A new twist: FAA to limit ADS-B/FIS B (traffic) in 2016

Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Honeck
This just in, from my friend Walt Aronow, owner of EXP Aircraft Services in the Dallas area: (As posted on the VAF forum.)

According to the FAA website if your system does not meet the GPS perfomance parameters below then you will no longer be able to receive ADS-B services after 2016.

So for those of you on the fence about equipping with a position source meeting these minimum performance requirements (which experimental EFIS GPS's do not) this may be some "incentive" to rethink that (bottom line is you will lose traffic services for those broadcasting with a non-certified GPS position sources)

Quote from the FAA site:
"However, beginning on January 4, 2016, the following criteria must also be satisfied in order to receive ADS-B IN services: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."

This is a bizarre twist, as the FAA recently announced that non-certified GPS would be okay in legal ADS-B installations in homebuilt aircraft.

Anyone got an inside track on this?
 
Seems odd that both NavWorks with their PADS-B unit and SkyguardTWX make no reference to their products being useless come Jan 2016...it's not that this has not been mentioned before over the last few weeks
 
Will Wx still be able to be received? I don't really care about the traffic aspect.
 
This is all VERY disturbing. It seems to be a way to force pilots to jump aboard the ADS-B out bandwagon right effing now.

I'm not sure I understand how the FAA could turn off passive weather and traffic, since this will be broadcast in the clear any time someone with ADS-B out triggers the ground stations.

Argh. Is this retaliation for Congress trying to privatize them?
 
Wonder if this is part of the FaA's review of the security of electronics systems, or if it's intended as a kick in the butt to make people spend money on certified ADSB.
 
Jay Honeck said:
This is all VERY disturbing. It seems to be a way to force pilots to jump aboard the ADS-B out bandwagon right effing now.

I'm not sure I understand how the FAA could turn off passive weather and traffic, since this will be broadcast in the clear any time someone with ADS-B out triggers the ground stations.

Argh. Is this retaliation for Congress trying to privatize them?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this has nothing to do with non-OUT aircraft. It only relates to OUT equipment that must meet very minimal performance standards to be recognized as a "client" by the ground station.
So the FAA is not turning off any weather data, since that's broadcast to everyone, including IN-only aircraft.
 
RotorDude said:
My understanding is that this has nothing to do with non-OUT aircraft. It only relates to OUT equipment that must meet very minimal performance standards to be recognized as a "client" by the ground station.
So the FAA is not turning off any weather data, since that's broadcast to everyone, including IN-only aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the way I read it, too. I don't understand the technical parameters, but -- until today -- I was confident that my RV-8A was ready for 2020.

Now? I have NO idea. :mad2:
 
Jay Honeck said:
This just in, from my friend Walt Aronow, owner of EXP Aircraft Services in the Dallas area: (As posted on the VAF forum.)

According to the FAA website if your system does not meet the GPS perfomance parameters below then you will no longer be able to receive ADS-B services after 2016.

So for those of you on the fence about equipping with a position source meeting these minimum performance requirements (which experimental EFIS GPS's do not) this may be some "incentive" to rethink that (bottom line is you will lose traffic services for those broadcasting with a non-certified GPS position sources)

Quote from the FAA site:
"However, beginning on January 4, 2016, the following criteria must also be satisfied in order to receive ADS-B IN services: Broadcast ADS-B with NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4."

This is a bizarre twist, as the FAA recently announced that non-certified GPS would be okay in legal ADS-B installations in homebuilt aircraft.

Anyone got an inside track on this?
Click to expand...

Got a link?
 
Jim Logajan said:
The following document appears to provide all the details of what and why:

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs...ce_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webV2.pdf
Click to expand...

That there is what we used to call a "Cluster F&ck".

My experience with ADS-B out (since June of 2014) has been sporadic, at best. At times, it's been perfect. Other times, it's simply not there at all, or it comes in and out as we fly along the Texas gulf coast. I have attributed this to the FAA's growing pains as they grow this overly complex system.

I'm sure it will all shake out, eventually -- but I'd certainly like to know if I'm compliant, or not.
 
Hey, home-built guys. How's it feel to be ****ed in the ass? :rofl:
 
The only way they know if your "compliant" or not is just from parameters you configure yourself in the transponder (or ads-b out device), no?

Plus, anyone flying IFR has a certified GPS anyhow, even in an experimental, right?
 
dans2992 said:
The only way they know if your "compliant" or not is just from parameters you configure yourself in the transponder (or ads-b out device), no?

Plus, anyone flying IFR has a certified GPS anyhow, even in an experimental, right?
Click to expand...

Not sure on the first part. Yes, you have to set all the parameters that your system is reporting, but can the FAA tell if you're "lying" about the parameters?

I presume so.

The latter part is technically true, but there are scads of non-certified EFIS that provide superior situational awareness. I am sure there are lots of guys flying IFR in these aircraft.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'm sure it will all shake out, eventually -- but I'd certainly like to know if I'm compliant, or not.
Click to expand...

Whose ADS-B system are you using?

By the way, from the document I linked (NPE are the non-compliant systems) one gets a better idea of how many have opted for the more affordable "non-compliant" route - rather than continue exposing themselves to a risk that can be mitigated now rather than later:

"The aviation community has realized that uncertified ADS-B devices that broadcast ADS-B Out with NACp/NACv/SDA=01 will receive the FAA TIS-B/ADS-R services (aka, “activate TIS-B/ADS-R client status”), and evidence exists that over 500 aircraft are doing so."

"Based on FAA monitoring data, it appears that 15% to 40% of the aircraft equipped with ADS-B V2 are broadcasting as NPEs to activate TIS-B/ADS-R client status for themselves, but in doing so are not displayed on TSO-compliant ADS-B-In systems."


(I do not expect the old C-152s or C-172s I rent to ever have certified ADS-B installed in them ... unless the price comes down to the prices being asked by the "non-compliant" system makers.)
 
Jim Logajan said:
Whose ADS-B system are you using?
Click to expand...

Trig TT-22 (out), SkyRadar (in), fed into a GRT Horizon HXr EFIS.

The weak link? I'm using a non-certified GRT GPS as the source of my location. A few months ago, the FAA announced that this was perfectly fine in an experimental plane, and that I was compliant with all 2020 requirements.

Now? It sure looks otherwise. :confused:
 
Seems rather stupid to require certified boxes to transmit into an unsecured unencrypted network that'll accept any ol' data from anything without checking it against any more reliable sources than a transmitted data packet.

But hey, I've only been saying that for years now.

The real reason is that they want a warm fuzzy that their network isn't being spoofed and made to do things by an unauthenticated and unidentified source transmitter.

Wouldn't want anyone scaring those UPS aircraft into a go around with nothing but a cheap readily available non-certified transmitter all ready for a few false GPS strings fed to it via a serial port and a laptop.

ADS-B V3 or V4 or V10 or VMillion coming soon with encryption and repudiation, to a theater near you!

Expect whichever certified manufacturer that can afford to buy a few Congressscritters to make sure the "compliance" and operation of the key generation system favors their boxes.
 
Interesting that as recent as 6/16 Don over at SkyGuardTWX said this "

"As far as SDA and SIL values, I will address them below:
FAA management is well aware of our Transceivers and has never told us they cannot be used. The head guy in Washington for the FAA who is responsible for ADS-B equipment implementation Is named Don Walker. I speak with him often and he knows the configuration of our units.
He also knows we are in process of completing the TSO certification. Per his direction, As long as we set certain bits in the ADS-B transmitted message stating that our units are Not yet certified, we are OK. These bits tell ATC not to rely on our transmitted signal For aircraft separation. These bits are the SDA and SIL bits and we have to set both of these To ‘0’ which is used by ATC to know that the transmitted message comes from an uncertified ADS-B Transmitter. Once we achieve certification, we will change these bits to values that Will indicate the unit is TSO’d."

Full posting is here...http://adsb.skyguardtwx.com/forum/skyguardtwx-systems/tso-qualifications/page-2/

So is this just a snake oil salesman hoping to push out a few more sales ?
 
Let me see if I have this straight.

Certified systems don't "see" the uncertified ones, right?

Uncertified units are receiving TIS information - that means they receive information on other aircraft in the area, right?

And the FAA thinks this is a safety concern? YGTBKM. When their stupid change is made fewer aircraft will have traffic information, but the FAA thinks this will enhance safety?

What am I missing (no pun)?
 
Bob Noel said:
Let me see if I have this straight.

Certified systems don't "see" the uncertified ones, right?

Uncertified units are receiving TIS information - that means they receive information on other aircraft in the area, right?

And the FAA thinks this is a safety concern? YGTBKM. When their stupid change is made fewer aircraft will have traffic information, but the FAA thinks this will enhance safety?

What am I missing (no pun)?
Click to expand...

The FAA has always held out TIS-B traffic broadcasts as a carrot...you gotta be broadcasting ADSB-out to get the TIS-B ADSB-in.

This was hoped to help drive aircraft to equip with ADSB-out.

What they have learned is that there are a lot of ADSB-out equipped aircraft now whose ADSB-out is...somebody fill in the right word here...uncertified / non-compliant / whatever. These transmitters basically admit that they're using a non-certified GPS receiver for their position ("Source Integrity Level = 0"), which by definition causes the ATC infrastructure to not trust that position report, and it gets thrown out.

That defeats the purpose of the FAA's incentive. They don't want to get a bunch of SIL=0 position reports that they have to throw out. They want valid ones.

The bottom line is that the incentive the FAA has offered to try to drive up ADSB-out participation has not produced the hoped-for results--there are too many SIL=0 transmitters in operation.

The FAA wants to see more transmitters with certified position sources. That's what their policy change is trying to push toward.

(This was always going to happen eventually, btw. I just expected the SIL=0 solutions to continue to operate just fine right up until 2020.)
 
Last edited:
Jim_R said:
The FAA has always held out TIS-B traffic broadcasts as a carrot...you gotta be broadcasting ADSB-out to get the TIS-B ADSB-in.

This was hoped to help drive aircraft to equip with ADSB-out.

What they have learned is that there are a lot of ADSB-out equipped aircraft now whose ADSB-out is...somebody fill in the right word here...uncertified / non-compliant / whatever. These transmitters basically admit that they're using a non-certified GPS receiver for their position ("Source Integrity Level = 0"), which by definition causes the ATC infrastructure to not trust that position report, and it gets thrown out.

That defeats the purpose of the FAA's incentive. They don't want to get a bunch of SIL=0 position reports that they have to throw out. They want valid ones.

The bottom line is that the incentive the FAA has offered to try to drive up ADSB-out participation has not produced the hoped-for results--there are too many SIL=0 transmitters in operation.

The FAA wants to see more transmitters with certified position sources. That's what their policy change is trying to push toward.

(This was always going to happen eventually, btw. I just expected the SIL=0 solutions to continue to operate just fine right up until 2020.)
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but my question was wrt the apparent claim by the FAA that safety is degraded by sending TIS to uncertified units. At first blush, that claim of safety issues is just happy horse manure.

edit: if the FAA wanted to be able to trust the ADS-B out reports, they should have come up with a means to have a validated link.
 
I know at least on the Garmin 330ES, the SIL value is a user-configured parameter. What's to stop people from just changing the SIL value they are broadcasting (other than the fact it would technically be breaking the rules)?
 
It seems crazy to me that the FAA can essentially play with our lives in order to push an agenda. It's like the kid with the football having a fit and storming off the field.
 
dans2992 said:
I know at least on the Garmin 330ES, the SIL value is a user-configured parameter. What's to stop people from just changing the SIL value they are broadcasting (other than the fact it would technically be breaking the rules)?
Click to expand...
My question exactly. I can change that number at will in the configuration of my EFIS.

I presume the FAA has some way of verifying the integrity of this signal?
 
If your GPS is really throwing bad data, maybe. If it's just a "paperwork" issue, probably no...
 
Bob Noel said:
Let me see if I have this straight.

Certified systems don't "see" the uncertified ones, right?

Uncertified units are receiving TIS information - that means they receive information on other aircraft in the area, right?

And the FAA thinks this is a safety concern? YGTBKM. When their stupid change is made fewer aircraft will have traffic information, but the FAA thinks this will enhance safety?

What am I missing (no pun)?
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking,
 
Jay, you can e-mail for an ASD-B Aircraft Operation Compliance Report ans see for yourself how compliant your ADS-B out is.
 
tmyers said:
Jay, you can e-mail for an ASD-B Aircraft Operation Compliance Report ans see for yourself how compliant your ADS-B out is.
Click to expand...
I did, and I wasn't compliant, before they changed the rules to accept my non-certified GPS.

Then, I apparently was.

Now, I am apparently not, again.

<bang head here>
 
dans2992 said:
...Plus, anyone flying IFR has a certified GPS anyhow, even in an experimental, right?
Click to expand...

There are still a fair number of rental planes around that are IFR legal, but either don't have a GPS, or don't have the database kept up to date.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are still a fair number of rental planes around that are IFR legal, but either don't have a GPS, or don't have the database kept up to date.
Click to expand...


I agree Palm, wasn't quite sure what he was getting at. My Arrow is certainly IFR certified but does not have an IFR GPS.

Many people forget that you can fly without a GPS. Of course 2020 will change that in part.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are still a fair number of rental planes around that are IFR legal, but either don't have a GPS, or don't have the database kept up to date.
Click to expand...


True, but I was really thinking of experimentals. If it's a privately owned plane and the owner flies IFR a lot, chances are that its going to have a certified GPS.

In fact, I thought that even for homebuilts, you needed a certified GPS if you wanted to use it for primary nav under IFR (and to do approaches)...?
 
Jay Honeck said:
This is a bizarre twist, as the FAA recently announced that non-certified GPS would be okay in legal ADS-B installations in homebuilt aircraft.
Click to expand...

They said it would be legal, not that they'd give you traffic services. :(

I'm starting to understand what the "F" in FAA really stands for.
 
bullwinkle said:
They said it would be legal, not that they'd give you traffic services. :(

I'm starting to understand what the "F" in FAA really stands for.
Click to expand...

I think the AA stands for All y'All.
 
I have an IFR certified GPS, but it's not WAAS, which is required for ADS-B, I believe. This is one of the reasons I went with a Skyguard for now, so I could see how things play out on the certified equipment front.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Does EAA or AOPA have a position on this ?
 
Challenged said:
It seems crazy to me that the FAA can essentially play with our lives in order to push an agenda. It's like the kid with the football having a fit and storming off the field.
Click to expand...
hyperbole, anyone? how does this affect your life in any way ? we've been flying for a century without a little screen in the cockpit showing us a subset of nearby traffic.
 
You do have to wonder who came up with the term
"non-performing emitter "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top