FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

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)

No its not 'major surgery' but its still Major Expense for little additional safety.

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.