On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott

Please be careful how you say this. An experimental install done properly is fully 14 CFR 91.227/2020 Compliant. This keeps causing confusion, with people sometimes thinking they should pay more for say a TN70 because it's "better". There is absolutely nothing "non-2020 compliant" or any reduction in ADS-B functionality or reduction in performance implied in using a "meets 14 CFR 91.227 requirements" GPS source in an experimental install vs say a TSO-C145c GPS source in a type certified aircraft install. It's literally the formal requirements for 2020 Compliance you are meeting, so it's just wrong to describe that ever as not "full 2020" compliance.

What you likely meant to say is the FAA did not require us to meet that performance requirement with a TSO approved GPS source.... and initially they effectively actually did, although they claim that was an unintentional oversight, AOPA and the EAA and AOPA took them to task on that and the regulations were modified.