots.

Again, all speculation but "informed" speculation.

What we need is a cheaper means of certifying GPS source and install to the required accuracy/availability. That is the real rub and major cost drive IMO.


Did I solve anything? No. Did I inform? maybe
Am I right? I'd bet something but not anything I wasn't prepared to lose anyway.
 
One last thing. AS a practical matter I don't see how they can prevent you receiving WX and traffic broadcast with this caveat.

Traffic today is triggered when a ADS-B Out equipped place broadcasts its position to a ground station. Traffic info within a 10NM radius of that aircraft is broadcast. If you are flying within range you will receive that broadcast but sense it is only within a 10 NM radius of the triggering aircraft it may or may not show traffic of interest to you. Example, you are 9.5 NM north from triggering aircraft. You will only see a target north of you if it is within 0.5 NM of your position.

I suspect they may implement similar effort for weather but don't know how that would work as the range for weather is much larger.

At least this will make the "ask the Adminstrator" session at Oshkosh a lively one!
 
Right there with you on this one. It would be very difficult to curtail access to weather with the current architecture.

David
 
"This is all about better ATC density in terminal environments. In other words, primarily Part 121 operations and high end GA operations (biz jets, king airs, etc.) that are the majority users of Class B terminal airpots."

It is the FAA's plan to provide separation using ADS-B. This would be the reason for us having to use "Accepted Equipment". Allowing everyone to use Non-accepted equipment or position source is not a good way to provide separation.
They/we need to trust your reported position.
 
Let's see............

Should I buy VHS or Betamax?
 
Last edited:
Gotta love the FAA....

B51m_gACIAALwpG.jpg
 
It looks like the only people this affects are those with non-approved ADSB-out position sources. They will essentially be treated as ADSB-in users, and only be able to receive traffic data intended for approved ADSB-out users in the area. IE, they will not have traffic data broadcast specifically to them. This is the same as it is now for those with ADSB-In only, like stratus and other systems.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this makes more technical sense, as they can't prevent anybody from receiving and displaying the traffic and weather data that they send.

All that being said, I still believe it is wrong of them to set a 2020 deadline (that I doubt even they will meet), and then punish users for not complying earlier, especially users who were at least partly buying into and using the system.


Chris
 
Last edited:
My cynical view is that the FAA has noticed that there haven't been any false positions reported from EAB aircraft using $200 GPS position sources. If they let this go on, by 2020 there might be a lot of data showing that the original gps specifications (the source of the expense) are way overblown. Have to nip this in the bud.
 
If you wanted to be really cynical, you'd guess that major avionics manufacturers are about to introduce new certified GPS position sources. Stimulate the market. :)
 
This morning I was ordering some oil filters and e-z turn lube from Spruce. I also had a Pathfinder ads-b in the cart to use with Avare on my Nexus 7. I took the ads-b out of the cart after reading this thread. Not going to spend $539 on something I can only use for 6 months. Why would the FAA put a limit on a service which has the potential to save lives.

If you were not planning to install "ADS-B OUT" at this time, as I see it, you will STILL be able to get the same services and thus you might want to reconsider (and keep) your Pathfinder + Nexus.

The way I read it is that the FAA is simply saying
"OK folks, I know you have been using various handheld (and other) GPSes as position sources to "wake up" the system and have you look semi "legit" and thereby get full weather and traffic all the time. That is going to end as we get closer and we need to just work the system with the "approved" types of position sources. You will continue to get weather as promised on your ADS-B IN system but you will not get traffic unless a *nearby* "legit position source equipped" client wakes up the system".

So, in reality, it is like Brantel (I believe) said ... the "free lunch" (use of something like a 396 as position source) is coming to an end.

TO put things into perspective though, if you are in a HIGH DENSITY trsffice area, there is PROBABLY someone around with a "legit" position source that will hae the system "awakened" for you. On the other hand if you are not, that "same altitude, opposite direction" aircraft is not going to show up on your WingX/Foreflight/Garmin Pilot.

By the way, I did a bunch of testing of ADS-B stuff a while back and used 396/496 as postion sources and that was great! But I have since changed to 400W and GTN 650 as position sources and can see their point about the reliability/credibility/validity of the position source data.
 
Well, I am not knowledgable enough to be upset. I have no clue what that paragraph means. What kind of GPS source is acceptable, GNS650? or does it need another "improved" and dedicated GPS signal?

So the G3X (don't touch), GNS650, GTX23ES + GDL39R aren't enough? What's missing?
 
Well, I am not knowledgable enough to be upset. I have no clue what that paragraph means. What kind of GPS source is acceptable, GNS650? or does it need another "improved" and dedicated GPS signal?

So the G3X (don't touch), GNS650, GTX23ES + GDL39R aren't enough? What's missing?

The 650 should be totally acceptable (assuming it has all of the software updates, uh...up to date...).
 
Not so fast!

I recently emailed SteinAir to inquire about ADS-B Out equipment for my RV-8. The following is their response. Interesting!

************************************************************


Hi Ron,

Depending on the equipment in your aircraft the solution will vary. Since we are still 4 ½ years away from the mandate, I am recommending that you do nothing at this point. There will be many ADS-B solutions on the market before 2020 at some significant cost savings from today’s market. Unless you are in need to purchase a new transponder etc. I suggest that you hold off at this point.

If you want to discuss it, please feel free to call any of us and we will be happy to talk options.

Thanks,

Christer Stenstrom
Avionics Manager

SteinAir
21170 Eaton Ave., Suite A
Farmington, MN 55024
651 460-6955
 
Last edited:
https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/

I can see the reason for the original hockey puck to limit frequency congestion. I can see not repeating ADS-B from uncertified position sources. But limiting ADS-B/R and TIS-B to only those with certified position sources is contrary to the FAA mission linked above, both in terms of safety and transparency.

I also found this on their website:

Why are portable ADS-B devices not allowed?
Portable ADS-B Out systems, also known as "suitcase" units, should not be operated (transmitting) aboard any aircraft. While marketing associated with these units may imply approval for use by way of an FCC license, the FAA prohibits their use for the following reasons:
1) The positioning of portable, suction-cup GPS antennas associated with these units often require they be affixed to front or side windows or glare shield to obtain a usable signal. Such antenna placement obstructs the pilot's view. Connecting wiring also interferes with aircraft controls and instruments.
2) ADS-B Out avionics require a valid Mode S code to be transmitted to operate properly with ATC automation and other ADS-B aircraft. Mode S codes, also known as the ICAO code, are assigned to an aircraft during registration and then programmed into transponders and ADS-B Out avionics. Mode S codes remain static until a change in aircraft registration or identification (N-number) occurs. Portable units require users to input the Mode S code assigned to each aircraft flown. A high number of Mode S code entry errors have occurred with this procedure, which prevent proper target correlation within ATC automation systems (target drops/traffic conflict alerts), which have resulted in increased workload and unnecessary distractions for pilots and controllers.
3) The positioning of ADS-B antenna is also vital in the quality of the signal that is transmitted, and if capable, received by the ADS-B device. There have been a number of aircraft identified using portable ADS-B devices that result in degraded performance due solely to poor antenna location.
.

Surely if portable transmitters are prohibited, there must be some guidance other than a FAQ. The first and third reasons could be applied to any portable GPS setup. The second reason is interesting. Are controllers seeing ADS-B info from uncertified position sources? I thought they had a target correlation system to eliminate erroneous ADS-B signals?
 
Do the FreeFlight 978 Rangr devices meet the standard?

According to the FAA website if your system does not meet the GPS perfomance parameters below then you will no longer be able to receive ADS-B services after 2016.

So for those of you on the fence about equipping with a position source meeting these minimum performance requirements (which our experimental EFIS GPS's do not) this may be some "incentive" to rethink that (bottom line is your will lose traffic services for those broadcasting with a non-certifed GPS position sources)

Quote from the FAA site:
"However, beginning on January 4, 2016, the following criteria must also be satisfied in order to receive ADS-B IN services: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."


I personally plan on asking the FAA why the restriction and how that is going to improve safety at every opportunity I have while attending Oshkosh, I suggest everyone do the same, let them know how you feel !

Walt, will the recent batch of FreeFlight Rangr units (that a bunch of us bought last December) with integrated GPS meet this new standard?
Michael
 
Walt, will the recent batch of FreeFlight Rangr units (that a bunch of us bought last December) with integrated GPS meet this new standard?
Michael

Yes the freeflight units with integrated GPS all meet the 2020 requirement.
 
Yes there is 'guidance'. The transmitter must carry a TSO, or meet the standards of the TSO. Those standards cannot be met by a portable.


Not according to Don @ SkyGuarrd.. early June 2015


" As far as SDA and SIL values, I will address them below:

FAA management is well aware of our Transceivers and has never told us they cannot be used. The head guy in Washington for the FAA who is responsible for ADS-B equipment implementation Is named Don Walker. I speak with him often and he knows the configuration of our units.e also knows we are in process of completing the TSO certification. Per his direction,As long as we set certain bits in the ADS-B transmitted message stating that our units are Not yet certified, we are OK. These bits tell ATC not to rely on our transmitted signal For aircraft separation. These bits are the SDA and SIL bits and we have to set both of these To ‘0’ which is used by ATC to know that the transmitted message comes from an uncertified ADS-B Transmitter. Once we achieve certification, we will change these bits to values that Will indicate the unit is TSO’d."
 
Nice of them to sneak that one in without telling anyone :rolleyes:

"This is all about better ATC density in terminal environments. In other words, primarily Part 121 operations and high end GA operations (biz jets, king airs, etc.) that are the majority users of Class B terminal airpots."

It is the FAA's plan to provide separation using ADS-B. This would be the reason for us having to use "Accepted Equipment". Allowing everyone to use Non-accepted equipment or position source is not a good way to provide separation.
They/we need to trust your reported position.

So we need go from "radar" accurate to ? 1/2 mi or so, to a system that reports position to within a wingspan with higher reliability than almost any other component on the whole airplane? We need position sensing accurate and reliable enough to guide airliners on IFR approaches to parallel runways at Class B airports just to be able to operate a day VFR airplane 25 miles away from that airport?

I strongly suspect the current requirement for TSO'ed GPS wasn't driven by what's truly necessary for the system to work. Rather, I suspect some desk drivers at the FAA said "hey, all the airplanes are going to have IFR GPS in a few years anyway, and that performance level is plenty good enough for IFR separation... problem solved!"

It probably never occurred to them, even for the briefest moment, that not every airplane operates under positive ATC control, that not every airplane is supported by a King Air class maintenance budget, that not all traffic is IFR. The operational environment of light VFR airplanes, as compared to IFR operations with business aircraft and airlines, is likely so far beyond their span of knowledge and experience that they never considered it.

Of course, once the plan went public the GA community realized what was up. And in typical government bureaucratic fashion, when the FAA got called on it, their response was to double down and threaten the user--"we already told you what the deadline is, so you'd darn well better equip by then, or else! And be thankful we haven't gone further!"
 
The notion that most people in GA (people like us) are not on King Air budgets and that there should be adjustments to the requirements that allow for a lower cost position source is something that EAA has been in conversation with the FAA for some time now. And continues such.

Nothing to report other than we here are not alone in feeling that there should/could be a lower cost option for the lower/slower (non flight levels) flyers. Will significant progress be made? I have no idea at this moment.

James
(EAA Board Director)
 
I strongly suspect the current requirement for TSO'ed GPS wasn't driven by what's truly necessary for the system to work. Rather, I suspect some desk drivers at the FAA said "hey, all the airplanes are going to have IFR GPS in a few years anyway, and that performance level is plenty good enough for IFR separation... problem solved!"

I suspect it was/is industry driving this as well. Garmin bought Apollo for their early ADS-B work, and has been a driving force in ADS-B since. Coincidentally, Garmin makes GPS WAAS navigators that can be used as a position source and would be happy to sell you one...
 
We need position sensing accurate and reliable enough to guide airliners on IFR approaches to parallel runways at Class B airports just to be able to operate a day VFR airplane 25 miles away from that airport?

It probably never occurred to them, even for the briefest moment, that not every airplane operates under positive ATC control, that not every airplane is supported by a King Air class maintenance budget, that not all traffic is IFR. The operational environment of light VFR airplanes, as compared to IFR operations ...

Actually it did occur to them. With few exceptions, if you are not required to use a Mode C transponder in the airspace you occupy today, you're not required to operate with ADS-B out in that airspace in 2020.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title14-vol2-sec91-225.pdf
 
If you were not planning to install "ADS-B OUT" at this time, as I see it, you will STILL be able to get the same services and thus you might want to reconsider (and keep) your Pathfinder + Nexus.

The way I read it is that the FAA is simply saying
"OK folks, I know you have been using various handheld (and other) GPSes as position sources to "wake up" the system and have you look semi "legit" and thereby get full weather and traffic all the time. That is going to end as we get closer and we need to just work the system with the "approved" types of position sources. You will continue to get weather as promised on your ADS-B IN system but you will not get traffic unless a *nearby* "legit position source equipped" client wakes up the system".

So, in reality, it is like Brantel (I believe) said ... the "free lunch" (use of something like a 396 as position source) is coming to an end.

TO put things into perspective though, if you are in a HIGH DENSITY trsffice area, there is PROBABLY someone around with a "legit" position source that will hae the system "awakened" for you. On the other hand if you are not, that "same altitude, opposite direction" aircraft is not going to show up on your WingX/Foreflight/Garmin Pilot.

By the way, I did a bunch of testing of ADS-B stuff a while back and used 396/496 as postion sources and that was great! But I have since changed to 400W and GTN 650 as position sources and can see their point about the reliability/credibility/validity of the position source data.

Thanks for the insight. I don't fly in really congested airspace and weather is my top priority. I'll reconsider after some more research and clarification.

Don
 
Actually it did occur to them. With few exceptions, if you are not required to use a Mode C transponder in the airspace you occupy today, you're not required to operate with ADS-B out in that airspace in 2020.

That doesn't show that they really put consideration into the decision; it only shows that someone saw a convenient line on the map and an already-existing rule they could adopt. It's the answer to the question "how can we describe the places where airliners and other heavy, fast IFR traffic operate?"

Again, the NASA/FAA concept of a "small airplane" is this:
4-business-jet.jpg


not this:
21.jpg




<tinfoil>One might be forgiven for thinking that requiring TSO level GPS performance for ADS-B Out in light aircraft was a play to drive those pesky little airplanes out of the way of the turbine traffic that really deserves to be using that airspace</tinfoil>
 
<tinfoil>One might be forgiven for thinking that requiring TSO level GPS performance for ADS-B Out in light aircraft was a play to drive those pesky little airplanes out of the way of the turbine traffic that really deserves to be using that airspace</tinfoil>

<tinfoil> Or for thinking that it's preparatory to implementing user fees by miles flown using ADSB as a tracking/billing service </tinfoil>
 
"This is all about better ATC density in terminal environments. In other words, primarily Part 121 operations and high end GA operations (biz jets, king airs, etc.) that are the majority users of Class B terminal airpots."

It is the FAA's plan to provide separation using ADS-B. This would be the reason for us having to use "Accepted Equipment". Allowing everyone to use Non-accepted equipment or position source is not a good way to provide separation.
They/we need to trust your reported position.
Wait, when we fly VFR isn't "See and Avoid" still the reg of airways?

If so, then having even a slightly off position report shouldn't be an issue.

However, if you are going to fly IFR, then you should need a "certified" nav source.

Why is the FAA pushing VFR aircraft to have high dollar position sources installed. Not to mention that aircraft with no electrical systems can fly where we can't. That makes no sense to me at all!
 
Wait, when we fly VFR isn't "See and Avoid" still the reg of airways?

If so, then having even a slightly off position report shouldn't be an issue.

However, if you are going to fly IFR, then you should need a "certified" nav source.

Why is the FAA pushing VFR aircraft to have high dollar position sources installed. Not to mention that aircraft with no electrical systems can fly where we can't. That makes no sense to me at all!

If we're being really pessimistic, maybe VFR itself has an "end date" in the eyes of the FAA...
 
I think rmarting got it exactly right. The desk chair TSO writers were allowed to go overboard. (What if ABC resistor company in China realizes it sent out a bad part? How will we contact that owner? (thus is actually covered in the rules!!)).
How can we automate traffic separation on taxiways, so a giant Airbus won't clip wings with someone on an adjacent taxiway? (that's why you will broadcast your wingspan). Everything they could dream up went into the rules. No cost is too high, especially when someone else is paying it.

BTW, if you want to see the future: there's lots of talk of all the airspace where ADSB is not required. But how many aircraft do you know that do not have a mode C installed? It's just too inconvenient not to have it. Ever file ifr without a transponder? What a hassle. Fly thru a vip TFR area without one? Not allowed. Remember, this is all for the airlines. That's why you still need a transponder with a UAT, and will always need one, even if the FAA discontinues its expensive radar. It's so airliners can see you on TCAS.
I think it's a done deal, almost everyone will need ADSB-out. Best hope is for some relief on the cost.
 
.... That's why you still need a transponder with a UAT, and will always need one, even if the FAA discontinues its expensive radar. It's so airliners can see you on TCAS.
I think it's a done deal, almost everyone will need ADSB-out. Best hope is for some relief on the cost.

What is the FAA going to do about all those J3's, Champ's, T-Craft's, etc. that don't have an electrical system and can't do any kind of XXXX-out? How are they going to keep the drones from hitting one?

Whoever wrote these rules must have moved over from the EPA as they seem really good at writing regulations that simply don't work.
 
Drones?

Wait, when we fly VFR isn't "See and Avoid" still the reg of airways?

If so, then having even a slightly off position report shouldn't be an issue.

However, if you are going to fly IFR, then you should need a "certified" nav source.

Why is the FAA pushing VFR aircraft to have high dollar position sources installed. Not to mention that aircraft with no electrical systems can fly where we can't. That makes no sense to me at all!

I think it's the start of a move to allow unmanned drones, operated out of sight of a controller, in general airspace. Just look at all of the articles coming out in general, not aviation, sources on future drone use.

The drone computers will need precise locations to avoid manned traffic.
How will Amazon deliver your package if you live next to a GA airport? :)
 
What is the FAA going to do about all those J3's, Champ's, T-Craft's, etc. that don't have an electrical system and can't do any kind of XXXX-out? How are they going to keep the drones from hitting one?

Whoever wrote these rules must have moved over from the EPA as they seem really good at writing regulations that simply don't work.

Typical FAA employee: "What's a "J-3", or a "Champ??"
 
Since I work for a living and didn't inherit a trust fund, guess I'll just keep looking out the canopy.

But it's good to know if $10k drops out of the sky, I can use it to buy a piece of equipment to make the $5k I'll spend to meet the mandate (unless I sell the plane first, which I probably will) worth it.
 
Last edited:
Bill,
I see your point and when flying around low in a Champ avoiding pine trees and buzzards See and Avoid works great. However buzzing around @ 12.5k in my 150kts RV close to a Bravo that doesn't help much. I would rather not be leading edge squeeze for a 160 passenger airliner.
I like having a GTN650 that tells them exactly where I am. (until they start charging user fees)
 
Here's another document on this subject..

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs...ce_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webv2.pdf

Here is the summary found on the last page..

The results of these changes will be:
(1) All ADS-B-In systems will see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out and transponders in areas with
FAA radar/WAM coverage (complete & accurate traffic picture)
(2) Compared to the current state, aeronautical protected spectrum will be more efficiently used
(3) FAA will eliminate the current incentive for operators to equip with ADS-B Out systems that are not
compatible with certified ADS-B-In systems



After reading this... I have ADS600-exp (http://www.navworx.com/ADS600EXPDescription.php)
but I'm starting to wonder if it will still work after Jan 2016...for weather and traffic.

Here is the claim being made currently...
The ADS600-EXP meets the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225 (b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B OUT in the NAS with devices that meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c

There is a reference to TSO-C199 on the last page of the pdf I reference above.

Here is another link...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.225

Which has another link in it referring to
This one has a lot of definitions which untangle some of the rather confusing
ie NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.227

I hope this helps. I haven't figure it out yet. :)
 
After reading this... I have ADS600-exp (http://www.navworx.com/ADS600EXPDescription.php)
but I'm starting to wonder if it will still work after Jan 2016...for weather and traffic.

Here is the claim being made currently...
The ADS600-EXP meets the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225 (b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B OUT in the NAS with devices that meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c

There is a reference to TSO-C199 on the last page of the pdf I reference above.
:)

This whole situation is unfortunately very confusing. FAR 91.225 deals with the transmitter part. FAR 91.227 deals with the position source (GPS) part. It would really untangle the confusion if NavWorx would unequivocally state that the box meets the requirements of FAR 91.227 as well as 91.225.
 
Update to the original post, after contacting the FAA about the numbers in the link I posted here was there reply, now the question is how will does this change things, I am still waiting to hear from a few experts on how the numbers below will actually effect the current non certified GPS reporting. Still trying to sort out fact from fiction.

"That statement on the FAA website has been revised to the following:

However, beginning on January 4, 2016, the following additional criteria must be satisfied in order to be considered a TIS-B/ADS-R "client" by the ADS-B ground stations: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."


91.227 numbers : NACp <.05 , NACv <10m/sec, SDA = 2, SIL=3, NIC <.2NM,
 
Last edited:
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs...ce_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webv2.pdf

Here is the summary found on the last page..

The results of these changes will be:
(1) All ADS-B-In systems will see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out and transponders in areas with
FAA radar/WAM coverage (complete & accurate traffic picture)
(2) Compared to the current state, aeronautical protected spectrum will be more efficiently used
(3) FAA will eliminate the current incentive for operators to equip with ADS-B Out systems that are not
compatible with certified ADS-B-In systems

I like how they repeatedly said manufacturers and users will have more than a year to react...let's see Jan 2016...

They also could have removed the TSO requirement to mask traffic with uncertified position sources. Are all UAVs going to have TSO'd boxes on them?

Where was the AOPA on this?
 
And an update to the original post, after contacting the FAA about the numbers in the link I posted here was there reply, now the question is how will does this change things, I am still waiting to hear from a few experts on how the numbers below will actually effect the current non certified GPS reporting. Still trying to sort out fact from fiction.

"That statement on the FAA website has been revised to the following:

However, beginning on January 4, 2016, the following additional criteria must be satisfied in order to be considered a TIS-B/ADS-R "client" by the ADS-B ground stations: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."


91.227 numbers : NACp <.05 , NACv <10m/sec, SDA = 2, SIL=3, NIC <.2NM,
??? If it wasn't so expensive it would be laughable. Apparently the guys writing the rules have no idea what they are or mean?
 
The start?

What is the FAA going to do about all those J3's, Champ's, T-Craft's, etc. that don't have an electrical system and can't do any kind of XXXX-out? How are they going to keep the drones from hitting one?

Whoever wrote these rules must have moved over from the EPA as they seem really good at writing regulations that simply don't work.

Well there is now a fresh Advanced NPRM to make gliders, that have no electrical system, be equipped with transponders....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-16/pdf/2015-14818.pdf

The FAA requests public
comment on removal of the current
transponder exception for gliders. This
action responds to recommendations
from members of Congress and the
National Transportation Safety Board.
The purpose of this action is to gather
information to determine whether the
current glider exception—from
transponder equipment and use
requirements—provides the appropriate
level of safety in the National Airspace
System. The FAA will use the
information gathered from this action to
determine whether additional
transponder equipment and use
requirements are necessary for gliders.


Can you bet those J-3s and Champs you mention won't be far behind?

Got to know where were everyone is for those Amazon delivery drones...:)

It's also interesting to see how the above got kicked off and the time delays involved...

On March 13, 2012, The Honorable
Harry Reid, United States Senate, wrote
to the FAA expressing concerns about
the safety of both gliders and other
aircraft utilizing the same airspace
around RNO. Senator Reid requested the
FAA ‘‘invoke its emergency rulemaking
procedure to remove the glider
exemption’’ from § 91.215. Additionally,
on April 27, 2012, the Honorable Mark
E. Amodei, United States House of
Representatives, wrote to the FAA to
voice similar concerns about the impact
of gliders on the safety of air traffic
operations into and out of RNO.
Congressman Amodei also encouraged
the FAA to expedite the process to
remove the glider exception from
§ 91.215.


Time for you Nevada pilots to get to action....
 
Last edited:
...beginning on January 4, 2016, the following additional criteria must be satisfied in order to be considered a TIS-B/ADS-R "client" by the ADS-B ground stations: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."

91.227 numbers : NACp <.05 , NACv <10m/sec, SDA = 2, SIL=3, NIC <.2NM,

Part of the problem is the translation. This stuff is mind-numbing.

Using NACp as an example: The first part of the quote says NACp>4 which is to say 5 or greater. A NACp of 5 translates to an estimated position uncertainty of .5 nautical miles. Whereas the 91.227 NACp specification is .05 nautical miles.

For NIC, same thing: The first part of the quote says NIC>4 which is 5 or greater equating to less than 1 nautical mile. Whereas the 91.227 spec is .2 nautical miles.

In a nutshell, it would seem that equipment that meets this latest policy change may still work as of January but in the long run won't satisfy the mandate given 91.227.

My conjecture is that the FAA is badly behind the curve managing the implementation and that these (and more likely to come) "policy changes" are ad-hoc attempts by staff to throttle the rate of growth in the system. I'm guessing this policy change is specifically directed at preventing portable transmitters from triggering traffic display.

In plain language, on the one hand while they ain't ready, they have not been willing to discuss delay in the implementation. Collision to follow.

Dan
 
Back
Top