FAA Eases ADS-B STC Requirement

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.

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

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.