Case Study Near Mid Air Glider and C421 - Benefits of PowerFlarm and Transponders

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
Hi Darryl,

You say:

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).

That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.


Actually what I said is correct. But you are adding another layer of detail.. And I've posted that link before as well and described how it does not mean what many folks assume it does.

So to recap and avoid confusion, a glider using PowerFLARM as a GPS source for ADS-B Out...

Certified ADS-B In traffic systems will *not* receive/display ADS-B (direct) from that glider

(the point Sarah is making): The FAA ground infrastructure will now/beginning soon broadcast a TIS-B target for that non-complaint ADS-B Out system equipped glider (it knows it has a non-complaint ADS-B Out system from it's ADS-B data) to all ADS-B client aircraft -- just exactly as if the glider was not ADS-B Out equipped at all. All that is doing is removing a loop-hole where it did not used to do this because the target had ADS-B out.. yet a flavor of ADS-B Out that ADS-B In certified systems were not allowed to see. Oh doh, no you cannot make this stuff up. This is just TIS-B, you need to be in SSR radar and ADS-B coverage. So the glider with PowerFLARM GPS source in this case has no better traffic warning to certified ADS-B In systems than if it just had a transponder. It has a lot better warning to portable ADS-B systems and PowerFLARM etc. that will receive this "non compliant" ADS-B In. The safety things to remember here is other aircraft with certified ADS-B In are *not* seeing the gliders's ADS-B Out. So say meet a King Air with 1090ES ADS-B In traffic system out at some busy GA airport with no low-level TIS-B coverage and it can run right over you without any indication from their ADS-B In system.

The glider will not be a client for the ADS-B Ground infrastructure, so will not receive reliable ADS-R or TIS-B (not interesting to most glider pilots anyhow since PowerFLARM won't display that). If you do want to use TIS-B or ADS-R with some other traffic display system, you *must* have a compliant ADS-B Out system in your glider. Relying on other ADS-B clients to "paint traffic" is dangerous and can get very confusing.

That system would not meet 2020 ADS-B carriage mandates.

---

And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.

Darryl


I've posted this befo

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...3-15-webV2.pdf

I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.

https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs

--Sarah Anderson


On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:

And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

Actually what I said maybe should have been a little stronger: if anything the FAA is kind of more heading in the reverse direction from what AOPA and some others want (they want open-broadcast of TIS-B for example with no client aircraft needed)... the FAA is making non-complaint ADS-B Out aircraft no longer work as TIS-B and ADS-R clients. And how all this is being presented by AOPA in particular can be confusing. They want something but describe the FAA doing somewhat the reverse. e.g. I have seen this AOPA article cause some confusion: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...anges-to-TIS-B.

And starting around now non-complaint ADS-B out systems will stop being clients for TIS-B and ADS-R. If anybody here is relying on that *pay attention*, it it going to stop working for you. I expect that mostly affects folks in powered experimental airplanes.

Hi Darryl,

Sorry. Ok, you're technically correct, the best way to be correct. I was not thinking about the cases where a "TSO'd ADSB-IN" receiver would discard a "NPE" signal.

My point was just that the FAA *would* rebroadcast a NPE target on TIS-B.

Not something I'd mess with personally. You'd have to be very sure you had all the NACp, NACv, NIC, SDA and SIL parameters set correctly on your 1090es input. As some guy named Darryl explained in 2012:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec....U/Ecl9lIRkCoQJ

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:53:20 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
Hi Darryl,

You say:

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).

That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.


Actually what I said is correct. But you are adding another layer of detail. And I've posted that link before as well and described how it does not mean what many folks assume it does.

So to recap and avoid confusion, a glider using PowerFLARM as a GPS source for ADS-B Out...

Certified ADS-B In traffic systems will *not* receive/display ADS-B (direct) from that glider

(the point Sarah is making): The FAA ground infrastructure will now/beginning soon broadcast a TIS-B target for that non-complaint ADS-B Out system equipped glider (it knows it has a non-complaint ADS-B Out system from it's ADS-B data) to all ADS-B client aircraft -- just exactly as if the glider was not ADS-B Out equipped at all. All that is doing is removing a loop-hole where it did not used to do this because the target had ADS-B out.. yet a flavor of ADS-B Out that ADS-B In certified systems were not allowed to see. Oh doh, no you cannot make this stuff up. This is just TIS-B, you need to be in SSR radar and ADS-B coverage. So the glider with PowerFLARM GPS source in this case has no better traffic warning to certified ADS-B In systems than if it just had a transponder. It has a lot better warning to portable ADS-B systems and PowerFLARM etc. that will receive this "non compliant" ADS-B In. The safety things to remember here is other aircraft with certified ADS-B In are *not* seeing the gliders's ADS-B Out. So say meet a King Air with 1090ES ADS-B In traffic system out at some busy GA airport with no low-level TIS-B coverage and it can run right over you without any indication from their ADS-B In system.

The glider will not be a client for the ADS-B Ground infrastructure, so will not receive reliable ADS-R or TIS-B (not interesting to most glider pilots anyhow since PowerFLARM won't display that). If you do want to use TIS-B or ADS-R with some other traffic display system, you *must* have a compliant ADS-B Out system in your glider. Relying on other ADS-B clients to "paint traffic" is dangerous and can get very confusing.

That system would not meet 2020 ADS-B carriage mandates.

---

And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.

Darryl


I've posted this befo

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...3-15-webV2.pdf

I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.

https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs

--Sarah Anderson


On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

I am hoping the SSA, David or someone videos David's presentation and puts it on youtube so those of us that cannot go to the convention might still have the opportunity to see this important presentation!


On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
......
And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.

Darryl