What's new
Van's Air Force

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

An Interesting point about EAB and ADSB

Mike H said:
Operating "certified" ADSB equipment in an EAB is where things get tricky. While it is correct to say that that the FAA does not regulate how you install equipment in experimental aircraft, they do, or will regulate how ADSB out equipment is used in "ADSB required airspace" in the future. Currently there is no guidance that I am aware of that outlines a process that would prove the installation of "certified" ADSB equipment in an EAB would meet the system integrity level required of AC 20-165A.
Click to expand...

You say it yourself, and yet you fell into the same trap Mac did...

FAA Advisory Circulars are not regulations!

The regulations are 91.225, 91.227 and the TSOs.

Keep in mind the system integrity level includes testing to ensure antennas are located so they provide 100% signal coverage during all phases of flight to ensure there is no loss of position reporting, position "ghosting" etc. this is why the FAA is requiring an STC for installation on certified aircraft. Once the first article STC has been accomplished and proven that the system installation and system performance integrity is acceptable, then if follow on STC installations are performed correctly as per the STC documentation you will be assured that the installation wil meet the SIL performance requirements.
Click to expand...

I don't think THIS is correct, either. I can't say about why they require STCs on TC'd planes, but isn't that what they always do for TC'd aircraft?

Now, from the (non-regulatory) AC, about SIL:

(3)
Source Integrity Level (SIL). SIL is typically a static (unchanging) value and may be set at the time of installation if a single type of position source is integrated with the ADS-B system. SIL is based solely on the position source?s probability of exceeding the reported integrity value and should be set based on design data from the position source equipment manufacturer. Installations which derive SIL from GNSS position sources compliant with any revision of TSO-C129, TSO-C145, TSO-C146, or TSO-C196 which output Horizontal Protection Level (HPL) or Horizontal Integrity Level (HIL) should set the SIL = 3 because HPL and HIL are based on a probability of 1x10-7 per hour. Do not base NIC or SIL on Horizontal Uncertainty Level (HUL) information. If integrating with a non-compliant GPS, SIL must be set to 0.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

Having read all of the current FAA guidance I don't see how you could be legally operating "certified" ADSB equipment in an EAB while squawking anything other than SIL=0 since the installation is not FAA approved or accepted for use in the NAS.
Click to expand...

Which FAR says this? Which ones says that the installation in an E-AB has to be approved by the FAA or "accepted for use"?

FYI Advisory Circulars are never "mandatory" nor are they "regulation" they are a FAA documents that provides guidance for complying with FAA regulations, same applies to FAA Orders and FAA Policy Letters.
Click to expand...
 
RV7A Flyer said:
And which part of this do you assert they do not meet?[/INDENT]
Click to expand...

Relax, take a few deep breaths and read what I wrote to Brantel. I MISREAD his post - I thought he was asking what manufacturer was claiming compliance with the 2020 mandate, hence my Dynon page quote. I missed the key part in his question of "non-TSOd". I was not implying compliant, non-compliant, right, wrong, yellow, green, or blue.

Now back to deburring aileron skins and being non-emotionally involved with VAF posts;)
 
Peterk said:
Thank you Mike...
You may be able to instal non-Certified ADSB equipment in an EAB and operate that equipment while squawking a SIL=0, but you will not be able to operat this equipment in airspace requiring ADSB out equipment after the "2020" rule takes affect, if it even happens..

That said, why are manufacturers trying to sell us equipment that they apparently know will NOT be legal unless regulation changes are made prior to 2020? More than one avionics manufacturer, retailer, installer is pitching "satisfies the mandate" when apparently it does not. Irresponsible? And not a single manufacturer is willing to participate in this conversation. Of course they still can...
Click to expand...

I think Brantel's question re: your statement still needs to be answered.

WHICH manufacturers are "trying to sell us equipment that they apparently know will NOT be legal"?
 
Part 91 Reg, 91.227 specifies the ADS-B equipment parameters such as NIC, NAC(p), NAC(v), SIL, Latency and Output Power and the allowable value for each that must be met to comply with the 2020 mandate.

Pete is correct in stating that many of the ADS-B out solutions that are currently on the market do not meet these parameters. His question is a valid one.

All installations must meet the applicable TSOs and at least for now, portable ADS-B out solutions are not acceptable to meet the mandate.

Let the buyer beware. Personally, I'll wait until the dust settles and when the vendor can demonstrate compliance with 91.227 and the TSOs.

A very good set of articles, was in the June 2014 issue of Avionics News. Answers many questions. http://www.brightcopy.net/allen/avne/51-6/#/4
 
Last edited:
MartySantic said:
Part 91 Reg, 91.227 specifies the ADS-B equipment parameters such as NIC, NAC(p), NAC(v), SIL, Latency and Output Power and the allowable value for each that must be met to comply with the 2020 mandate.

Pete is correct in stating that many of the ADS-B out solutions that are currently on the market do not meet these parameters. His question is a valid one.

All installations must meet the applicable TSOs and at least for now, portable ADS-B out solutions are not acceptable to meet the mandate.

Let the buyer beware. Personally, I'll wait until the dust settles and when the vendor can demonstrate compliance with 91.227 and the TSOs.

A very good set of articles, was in the June 2014 issue of Avionics News. Answers many questions. http://www.brightcopy.net/allen/avne/51-6/#/4
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I wasn't considering portable ADS-B In or Out boxes, so that part is no doubt true. I did, however, construe his statement as directed at some avionics manufacturers selling *installed* devices:

More than one avionics manufacturer, retailer, installer is pitching "satisfies the mandate" when apparently it does not. Irresponsible?
Click to expand...

I am unaware of any manufacturer (I wouldn't know about the various retailers or installers) who are claiming their *installed* devices satisfy the 2020 requirements knowing they don't. I'd like to know which ones he thinks are doing this.
 
BTW, I didn't know there was such a thing as a "portable ADS-B OUT" device. In, yes. Out? I don't think so...since the data goes out via XPDR, and XPDRs are installed, not portable.

As always, I could be wrong...
 
RV7A Flyer said:
BTW, I didn't know there was such a thing as a "portable ADS-B OUT" device. In, yes. Out? I don't think so...since the data goes out via XPDR, and XPDRs are installed, not portable.

As always, I could be wrong...
Click to expand...

Yes believe it or not there are some out there being sold. As far as I can tell most if not all are UAT based solutions. It is sad but those folks are basically scamming people since those will most likely never be legal.
 
Last edited:
Brantel said:
Yes believe it or not there are some out there being sold. As far as I can tell most if not all are UAT based solutions. It is sad but those folks are basically scamming people since those will never be legal.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Well, caveat emptor to those people buying them without understanding the regulations.
 
And from that article on installing ADS-B equipment:

"Use of portable ADS-B Out systems: 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:" (list of reasons follows)
 
So the Skyguard link was interesting.
They sell a portable ADS-B transceiver that had a TSO until the FAA changed the spec. They re-wrote the software, made a hardware change, and retested. Now they have re-applied for the TSO...
The two units they sell in this category are less than $2k. What is the cost of the accessories to make it work?
Additionally, how do buyers of the now obsoleted versions get updated to the new TSO?
 
Last edited:
I think this is why Dynon required the TSO labeling for the transponder and is also stating that it's GPS are not certified they are WAAS but not certified WAAS.

I am hoping they will come out with a certified GPS antenna which will make their ADS-B compliant. I know it would cost the company some money to certify a new GPS antenna but it would be a lot cheaper than going out and buy a GTN 650 which I am considering to get my plane fully IFR and have a certified GPS. I also gain my second comm. ILS and would be able to do all the GPS approaches as well as enroute nav.
There has to be several thousand SkyViews out there by now.

Jack
 
Maybe they could...

The thing that bolts to the outside of an airplane from Dynon kinda looks like an old antenna, but it is actually the GPS receiver. Given the state of digital electronics these days, I'm not sure how much work that would be to certify as a compliant source.

BobTurner said:
It will take a whole lot more than an antenna to make their gps a compliant adsb source.
Click to expand...
 
comfortcat said:
The thing that bolts to the outside of an airplane from Dynon kinda looks like an old antenna, but it is actually the GPS receiver. Given the state of digital electronics these days, I'm not sure how much work that would be to certify as a compliant source.
Click to expand...

A lot, but then again, they're a clever group and they have 5 years to finish the job :).

I think a LOT of people are hoping Dynon will develop a TSO'd WAAS GPS receiver (puck) that will replace the current GPS and provide a complete ADS-B OUT system without the need to buy another vendor's product ($$$$).

I don't know the specifics of going through the Skyview system with the data, though, vs. directly to their transponder (since SV is not certified, and much of the TSO involves algorithms like RAIM, etc.).
 
NavWorx has an ADS-B compliant WAAS GPS

NavWorx will be selling our ADS600 RECEIVER product soon. It contains a TSO-C154c UAT Receiver, the same unit that is in the ADS600-B(G) Transceiver product.

The ADS600 RECEIVER will have the option to include a TSO-C145c ADS-B COMPLIANT GPS receiver as well. This GPS can provide the Trig transponders (and other 1090ES OUT devices) the necessary GPS data required to meet the 2020 mandate.

Pricing for the ADS600, receiver only, will be $1295.00

Pricing for the ADS600, receiver with compliant GPS, will be 2295.00.

Compared to the stand-alone Accord or FF-1201 devices, this represents a savings of around $1000, plus you get a full TSO ADS-B IN receiver along with it.

Preorders before 1-31-2015 will receive a $200.00 discount. Mention coupon code "VAF".


Bill
 
SHIPCHIEF said:
So the Skyguard link was interesting.
They sell a portable ADS-B transceiver that had a TSO until the FAA changed the spec. They re-wrote the software, made a hardware change, and retested. Now they have re-applied for the TSO...
The two units they sell in this category are less than $2k. What is the cost of the accessories to make it work?
Additionally, how do buyers of the now obsoleted versions get updated to the new TSO?
Click to expand...

From experience, I can tell you that if you receive a TSO on a product, the government can't take it away. More likely they never had a TSO on their portable. If they have/had one, they should be able to direct you to the listing for it on the FAA website.

Bill
 
Welcome to VAF!

Bill, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

Always great to have vendors here, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top