![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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-ne...-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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No its not 'major surgery' but its still Major Expense for little additional safety.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
91.205 compass requirement | [email protected] | Soaring | 24 | April 23rd 16 07:22 AM |
Requirement of AW 139 pilot | sanjay | Rotorcraft | 2 | August 25th 08 10:06 AM |
CFI logging requirement | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | October 19th 04 07:11 PM |
Mode S to become requirement? | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 6 | July 14th 04 11:25 PM |
New Castle ELT Requirement | Ed Byars | Soaring | 16 | June 19th 04 06:15 PM |