FAA Phone Call -- ADS-B Unit Non-Compliant

[Scrabo]

Originally Posted by GalinHdz

IOW: They can operate with SIL=0 all they want, but we are not going to send them any data with an SIL=0.

I wonder how these folks who sell these portable units have a clear conscience ? their websites make no reference to the that fact that SIL = 0 will not trigger data to them after Jan 2016. So you basically paying approx $1400+ for what will be only a receiver in just over 5 months.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by Scrabo

I wonder how these folks who sell these portable units have a clear conscience ? their websites make no reference to the that fact that SIL = 0 will not trigger data to them after Jan 2016. So you basically paying approx $1400+ for what will be only a receiver in just over 5 months.

Worse, some have stated "approval expected soon" when there was zero chance the FAA would approve it. But that seems to be the way in EAB. Things are hyped before the product is ready, some are sold but not really 100% working as advertised.

[rv6n6r]

Originally Posted by GalinHdz

IOW: They can operate with SIL=0 all they want, but we are not going to send them any data with an SIL=0.

A little curious to me that some FAA folks are saying it's not illegal to operate unapproved ADS-B OUT before 2020, while other FAA people are calling to tell people to turn off their unapproved ADS-B OUT, while at the same time FAA central has announced they're going to shortly stop rebroadcast to non-approved units anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't ADS-B In/Out availability prior to 2020 supposed to incentivize early equipage? Clearly that doesn't apply to rebroadcast, anymore, I guess.

I early-adopted via an "unapproved" NavWorx box, but I can upgrade for not too much so I'm not in bad shape. Nevertheless I'm disappointed that FAA has decided to cr*p all over the early adopters with this early shut-down to non-approved txcvrs. I'm also disappointed at AOPA for not fighting FAA's decision to extend the 2020 mandate. ADS-B is good stuff, but the mandate is just going to be another nail in the coffin of low-cost GA. Sure, you can fly "lots of places" without it, but some of the most active areas of GA are within the 30NM veil of Class B (the greater Seattle area for example), and there will certainly be some folks trying to fly inexpensively who will throw in the towel.

[DanBaier]

The FAA desperately wants people to adopt the system now. Yet, by their somewhat arbitrary "policy changes," they've created a moving target for compliance. So, something as simple as trying to decide 1090 or 978 (let alone which one) seems increasingly complex.

I think as it continues to unfold, people are going to decide to hold on any action for the present as 2020 seems like a long way off and since they (not FAA) have to foot the bill for chasing technology and standards that for all the world look like they're still subject to change.

Old way - you bought a KX-170B in 1980, and it's still going today. You add glideslope and it gets you down to 200 & 1/2. New way - every so often (perhaps even months) you have to update whatever box you have. Oh wait - there'll be a reasonably priced subscription for that (just like for the nav data). There is a huge difference in the duration and cost of the technology curve.

The more I get into the nuts and bolts of ADSB the more I have become convinced that, despite the potential benefits, this has been a hopelessly managed IT project by FAA and that the standards and technology will still be moving around post 2020.

Dan

[AZtailwind]

I was in an ADS-B forum in OSH where the manufacture didn?t know about the 2016 FAA published change to ADS-B mode SIL-0. I was disappointed in that Also talked about the number of airlines that will not meet the 2020 requirement.
I have yet to meet a true expert on this subject.

[dynonsupport]

Brad,
If you are still at Oshkosh, come visit me in the Dynon booth and we can chat about ADS-B.

-Ian
Dynon Avionics

[Scrabo]

Originally Posted by AZtailwind

I was in an ADS-B forum in OSH where the manufacture didn?t know about the 2016 FAA published change to ADS-B mode SIL-0. I was disappointed in that Also talked about the number of airlines that will not meet the 2020 requirement.
I have yet to meet a true expert on this subject.

Which manufacturer ?

[marsolgp]

Anybody try SkyguardTWX.com lately? Is it just my computer or is their server down? I would like to get in on the trade-in credit of my non-compliant unit to the new PRO compliant one.

[RONSIM]

Don, at Skyguard, has been working diligently to see that Skyguard ADS-B transceiver unit customers are supported. Here is the latest FAA information:


Don posted this on his SkyGuard forum 2 days ago. I knew he would come through with a solution.

"All:
As some of you may recently have learned, the FAA has decided to throw a ?curve ball? to all the ADS-B Transceiver manufactures and their customers. There was a recent notification on the FAA WEB site that states the ADS-B TIS-B Traffic Client policy and methodology will be changed sometime in early 2016. We first learned of this about 3 weeks ago when one of our customers sent me the document. Without getting too technical, what the policy change defines is that any ADS-B transmitter that is currently transmitting with SDA and SIL parameters set to zero will no longer be identified as a TIS-B Traffic Client and the ADS-B ground station towers will no longer transmit that aircrafts surrounding traffic targets back up to that aircrafts ADS-B IN receivers. Of course this was a big shock to us as most all of our Transceivers and Transmitters have SDA and SIL parameters set to zero. This is what the FAA directed us to do over 2 years ago when we first started shipping our products. The intent then was for ATC to see these 2 parameters and knowing they were zero, would not use the ADS-B transmissions for aircraft separation in controlled airspace until we could achieve TSO-C154c certification. Upon TSO certification, we would update these parameters to values indicating a TSO certified unit. Now, according to the FAA, they have done a recent analysis and found that approx. 40% of the aircraft containing ADS-B Transmitters are flying with incorrectly installed or incorrectly configured ADS-B units. We believe the FAA enacted this policy change to force pilots to correct their installation/configuration. Unfortunately, SkyGuardTWX has gotten caught up in this new policy. Upon learning of this information, I immediately called my contacts within the FAA Washington office to understand why this was being done. As I suspected, the FAA is cracking down on aircraft with improperly installed/configured ADS-B Transmitters. And they are using the TIS-B traffic service as leverage to force corrections. Of course I had further conversations with the FAA to help develop a plan for our existing customers to continue to receive TIS-B client services while we continue to work on our TSO certification. After much discussion, the FAA is going to allow us to use an ?alternate? GPS position source where we can set the SDA and SIL parameters to numbers greater than zero but NOT as a fully TSO?d position source. This GPS is ?rule compliant? with 5hz position updates and will support both an internal active antenna as well as an externally mounted active antenna. This will allow our units to continue to receive TIS-B traffic client services after the enacted policy change. Unfortunately, this will require most of our customers to send back their units for a GPS swap and firmware update. Even though, we consider this issue as caused by the FAA reneging on their original directions to us, we want to support our customers as much as possible, so we have decided to split the cost of the GPS hardware with our customers. The customer pays half and we pay half of the GPS and associated parts cost, and we perform the upgrade for no labor costs. The cost of the GPS and parts is approx. $100, so our customers would pay $50 plus their return shipping costs. We will pay for the remaining $50 in parts, perform the labor to install it, and the shipping cost to get the updated units back to our customers. We fully intend to pursue the TSO-C154c certification using this ?alternate GPS?. One thing I want to be perfectly clear on is this ?alternate GPS? has not been TSO certified by the FAA and therefore there is some possibility that another GPS swap might be required to meet the overall TSO-C154c certification requirement at a later date. When it comes to the FAA, one can never be sure what will change!
We will soon be contacting our customers in groups and notifying them of this GPS update so they can send in their units. The FAA has ?assured me? this TIS-B policy change will happen no sooner than Jan 1, 2016 and could be later until it is actually implemented. Please remember that we have approx. 300 affected units in the field that could be updated so it will take all our resources to get this done prior to Jan 1, 2016. If any customers do not want to take advantage of this update, then their Transceivers will still operate as ADS-B IN receivers. Thank you for your patience with us and your support of SkyGuardTWX products.

Sincerely,
Don Houtz
SkyGuardTWX"

[N601RX]

Has anyone had their skyguard unit upgraded? I see several people on the Skyguard fourm posted that they are still waiting to be contacted to return their unit. There have been no replys to their post.