View Full Version : FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement
Vaughn Simon[_2_]
May 17th 16, 07:47 PM
This is from early March, so it's likely old news to some here, but in a
new policy letter the FAA has eased the requirement for a separate STC
for every model of aircraft. This should have happened years ago!
New FAA Policy: http://tinyurl.com/FAA-ADSB-Policy
News Article:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2016-05-16/new-faa-policy-simplifies-ads-b-installations
"The FAA released a policy memo on March 2 that updates guidance on
installation of ADS-B out systems, essentially allowing avionics shops
to install ADS-B equipment on aircraft not covered by a supplemental
type certificate (STC) without having to obtain a new STC. This new
policy, said Bill Stone, Garmin senior business development manager,
“significantly reduces cost, downtime and uncertainty about how long the
aircraft is going to be down.” The installer does have to obtain
permission from the original STC holder.
Earlier in the ADS-B upgrade process, the FAA was requiring that each
aircraft model have its own STC. “The agency was pretty concerned as new
equipment hit the market to ensure that it worked correctly,” Stone
explained. “The original policy was that it could be installed only via
STC. That would maintain a high level of involvement and ensure that
aircraft entering airspace [where ADS-B is required] are operating as
intended and not bringing the system to its knees.”
The FAA eased the requirements somewhat a few years ago, allowing
approved ADS-B transmitter and GPS position source pairings–once
STC’d–to be field approved in other aircraft models. “This is less of a
cost and time burden than an STC,” he said, “but it does require FAA
involvement, and that could inject FAA time and uncertainty and
additional cost.”
Now the FAA has issued the new policy, and basically if the installation
is a major alteration, it will still need field approval. This may be
the case where a new antenna needs to be installed on a pressurized
airplane, for example. A simple ADS-B out installation in a
non-pressurized airplane will be a minor alteration, and it can be
signed off by an A&P mechanic holding an Inspection Authorization or a
Part 145 repair station. “It doesn’t call for FAA involvement at all,”
Stone said. “Basically we’re talking a radio installation; it’s not
major surgery.”"
(Rest of article at the link)
No its not 'major surgery' but its still Major Expense for little additional safety.
George Haeh
May 17th 16, 11:18 PM
The Brits and Europeans are waaaaay far
ahead of the FAA on this:
http://www.pprune.org/private-
flying/579061-ads-b-live-experience-ads-
b-fly-near-you.html
"NATS has supported the connection of
»uncertified!« [my emphasis] GPS to Mode
S transponders, to see how good the ADS-
B data is and has concluded together with
the CAA that it is acceptable for use in the
UK. The LAA has now taken over the
approval process and an increasing
number of aircraft are becoming
equipped. This equipment is interoperable
with “classical” ADS-B."
Mike Schumann[_2_]
May 18th 16, 08:34 AM
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 3:02:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> No its not 'major surgery' but its still Major Expense for little additional safety.
I beg to differ. I have a full ADS-B IN/OUT setup in my new Phoenix Motorglider. It is amazing how many aircraft are within two miles of my position that I never see. Even when I know exactly where another aircraft is located, it is many times very difficult to see visually.
A couple of weeks ago, I was flying in SC and got a traffic alarm that another aircraft was coming up straight behind me at my exact altitude, less than a mile away. I made a 90 degree turn and let him pass. I suspect he never saw me.
ADS-B should be on everyone's wish list.
I agree Mike, 'wish list' but I fight against federal obligatory mandates. I will have one this next year but its my choice to install. If this keeps up Pretty soon your gonna have to file a flight plan to do a 100k triangle.
Dan Marotta
May 18th 16, 04:31 PM
It's on my wish list. I saw a Maule at 13,500' the other day. Didn't
know they could fly that high...
On 5/18/2016 1:34 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 3:02:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> No its not 'major surgery' but its still Major Expense for little additional safety.
> I beg to differ. I have a full ADS-B IN/OUT setup in my new Phoenix Motorglider. It is amazing how many aircraft are within two miles of my position that I never see. Even when I know exactly where another aircraft is located, it is many times very difficult to see visually.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I was flying in SC and got a traffic alarm that another aircraft was coming up straight behind me at my exact altitude, less than a mile away. I made a 90 degree turn and let him pass. I suspect he never saw me.
>
> ADS-B should be on everyone's wish list.
--
Dan, 5J
"The installer does have to obtain permission from the original STC holder."
Does anyone else see that as a possible problem? Obtaining the original STC costs money so I wouldn't be surprised if the holder might be reticent about letting people use it for free. As I understand it you need an STC for installing the unit in the aircraft and another STC to connect the ADS-B unit to the selected GPS source.
The ADS-B in function of the PowerFlarm has already paid for itself in my glider though and I fly in Canada where ADS-B isn't even on track to become mandatory.
Darryl Ramm
May 19th 16, 11:19 AM
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> "The installer does have to obtain permission from the original STC holder."
>
> Does anyone else see that as a possible problem?
Unlikely, the FAA document provided is very clear.
>Obtaining the original STC costs money so I wouldn't be surprised if the holder might be reticent about letting people use it for free.
Not likely an issue. In practice most of these ADS-B AML STCs were funded by the ADS-B manufactures and available free of charge for many GA type installs. Those vendors care about selling ADS-B hardware to a broader market not STC paperwork.
In practice an install shop would either use an STC or setup parameters published by the ADS-B hardware vendor for a ADS-B/GPS pairing. And vendors can now provide setup instructions that don't require AML STC paperwork.
> As I understand it you need an STC for installing the unit in the aircraft and another STC to connect the ADS-B unit to the selected GPS source.
No. Any single ADS-B installation STC has always covered all that. The very core of any ADS-B AML STC is that it is the installation of ADS-B hardware with a paired specific GPS source.
> The ADS-B in function of the PowerFlarm has already paid for itself in my glider though and I fly in Canada where ADS-B isn't even on track to become mandatory.
Not sure why you are worried about FAA approval issues then.
Darryl Ramm
May 19th 16, 11:40 AM
The bottom line is for GA this is a nice improvement--especially for folks with certified aircraft not listed on an existing ADS-B AML STC. And overall it should help lower price installs though reduced paperwork/337 approvals. For certified gliders it is a small positive step, but maybe irrelevant to most glider owners, as it does not address TSO-C199/TABS devices. Nothing here affects experimental gliders.
Most glider owners are more likely to want to know about what is happening with transponder and ADS-B exemption status affecting gliders and possible use of TSO-C199/TABS devices as alternatives to full transponders and ADS-B Out devices. The ADS-B Out issue remains the cost of TSO-C145c (or similar) GPS sources. And again, you just cannot install any GPS and ADS-B out combination, even if the GPS is suitably TSO approved. You have to start with the ADS-B vendor and find out what GPS combinations they approve and can provide install/setup data for.
This change does hopefully imply the FAA would be willing to treat a TSO-C199/TABS system installation as a minor modification. But it is all idle speculation until some, any, regulations exist.....
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:19:44 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > "The installer does have to obtain permission from the original STC holder."
> >
> > Does anyone else see that as a possible problem?
>
> Unlikely, the FAA document provided is very clear.
>
> >Obtaining the original STC costs money so I wouldn't be surprised if the holder might be reticent about letting people use it for free.
>
> Not likely an issue. In practice most of these ADS-B AML STCs were funded by the ADS-B manufactures and available free of charge for many GA type installs. Those vendors care about selling ADS-B hardware to a broader market not STC paperwork.
>
> In practice an install shop would either use an STC or setup parameters published by the ADS-B hardware vendor for a ADS-B/GPS pairing. And vendors can now provide setup instructions that don't require AML STC paperwork.
>
> > As I understand it you need an STC for installing the unit in the aircraft and another STC to connect the ADS-B unit to the selected GPS source.
>
> No. Any single ADS-B installation STC has always covered all that. The very core of any ADS-B AML STC is that it is the installation of ADS-B hardware with a paired specific GPS source.
>
> > The ADS-B in function of the PowerFlarm has already paid for itself in my glider though and I fly in Canada where ADS-B isn't even on track to become mandatory.
>
> Not sure why you are worried about FAA approval issues then.
Ramy[_2_]
May 19th 16, 09:56 PM
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:28:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I agree Mike, 'wish list' but I fight against federal obligatory mandates. I will have one this next year but its my choice to install. If this keeps up Pretty soon your gonna have to file a flight plan to do a 100k triangle.
I totally agree with you that it is still expensive and I think a more economic solution is needed, but why do you believe it is your choice to install a device which was designed to prevent you from colliding with others?
Ramy
Hi Ramy, I am not against new technology, I will have one in my bird by next year, but I am against the incrementalistic encroachment of flight freedom that is occurring. As for the usefullness of these systems, yes they are helpfull, but there is a falacy regarding crowded airspace that is being fostered. If I flew around minden or dallas or any other major hub, sure the sytem is good. If one looks at the very vast majority of glider midairs, they involve gaggles and not commercial traffic.
However I see more and more pilots of all classes of aircraft becoming lulled into false senses of security in dependance on these systems to the detriment of good airmanship, ie continual scanning, keeping ones eyes out of the cockpit. Yes some have given examples of the usefullness of these systems in identifying someone coming up on them frim behind, the blind quarter. I do not trust me behind to traffic alert systems unless no other choice exists (when I am flying IFR).
Ramy, let me couch my comments in a larger context.
This ideology that everyone needs to install the latest and greatest in 'safety' devices can be compared to concepts like; everyone should fly higher performance ship cause landing out is bad for the sport, you might **** off some farmer or get the county sheriff stirred up thinking theres been an airplane crash. Or another; 'dont ever thermal below 1000ft agl cause your risking spinning it in'. Or; 'why stretch a glide late in the day risking landing away from an airport'. I could go on with many more 'chicken little' examples.
Note this, a vast majority of those who hold these kind of views are the very folks that think a busy year of flying is 50 hours. These are the folks that fly birds all over 35/1 and never venture away from home beyond gliding distance or only go out on a booming day when even a tin can could make 100 miles. These are the very folks who are so distracted trying to sort out their electronics in the cockpit that they dont look outside to see whats going on around them.These are the very folks I try to stay way away from when in the air.
A slow year for me is 500 hours of high performance taildragger time flying 15 ft above the ground carrying ridiculously high wing loadings with 3000 lbs of product in the hopper. A slow year is 200 hours in my sailplane dang near all xc with dozens of outlandings. I regularly thermal below 1000ft, I regularly land out, I regularly stretch my glides for max distance at the end of a day. I have owned and flow high performance sailplanes but I prefer to fly a little spam can which barely makes 23/1 . This in many peoples minds is ridiculous. But to me it is a challenge, and an expression of flying freedom. I chaff when that freedom is curtailed by more and more regulations and burdomsome gadgets under the umbrella of 'safety'. These ney sayers who hardly ever do squat in their high dollar birds but want to dictate the future of our sport do not, in my opinion represent what we are all about.
Thanks Ramy, a good discussion here. I am periferally talking about the FAA's penchant for adopting the 'small sky' theory, where restriction, regulation, and requirments are used under the auspices of 'its crowded and we beed safety' to virtually eliminate private flight activities for those of noderate means.
Derrick Piggot wrote a great chapter in one of his books regarding this very struggle he and the gliding clubs were having in the UK. They were and have been loosing available soaring airspace due to this very "we need to make airspace safe" strategy by government burocrates.
Dan Marotta
May 20th 16, 04:10 PM
Agreed.
I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme. And though I
have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the 1090ES options seem
quite expensive. I'm starting to lean towards 978UAS as my solution
since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or anywhere near Class B
airspace. Still much digging to do and even after finding what works
for me, I'll still keep my head on a swivel (as I learned in the AF).
Dan
On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:
> Thanks Dan :)
> I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
> But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.
>
> Ramy
--
Dan, 5J
Darryl Ramm
May 20th 16, 05:44 PM
I'm not sure why you deciding to have UAT Out has anything to do with flying near Class B airspace. (the big technology thing there is just having a transponder at all for TCAS compatibility, so you are set).
But choice of ADS-B Out link does have everything to do with flying in areas with other gliders and painting on their PowerFLARM. You don't want to be visible to PowerFLARM 1090ES In?
If you already have a Trig TT-22 I expect you will find more affordable GPS options in future, or if TABS regulations happen then I hope TABS options using the TT-22. A transponder and separate UAT system and maybe separate GPS you have more avionics to power.
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme.* And
> though I have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the
> 1090ES options seem quite expensive.* I'm starting to lean towards
> 978UAS as my solution since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or
> anywhere near Class B airspace.* Still much digging to do and even
> after finding what works for me, I'll still keep my head on a
> swivel (as I learned in the AF).
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Dan :)
> I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
> But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.
>
> Ramy
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J
Dan Marotta
May 20th 16, 05:49 PM
Just goes to show that there's too much to know unless you're employed
in the industry as you appear to be.
Since I don't often fly with other gliders, I don't much care about
PowerFlarm. I want to see and be seen by airlines and GA aircraft. I
imagine that, if the PF equipped aircraft also have a transponder, I'll
see them too, with ADS-B In. Am I wrong?
On 5/20/2016 10:44 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> I'm not sure why you deciding to have UAT Out has anything to do with flying near Class B airspace. (the big technology thing there is just having a transponder at all for TCAS compatibility, so you are set).
>
> But choice of ADS-B Out link does have everything to do with flying in areas with other gliders and painting on their PowerFLARM. You don't want to be visible to PowerFLARM 1090ES In?
>
> If you already have a Trig TT-22 I expect you will find more affordable GPS options in future, or if TABS regulations happen then I hope TABS options using the TT-22. A transponder and separate UAT system and maybe separate GPS you have more avionics to power.
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Agreed.
>>
>> I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme. And
>> though I have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the
>> 1090ES options seem quite expensive. I'm starting to lean towards
>> 978UAS as my solution since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or
>> anywhere near Class B airspace. Still much digging to do and even
>> after finding what works for me, I'll still keep my head on a
>> swivel (as I learned in the AF).
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Dan :)
>> I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
>> But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan, 5J
--
Dan, 5J
Darryl Ramm
May 20th 16, 06:25 PM
What ADS-B Out and In system are you talking about? Flying where. If you are looking at a GA style ADS-B In system I would certainly be looking at a dual-link receiver for lots of reasons.
Lots of this has been discussed on r.a.s. in the past
ADS-B In does not just "see" transponders. But if you and the transponder equipped aircraft are within suitable SSR / TIS-B ground based station coverage and you have properly configured ADS-B Out and ADS-B In then your ADS-B In system should see that transponder equipped target via the ground based TIS-B service. For many glider traffic scenarios, e.g. flying in mountains, running ridges, flying out of remote gliderports/airports, TIS-B may not be nearly effective as being able to receive direct position information from another aircraft (via ADS-B direct or FLARM). And the moment you actually do get close to another glider like in a thermal, any ADS-B traffic system (besides PowerFLARM) is going to be uselessly annoying. Yes I know that scenario does not interest you.
TIS-B only provides coverage in a hockey puck around your ADS-B out equipped aircraft, it's not going to be as useful as ADS-B direct reception between gliders for say buddy flying/tracking. That may not interest you either, I know that both interest some folks and horrifies some contest traditionalists.
PowerFLARM users will get non-directional PCAS alerts from your presence as long as your transponder is being interrogated by SSR or TCAS/TCAD. That may happen even though you are not getting any warning of them when outside TIS-B coverage. If you have 1090ES Out you
If (big if) the USA gliding community, with some err help from the FAA, ends up adopting TABS technology in future, that is all 1090ES Out based technology. All directly compatible with 1090ES In capability in PowerFLARM. And may be a path to give you a lower cost 1090ES out option in your Stemme (hopefully leveraging your currently installed TT-22).
An investing exercise is to look at the local airports you fly out of, find out what the ADS-B ground station coverage (including down to pattern altitude) is like, and ask around about what ADS-B Out and In systems aircraft owners there are equipping with and try to answer questions like what collision avoidance help different ADS-B Out and ADS-B In technology will provide you. I have no idea what that would show for you, but it's one of the questions I'd be asking.
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Just goes to show that there's too much to know unless you're
> employed in the industry as you appear to be.
>
> Since I don't often fly with other gliders, I don't much care
> about PowerFlarm.* I want to see and be seen by airlines and GA
> aircraft.* I imagine that, if the PF equipped aircraft also have a
> transponder, I'll see them too, with ADS-B In.* Am I wrong?
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/20/2016 10:44 AM, Darryl Ramm
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why you deciding to have UAT Out has anything to do with flying near Class B airspace. (the big technology thing there is just having a transponder at all for TCAS compatibility, so you are set).
>
> But choice of ADS-B Out link does have everything to do with flying in areas with other gliders and painting on their PowerFLARM. You don't want to be visible to PowerFLARM 1090ES In?
>
> If you already have a Trig TT-22 I expect you will find more affordable GPS options in future, or if TABS regulations happen then I hope TABS options using the TT-22. A transponder and separate UAT system and maybe separate GPS you have more avionics to power.
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm currently researching ADS-B Out options for my Stemme.* And
> though I have a Trig TT22 transponder already installed, the
> 1090ES options seem quite expensive.* I'm starting to lean towards
> 978UAS as my solution since I don't intend to fly above FL180 or
> anywhere near Class B airspace.* Still much digging to do and even
> after finding what works for me, I'll still keep my head on a
> swivel (as I learned in the AF).
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/19/2016 9:57 PM, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Dan :)
> I also agree with most of it, which basically says we should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree with this part.
> But after thousands of cross country hours I concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling, formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is effordable.
>
> Ramy
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:00:44 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Ramy, let me couch my comments in a larger context.
>
> This ideology that everyone needs to install the latest and greatest in 'safety' devices can be compared to concepts like; everyone should fly higher performance ship cause landing out is bad for the sport, you might **** off some farmer or get the county sheriff stirred up thinking theres been an airplane crash. Or another; 'dont ever thermal below 1000ft agl cause your risking spinning it in'. Or; 'why stretch a glide late in the day risking landing away from an airport'. I could go on with many more 'chicken little' examples.
> Note this, a vast majority of those who hold these kind of views are the very folks that think a busy year of flying is 50 hours. These are the folks that fly birds all over 35/1 and never venture away from home beyond gliding distance or only go out on a booming day when even a tin can could make 100 miles. These are the very folks who are so distracted trying to sort out their electronics in the cockpit that they dont look outside to see whats going on around them.These are the very folks I try to stay way away from when in the air.
>
> A slow year for me is 500 hours of high performance taildragger time flying 15 ft above the ground carrying ridiculously high wing loadings with 3000 lbs of product in the hopper. A slow year is 200 hours in my sailplane dang near all xc with dozens of outlandings. I regularly thermal below 1000ft, I regularly land out, I regularly stretch my glides for max distance at the end of a day. I have owned and flow high performance sailplanes but I prefer to fly a little spam can which barely makes 23/1 . This in many peoples minds is ridiculous. But to me it is a challenge, and an expression of flying freedom. I chaff when that freedom is curtailed by more and more regulations and burdomsome gadgets under the umbrella of 'safety'. These ney sayers who hardly ever do squat in their high dollar birds but want to dictate the future of our sport do not, in my opinion represent what we are all about.
>
> A few disclaimers, I am a cfi-g, I teach extreemly concervative airmanship and advocate it for all starting in the sport or those who dont have the aptitude to progress. I am a spray pilot and fly very concervatively in a 400,000 dollar machine. Be advised, concervative flying doesnot equate to not flying low or with high dollar systems, it equates to proper airmanship.
> Now that ought to stir the pot a little.
Ag,
You are making a ridiculous straw man argument. To connect the dots between the cash investment of a pilot and his attitude makes you look silly. If you want to "Stir the pot", quit trolling and lets discus the merits of this FAA interpretation.
Km the only one really stirring the pot is you. We have been having a civil, non name calling discussion here as evidenced in my and dan marotta's and others posts. That is, untill you piped in.
My argument is not straw man, I was, and am, attempting to address the bigger picture involved here, it is the elephant in the room that many including yourself dont want to recognize, namely FAA over reach and diminishing airmanship skills.
I know fully well the dynamics and intricancies of the ADSB systems having an electrical engineering son who is intimately involved in their development. Discussions along the tecnical lines is good and fine, but when all is said and done, we end up just having to pull out the cash and install the systems that the Feds mandate. You can accept the little placating crums like this one (the original point of this thread) the FAA sends your way, myself along with the EAA and others will continually fight to limit federal mandates on our flying freedoms. You can thank me later.
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:03:41 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> Km the only one really stirring the pot is you. We have been having a civil, non name calling discussion here as evidenced in my and dan marotta's and others posts. That is, untill you piped in.
>
> My argument is not straw man, I was, and am, attempting to address the bigger picture involved here, it is the elephant in the room that many including yourself dont want to recognize, namely FAA over reach and diminishing airmanship skills.
>
> I know fully well the dynamics and intricancies of the ADSB systems having an electrical engineering son who is intimately involved in their development. Discussions along the tecnical lines is good and fine, but when all is said and done, we end up just having to pull out the cash and install the systems that the Feds mandate. You can accept the little placating crums like this one (the original point of this thread) the FAA sends your way, myself along with the EAA and others will continually fight to limit federal mandates on our flying freedoms. You can thank me later.
Ag,
Must we squabble in front of the children? Here is what invariably happens on the board, Someone brings up a technical question or aspect of ADS-B or PF and someone like you brings up Government Overreach, Diminishing Skills, And Blah Blah Blah. Pretty soon the thread is hijacked and we are not talking about Collision Avoidance anymore. In a totally knucklehead move you even brought land outs into the discussion.
The reality is that the Feds are making our ATC system (Which dates to the 1950s) much better and dramatically cheaper with the help of modern technology. This is just like WAAS if you need another example. Have your gifted son explain this to you. Another reality is that the FAA does not require Transponders. That said, If I am sharing airspace with corporate jets and airliners I am going to use the same equipment they do (For separation). You have to explain to me how this represents a lack of skill.
Lastly, EAA, which is not involved in soaring, recognizes the benefits of ADS-B.
Anyone know the score of the Pittsburgh Penguins versus Wolverhapton Wanderers game?
Jim
Darryl Ramm
May 25th 16, 05:58 PM
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> Anyone know the score of the Pittsburgh Penguins versus Wolverhapton Wanderers game?
> Jim
Thank you Jim :-)
Ditto Jim, I appreciate the change of tone. Blackhawk fan myself lol
As for Km, I apologise if my posts broaden the topic of this thread beyond tecno-babble. The vast majority of folks who regularly contribute to RAS are interested and able to think abstractly about general topics, this one included. As for EAA, you need to do your homework there. They obviously recognise the benefits of these anti collision systems as do I, but they are also highly aware and intimately involved in the very matters I have been posting about, namely FAA over reach and fed mandates. As to EAA and soaring, once again you are out of date as the SSA and EAA are working together over this very tooic as well as others involving the FAA.
Once again I am sorry if you think I am hijacking the thread, that is not my intention, I'm just broadening its scope. As to your lack of understanding or concern over the FAA and its way of operating, I am sorry. I hope you can take a step back from the retoric of this thread and just contemplate if you would enjoy an airspace system as exists in europe or if you would like to maintain and protect the relatively free system we have here in the US. If Adsb and other systems help to guarentee our flying freedoms, I am all for it, however if it is ultimately a tool FAA can use under the appearance of "safety" to restrict my flight freedoms, I will fight against it.
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 1:41:42 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> As for Km,
Ag,
I didn't realize there are so many Minor League Hockey fans on RAS but, Isn't the season over? We are on the same page but I just didn't like the "Chicken Little" examples you use. Granted, We all know pilots with the latest factory examples who never venture far from home. In my area one of these doesn't even know how to use the computer but this person is an excellent pilot and wouldn't use the info anyways. I also know pilots who boat around the valley in minimally equipped vintage ships. The great thing about soaring is that there is something for everyone.
I have a logbook full of 1-26 time but I reached a point where I wanted to take the sport to the next level. Where I once boated around the Coastal Mountains never getting above 8-9K, I now fly strong desert conditions up to 17.5K. It is a sad fact that with urban sprawl many of the places we fly are getting busier with airline traffic. My local international has added about 150 flights a day since I moved here so yes, The sky is in fact shrinking! After a couple of exhilarating close calls I decided to install first a PF and then a Mode S TX, Both without the benefit of government intervention. Granted, Installing a TX in the 1-26 I was flying would have been superfluous but for the type of flying I do now the Transponder (Along with the PF) is an absolute necessity.
Most everything I have read from EAA concerns their work WITH the FAA to find affordable ADS-B compliance options. The benefits of airspace modernization are substantial and not just "Appearance of safety" (Ask your boy about this if you don't believe me). The "Scope" you are "Broadening" is mostly un based hyperbole.
Thanks for pointing out your $400,000 qualifications. I am a CFIG as well and fly a 125 Million dollar jet (But yea, I always wanted to dust crops and fly a foot off the ground at full power and under the power lines and stuff).
Km thanks for the reply. I am glad to hear you are working within the industry. So many folks have opinions but are not exposed to these issues on a daily basis as you and I are.
I hope you realize my comments regarding the 'weekend warrior' not doing much type flyer are slightly tongue in cheek to exemplify a point. As for the 'smalll sky vs big sky" argument, I have seen some validity to some areas becoming more congested as it relates to soaring, example the minden reno area. When I started flying there in the mid to late 70's, we didnt worry that much regarding traffic. We were more concerned with finding someone to tow. This was before Soar Minden and High Country Soaring. Now its a different picture. But for a whole lot of the country, things have not changed much. traffic wise.
Working within your branch of the industry (commercial flying) has influenced and shaped your views on this topic, as I working within mostly rural but also adjacent to airforce traffic has shaped mine. We must both acknowledge this. As to the EAA, they do see what is coming down the pike from the FAA and are accepting the feds desire while still fighting for the recreational flyer.
I am a 1-26 driver so I do take exception to your belief that flying higher performance ships is a "progression" to bigger and better soaring. As you say, there is room in the sport for all kind of facets. For me, after having flown 40/1 stuff I feel it is more of a challenge and sign of exceptional airmanship to sucessfully complete a 300k flight in a 1-26 or other low performance bird than it is to cruise around that same course in a modern ship. As to equipment, if you saw the panel in my little bird you would see everything as modern as is available including flight computer, two flight recorders (redundancy for record attempts) etc. a mode C is going in next, so I am surely not anti-tech. I just dont want to see us continually squeezed into requirments that may or may not be necessary.
Km thanks for the reply. I am glad to hear you are working within the industry. So many folks have opinions but are not exposed to these issues on a daily basis as you and I are.
I hope you realize my comments regarding the 'weekend warrior' not doing much type flyer are slightly tongue in cheek to exemplify a point. As for the 'smalll sky vs big sky" argument, I have seen some validity to some areas becoming more congested as it relates to soaring, example the minden reno area. When I started flying there in the mid to late 70's, we didnt worry that much regarding traffic. We were more concerned with finding someone to tow. This was before Soar Minden and High Country Soaring. Now its a different picture. But for a whole lot of the country, things have not changed much. traffic wise.
Working within your branch of the industry (commercial flying) has influenced and shaped your views on this topic, as I working within mostly rural but also adjacent to airforce traffic has shaped mine. We must both acknowledge this. As to the EAA, they do see what is coming down the pike from the FAA and are accepting the feds desire while still fighting for the recreational flyer.
I am a 1-26 driver so I do take exception to your belief that flying higher performance ships is a "progression" to bigger and better soaring. As you say, there is room in the sport for all kind of facets. For me, after having flown 40/1 stuff I feel it is more of a challenge and sign of exceptional airmanship to sucessfully complete a 300k flight in a 1-26 or other low performance bird than it is to cruise around that same course in a modern ship. As to equipment, if you saw the panel in my little bird you would see everything as modern as is available including flight computer, two flight recorders (redundancy for record attempts) etc. a mode C is going in next, so I am surely not anti-tech. I just dont want to see us continually squeezed into requirments that may or may not be necessary.
As to agricultural aviation, it is not the barbstormer type flying folks generally think it to be. The modern duster is a pretty complex piece of 850hp or greater turbine powered machinery and flying it effeciently requires a bunch more than bravado and stick n rudder skills. We rarely work under wires anymore but are more concerned with accurate application rates, monitoring flow controllers, and flying a gps controlled light bar within 2ft accuracy. After a season or two of modern spraying, making a below mins ILS aproach is childs play. While it has become highly tecnical, the flying is still pretty fun, and keeps one sharp at making the correct decision fast.
Correction fat fingers Mode S
And as to your flying the 100 million dollar jet , I won't hold that against you LOL, I will just ask you how many hours have you actually "flown" the bird with your hands on the controls as oppossed to letting the magic boxes do the work, and how many T/O and landings you have made in your career? I stopped counting myself at 15,000 landings and that was two years ago LOL
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:19:44 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > "The installer does have to obtain permission from the original STC holder."
> >
> > Does anyone else see that as a possible problem?
>
> Unlikely, the FAA document provided is very clear.
>
> >Obtaining the original STC costs money so I wouldn't be surprised if the holder might be reticent about letting people use it for free.
>
> Not likely an issue. In practice most of these ADS-B AML STCs were funded by the ADS-B manufactures and available free of charge for many GA type installs. Those vendors care about selling ADS-B hardware to a broader market not STC paperwork.
>
> In practice an install shop would either use an STC or setup parameters published by the ADS-B hardware vendor for a ADS-B/GPS pairing. And vendors can now provide setup instructions that don't require AML STC paperwork.
>
> > As I understand it you need an STC for installing the unit in the aircraft and another STC to connect the ADS-B unit to the selected GPS source.
>
> No. Any single ADS-B installation STC has always covered all that. The very core of any ADS-B AML STC is that it is the installation of ADS-B hardware with a paired specific GPS source.
>
> > The ADS-B in function of the PowerFlarm has already paid for itself in my glider though and I fly in Canada where ADS-B isn't even on track to become mandatory.
>
> Not sure why you are worried about FAA approval issues then.
Thanks for the reply. So the cost of the STC work is "baked in" to the price of the equipment and freely available - good to know and it really should have occurred to me but I was incorrectly thinking along the lines of things like autogas STC's where you can't make use of the info for free.
I'm not personally worried about FAA approval because I won't be flying in the U.S. this year but I have flown there before, intend to in the future and have several flying friends who are trying to keep up with what's happening with the ADS-B mandate because they either fly Canadian registered gliders in the U.S. or live in the U.S. and fly U.S. registered gliders. One of my friends who flies in the U.S. a lot made the effort to install the higher powered Trig transponder just so the glider could meet the ADS-B mandate when it comes up. Presumably even with a Canadian registered glider if she was going to fly in the areas which will require ADS-B the ship would need that plus the appropriate GPS as I believe that the GPS output from the FLARM wouldn't meet the standards?
The last part of my post was really just to point out that although I'm currently flying in an area where ADS-B has relatively limited utility I still have found it to be worth having even if it's just the ADS-B in capability of the FLARM unit.
Darryl Ramm
May 29th 16, 12:39 AM
PowerFLARM GPS will not ever meet the 2020 ADS-B Out requirement in the USA.. It also is unlikely to ever meet TSO-C199/TABS Class B (i.e. the GPS part of TABS) requirements either, should TABS be adopted.
With current exemptions at least most gliders will not have any regulatory need to equip with ADS-B out. A Trig TT-22 is a very good choice for people purchasing a transponder today, including for future possible use for 1090ES Out. But as already mentioned in this thread, an approved (e.g. TSO-C145c and specifically documented by the transponder vendor to work with their transponder) GPS source is the big issue. What ADS-B out configurations an experimental vs. certified glider owner can install and what different levels of installation will/will not enable for example with ground base ADS-B services (none of which are actually receivable by PowerFLARM) has been flogged to death on r.a.s., and that information easily searchable.
Techcnial folk who want to play at the bleeding edge and are willing to pay now to be there likely understand this stuff already. For most glider owners it's unlikely to be worth worrying about now (from a pure technology viewpoint focus on getting a transponder and/or PowerFLARM depending on your risk profile). The real question for the broader glider community is what is happening with transponder and ADS-B out glider exemptions and TABS regulations.
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:23:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:19:44 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > "The installer does have to obtain permission from the original STC holder."
> > >
> > > Does anyone else see that as a possible problem?
> >
> > Unlikely, the FAA document provided is very clear.
> >
> > >Obtaining the original STC costs money so I wouldn't be surprised if the holder might be reticent about letting people use it for free.
> >
> > Not likely an issue. In practice most of these ADS-B AML STCs were funded by the ADS-B manufactures and available free of charge for many GA type installs. Those vendors care about selling ADS-B hardware to a broader market not STC paperwork.
> >
> > In practice an install shop would either use an STC or setup parameters published by the ADS-B hardware vendor for a ADS-B/GPS pairing. And vendors can now provide setup instructions that don't require AML STC paperwork.
> >
> > > As I understand it you need an STC for installing the unit in the aircraft and another STC to connect the ADS-B unit to the selected GPS source.
> >
> > No. Any single ADS-B installation STC has always covered all that. The very core of any ADS-B AML STC is that it is the installation of ADS-B hardware with a paired specific GPS source.
> >
> > > The ADS-B in function of the PowerFlarm has already paid for itself in my glider though and I fly in Canada where ADS-B isn't even on track to become mandatory.
> >
> > Not sure why you are worried about FAA approval issues then.
>
> Thanks for the reply. So the cost of the STC work is "baked in" to the price of the equipment and freely available - good to know and it really should have occurred to me but I was incorrectly thinking along the lines of things like autogas STC's where you can't make use of the info for free.
>
> I'm not personally worried about FAA approval because I won't be flying in the U.S. this year but I have flown there before, intend to in the future and have several flying friends who are trying to keep up with what's happening with the ADS-B mandate because they either fly Canadian registered gliders in the U.S. or live in the U.S. and fly U.S. registered gliders. One of my friends who flies in the U.S. a lot made the effort to install the higher powered Trig transponder just so the glider could meet the ADS-B mandate when it comes up. Presumably even with a Canadian registered glider if she was going to fly in the areas which will require ADS-B the ship would need that plus the appropriate GPS as I believe that the GPS output from the FLARM wouldn't meet the standards?
>
> The last part of my post was really just to point out that although I'm currently flying in an area where ADS-B has relatively limited utility I still have found it to be worth having even if it's just the ADS-B in capability of the FLARM unit.
Saw an interesting article in AOPA magazine this month and found it online as well. Some snippets quoted below:
Once ADS-B Out equipment is installed, it must be operational and broadcast the required information at all times.
The AOPA Legal Services Plan is aware of several cases in which aircraft owners have received a “Letter of Finding” from the FAA’s Avionics Branch in Washington, DC, notifying the owner of the date of the flight in question and the nature of the ADS-B Out equipment’s deficiency. The letter also provides a point of contact to call within 30 days to discuss a plan of corrective action. As with any potential FAR violation, aircraft owners and pilots are advised to contact an attorney prior to discussing the matter with anyone.
Darryl Ramm
May 29th 16, 02:51 AM
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 6:30:42 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Saw an interesting article in AOPA magazine this month and found it online as well. Some snippets quoted below:
>
> Once ADS-B Out equipment is installed, it must be operational and broadcast the required information at all times.
>
> The AOPA Legal Services Plan is aware of several cases in which aircraft owners have received a “Letter of Finding” from the FAA’s Avionics Branch in Washington, DC, notifying the owner of the date of the flight in question and the nature of the ADS-B Out equipment’s deficiency. The letter also provides a point of contact to call within 30 days to discuss a plan of corrective action. As with any potential FAR violation, aircraft owners and pilots are advised to contact an attorney prior to discussing the matter with anyone.
And I believe similar, but more advisory, notices going out to say experimental aircraft owners who have systems installed that will not meet 2020 carriage mandate requirements (which yes gliders are currently exempt from). I'm curious if any experimental glider owners with "non-compliant" ADS-B Out systems have received such letters from the FAA.
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
June 8th 16, 06:34 AM
2G wrote on 5/19/2016 9:07 PM:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:57:10 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> Thanks Dan :) I also agree with most of it, which basically says we
>> should make our won decision what is acceptable risk. Totally agree
>> with this part. But after thousands of cross country hours I
>> concluded that no matter how hard we try, we can't trust our eyes
>> to detect a collision risk on time when cruising, especially not
>> gliders who are practically invisible. Sure we see all kind of
>> traffic, but not the ones on collision curse especially if not on
>> our 12 and not maneuvering. And it's not just me, it's everyone
>> with human eyes. There are many eye opening tests that confirm
>> this. While see and avoid certainly works while thermaling,
>> formation flying and in traffic pattern, it does not work when
>> cruising. The reason why we don't have more midairs are not thanks
>> to see and avoid but thanks to the big sky theory. I read somewhere
>> that if we all flew blind folded, the collision rate would have not
>> increased by much. I believe this is true. That's why we need as
>> much help as we can get in this department, and if it is going to
>> be mandated, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is
>> effordable.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> Well, it has to be more than just affordable, it must be practicable
> as well. The current genre of certified WAAS GPS is just too large
> for most gliders (and they cost $3k+ as well). The FAA is coming to
> grips with the trade off of highest integrity vs broadest acceptance,
> hopefully BEFORE 1/1/2020.
The GPS required to bring a Dynon Skyview system (with transponder) into
2020 compliance is $600, so the situation may not be as grim as it
originally seemed.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
Stephen Damon
June 8th 16, 06:44 AM
Eric. The Dynon for $800 only works with Dynon Skyview system and cannot work alone. It is Trig22 modified frequency setup. Freeflight also uses Tirg22 for the Ranger Model and it is pure trig22 relabeled.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.