VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #171  
Old 12-20-2016, 09:14 AM
Mich48041 Mich48041 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Riley TWP MI
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
As a fighter pilot, I disagree. I have special eyes.
Alright, you are the perfect pilot to conduct the test that I proposed in post # 165 above. Let us know how many seconds between first sighting of traffic and potential collision. For us older pilots with less than perfect vision, we can expect even less time to react.
__________________
Joe Gores
RV-12 Flying
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:00 AM
CMW CMW is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 167
Default Why an AD?

I don't understand how the FAA can issue an AD on a piece of equipment that is not required to be installed until 2020. AD's are supposed to be issued when something poses a risk to safe flight. ADSB is not a fully operational system yet and therefore no pilot or air traffic controller should be relying on the information provided by ADSB for aircraft separation until 2020. So, it seems to me that until 2020 (or later), ADSB provides nothing more than a secondary source of information to pilots and air traffic controllers. The primary source is still radar and vision so nothing has really changed that affects safety by adding ADSB UATs until they become the primary source of information to ATC and pilots. So, an AD should not be issued on non-compliant equipment...yet. The FAA should be working with all the ADSB equipment manufactures to try and foster a cooperative environment and ensure all new equipment meets the technical requirements to make the system safe and not get bogged down in the bureaucracy.
__________________
Chris
RV-8 Wings
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:12 AM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMW View Post
I don't understand how the FAA can issue an AD on a piece of equipment that is not required to be installed until 2020. AD's are supposed to be issued when something poses a risk to safe flight. ADSB is not a fully operational system yet and therefore no pilot or air traffic controller should be relying on the information provided by ADSB for aircraft separation until 2020. So, it seems to me that until 2020 (or later), ADSB provides nothing more than a secondary source of information to pilots and air traffic controllers. The primary source is still radar and vision so nothing has really changed that affects safety by adding ADSB UATs until they become the primary source of information to ATC and pilots. So, an AD should not be issued on non-compliant equipment...yet. The FAA should be working with all the ADSB equipment manufactures to try and foster a cooperative environment and ensure all new equipment meets the technical requirements to make the system safe and not get bogged down in the bureaucracy.

It has nothing to do with the 2020 mandate. It is reference to the TSO that was issued to NavWorx a couple years ago.
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:26 AM
dtw_rv6 dtw_rv6 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Martinsville, IN
Posts: 454
Default

That means the AD is not applicable to the EXP unit. It is not a TSO'd device.

Of course, that is way too abvious to be useful to the people making the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:38 AM
CMW CMW is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 167
Default

I think the proposed AD has a lot to due with the 2020 mandate. Until 2020, ADSB should not be used as a primary source of information to ensure aircraft separation. Therefore, regardless of the SIL that is transmitted (and the TSO), there should be no impact on flight safety until ADSB replaces radar and becomes the primary means used to ensure separation.

The proposed AD states the reason for the AD as:

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as an ADS-B unit incorrectly broadcasting a Source Integrity Level of 3 instead of 0. This condition could result in the unit communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control and nearby aircraft and a subsequent aircraft collision.

Until 2020, radar is still the primary source of position information for ATC therefore even if the Navworx units are broadcasting unreliable position information it shouldn't affect flight safety since ATC (and pilots) shouldn't be relying on that information yet.
__________________
Chris
RV-8 Wings
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:07 PM
GalinHdz's Avatar
GalinHdz GalinHdz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: KSGJ / TJBQ
Posts: 2,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtw_rv6 View Post
That means the AD is not applicable to the EXP unit. It is not a TSO'd device.
Already been covered in post #58 of this thread. If implemented as originally written it also applies to the EXP unit.
__________________
Galin
CP-ASEL-AMEL-IR
FCC Radiotelephone (PG) with Radar Endorsement
2020 Donation made
www.PuertoRicoFlyer.com
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:28 PM
ccrawford ccrawford is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 295
Default

AOPA's response is actually quite informative, direct link here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...2016-9226-0177

I'd quote it here but it's a bit long.
__________________
// corey crawford
// rv-7a (sold)
// denver, co @ KBJC
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:32 PM
rv9av8tr's Avatar
rv9av8tr rv9av8tr is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHunt View Post
As a fighter pilot, I disagree. I have special eyes.
Didn't work on the east coast when that F-16 center punched a C-150.
__________________
Long-EZ built 1985 -> Sold 2007
RV-9A; N539RV First Flight: 7/2010
RV-8A N468DL 40 hr Flight Test Program
Building Log: www.mykitlog.com/n539rv
APRS Tracking: aprs.fi/n539rv
2017 Paid
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:36 PM
rv9av8tr's Avatar
rv9av8tr rv9av8tr is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 827
Default -EXP units

I got an e-mail from Bill yesterday saying he will have an update posted Jan. 2nd on their website concerning the -EXP units.
__________________
Long-EZ built 1985 -> Sold 2007
RV-9A; N539RV First Flight: 7/2010
RV-8A N468DL 40 hr Flight Test Program
Building Log: www.mykitlog.com/n539rv
APRS Tracking: aprs.fi/n539rv
2017 Paid
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:56 PM
GalinHdz's Avatar
GalinHdz GalinHdz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: KSGJ / TJBQ
Posts: 2,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv9av8tr View Post
Didn't work on the east coast when that F-16 center punched a C-150.
BHunt wasn't flying that F-16.
__________________
Galin
CP-ASEL-AMEL-IR
FCC Radiotelephone (PG) with Radar Endorsement
2020 Donation made
www.PuertoRicoFlyer.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.