Does FLARM meet TABS requirement?

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I think what strategically happens for TABS, for better or worse,
is in the hands of large potential drone operators and manufacturers
and their lobbyists.

So should be lobbying for a TABS solution for gliders, and at the same time push for being able to use it in class A airspace?

Sure would be nice to be able to get up to cloudbase in the Great Basin area. I'm guessing there's very little traffic near the bottom of this airspace out in this neck of the woods. And ATC could learn how to deal with us since we're pretty much stationary compared everyone else.

5Z

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:27:16 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I think what strategically happens for TABS, for better or worse,
is in the hands of large potential drone operators and manufacturers
and their lobbyists.

So should be lobbying for a TABS solution for gliders, and at the same time push for being able to use it in class A airspace?

Sure would be nice to be able to get up to cloudbase in the Great Basin area. I'm guessing there's very little traffic near the bottom of this airspace out in this neck of the woods. And ATC could learn how to deal with us since we're pretty much stationary compared everyone else.

5Z

I think any lobbying should carefully lay out what would make TABS suitable for the glider community. And I would include Class A use of TABS in that.....and lots of things about easy installation regulations and more, work with EAA and AOPA on use of TABS Class B devices in towplanes (and all GA aircraft) say near Class C/B airspace instead of full 1090ES Out. But I would expect Class A stuff to apply to block IFR clearance for those Sierra Wave big dogs and use in wave windows where necessary, as transponders are today.. Hoping for a radical change to Class A use is probably a bit much.

Darryl,

Thanks for the information. That was a lot to think about. I submitted my response to the FAA online just a bit ago. Only 123 responses so far. Several were pro transponder - tended to come from airline and 121 operators.

Mark

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html

$900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even cheaper.

Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the
1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm?

Both non-TSO'd, $790 for a PowerFlarm Core Pure.

Bob

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Ainslie
wrote:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html

$900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new
experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even
cheaper.

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the
1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm?

/snip/

Let be clear on terminology. The PowerFLARM itself has no 1090ES Out capability. it has a NMEA GPS Output that can be connected to some ADS-B Out devices, including Mode S/1090 ES Out transponders like the Trig TT-21/22.

You ultimately can't use the GPS source in the PowerFLARM to drive ADS-B Out and get all the ADS-B benefits. Doing that will not meet any 2020 Carriage Mandates (for power aircraft, or possibly glider corner cases like Class A airspace), and not if you want to receive ADS-B based ground services.

You certainty cannot install ADS-B Out in a certified aircraft, including glider, with anything like a PowerFLARM GPS source. And even if you do that in an experimental aircraft now you will likely start receiving letters from the FAA cautioning you about operating a non-compliant ADS-B Out system.

PowerFLARM does not even speak the a necessary serial GPS protocol to enable use for a ADS-B GPS data source (you need "Aviation format", not NMEA), let alone have all the RAIM support needed to meet TSO-C145c type requiremnts. (TABS class B GPS sources would reduce those requirements.. if TABS is adopted, and if it's installation/use regulations are sensible).

Nothing stops somebody today with an *experimental* glider connecting an NMEA GPS source to an ADS-B Out device as long as parameters like SIL are correctly set to indicate the degraded GPS source. And proper installation tests etc. are done. But you better know what you are doing, and be aware of the implications.

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the
1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm?

Both non-TSO'd, $790 for a PowerFlarm Core Pure.

Bob

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Ainslie
wrote:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html

$900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new
experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even
cheaper.

And saying "non-TSO'ed" is fairly confused/confusing.

Non-TSO'ed here used by avionics manufacturers really means it "meets performance requirements of" some TSO, but is not actually TSO'ed.

You have to look at the specs the device actually meets even though it is not built to a TSO. Garmin here are less than clear on this. They talk fuzzily about things like "meets the 2020 Carriage mandate requirements". Which in this case basically will mean TSO-C145c. In some cases a non-TSO product from vendors is identical to their other TSO products just without a TSO label and usually at a significantly lower price.

PowerFLARM does not meet the requirement of any TSO of any type. To say it is "non-TSO" is true in a way, but really a meaningless statement in the normal way it is used to describe avionics.

Darryl, thanks for the clarification.

Bob

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT), Darryl Ramm
wrote:

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the
1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm?

Both non-TSO'd, $790 for a PowerFlarm Core Pure.

Bob

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Ainslie
wrote:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html

$900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new
experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even
cheaper.

And saying "non-TSO'ed" is fairly confused/confusing.

Non-TSO'ed here used by avionics manufacturers really means it "meets performance
requirements of" some TSO, but is not actually TSO'ed.

You have to look at the specs the device actually meets even though it is not built to
a TSO. Garmin here are less than clear on this. They talk fuzzily about things like
"meets the 2020 Carriage mandate requirements". Which in this case basically will
mean TSO-C145c. In some cases a non-TSO product from vendors is identical to their
other TSO products just without a TSO label and usually at a significantly lower price.

PowerFLARM does not meet the requirement of any TSO of any type. To say it is
"non-TSO" is true in a way, but really a meaningless statement in the normal way
it is used to describe avionics.

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:11:17 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Darryl, thanks for the clarification.

Bob

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT), Darryl Ramm
wrote:

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the
1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm?

Both non-TSO'd, $790 for a PowerFlarm Core Pure.

Bob

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Ainslie
wrote:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html

$900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new
experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even
cheaper.

And saying "non-TSO'ed" is fairly confused/confusing.

Non-TSO'ed here used by avionics manufacturers really means it "meets performance
requirements of" some TSO, but is not actually TSO'ed.

You have to look at the specs the device actually meets even though it is not built to
a TSO. Garmin here are less than clear on this. They talk fuzzily about things like
"meets the 2020 Carriage mandate requirements". Which in this case basically will
mean TSO-C145c. In some cases a non-TSO product from vendors is identical to their
other TSO products just without a TSO label and usually at a significantly lower price.

PowerFLARM does not meet the requirement of any TSO of any type. To say it is
"non-TSO" is true in a way, but really a meaningless statement in the normal way
it is used to describe avionics.


No problems, all the ADS-B stuff is an unfortunate frigging mess... much more than it could have been.

Darryl, I don't know how you can manage to keep on top of all this ADS-B stuff without your head exploding but thank you for doing so! Whenever I try to make sense of it all it makes me want to give up flying and take up Tiddlywinks or something.

Out of curiosity, what performance parameters in the PowerFLARM system make it a "degraded" GPS source unsuitable for ADS-B out? I assume the system must be accurate enough for airborne traffic awareness and collision warnings as it has proven satisfactory in FLARM to FLARM situations.