EAB and ADS-B out

Skylane81E

Skylane81E

Final Approach
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
8,059
Location
Cincinnati
Display Name
Display name:
Duncan
Just wondering, are EABs going to be stuck buying the same TSOed ADS-B equipment as the type certificated market?

I'm working up a cost sheet for a possible future build but I'm squarely in airspace that will require it.


Edited for greater clarity
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
Just wondering, are EABs going to be stuck buying the same TSOed ADS-B equipment as the experimental market?

I'm working up a cost sheet for a possible future build but I'm squarely in airspace that will require it.
Click to expand...


You are forgetting that essentially anything that broadcasts a signal is regulated by the FCC, so the radios may not be TSO'ed by the FAA I'd think they would still be built under license of the FCC to meet at least some standard.

I'm trying to remember the last time I saw an non-TSO transponder... :idea:
 
Not really sure, but in § 91.225 it states:

"The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders"

I assume the use of "certificated" and "certified" here is used to mean airworthiness certificate, not type certificate. In the latter case section 91.225 might not apply to EAB.

Obviously (maybe not so obvious) is that 91.225 does not, per 91.1, apply outside Part 91. Ultralights would not need to be equipped with ADS-B out.

FAA ADS-B Advisory Circular has more info but doesn't seem to specifically answer the original question:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 20-165A.pdf
 
I wouldn't make book on anything that is further out than 2 years. Rules change, and there's a big one about to happen that is meant to deal with ADS-B costs as well as the rest of the gear to get NextGen compliant. We may be seeing a complete HITS/ADS-B panel that functions on a tablet, and I'm betting that even the Pt-103 guys will need them. Actually, we're pretty close with the equipment currently available, except for the Out part with WingX I can pretty much do all that for less than $2k on my iPad.
 
What Henning said, and also, if you are in a rush, note that you only need a TSOed GPS and transponder... But not the panel. Advantage: Dynon. Transponder is tiny, if expensive. Or you could sit on your bags and wait a UAT solution, that's going to be cheaper if it happens.
 
Odds are the thing wouldn't fly for 3-4 years at least, so no rush. Just trying to ensure I'm ballpark on expenses.
 
Skylane81E said:
Just wondering, are EABs going to be stuck buying the same TSOed ADS-B equipment as the type certificated market?

I'm working up a cost sheet for a possible future build but I'm squarely in airspace that will require it.


Edited for greater clarity
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The tough nut to avoid is the approved position source. In my case I have a Garmin GTX 23ES remote transponder (basically a 33ES designed for the G3X) and a GTN 650 as the nav source.
 
I heard an interesting quote from an avionics tech recently back from a week long expo on ADS-B.

The FAA has estimated that with the number of registered aircraft that still need to install the ADS-B out and the number of work days left until Jan 1, 2020 avionics shops will need to be updating 60 aircraft per day.

Not sure of the accuracy, but it is interesting non the less.
 
tmyers said:
I heard an interesting quote from an avionics tech recently back from a week long expo on ADS-B.

The FAA has estimated that with the number of registered aircraft that still need to install the ADS-B out and the number of work days left until Jan 1, 2020 avionics shops will need to be updating 60 aircraft per day.

Not sure of the accuracy, but it is interesting non the less.
Click to expand...

Heard something similar in today's presentation.

With the advances we've seen in aviation electronics in recent years, I'm really curious to see what products will roll out in next 3-5 years that will aid us in complying by deadline.
 
tmyers said:
I heard an interesting quote from an avionics tech recently back from a week long expo on ADS-B.

The FAA has estimated that with the number of registered aircraft that still need to install the ADS-B out and the number of work days left until Jan 1, 2020 avionics shops will need to be updating 60 aircraft per day.

Not sure of the accuracy, but it is interesting non the less.
Click to expand...

Had that same conversation recently at the avionics shop. There's not enough avionics shops/techs to get the job done. There are three shops with a grand total of 6 techs in the state of Wisconsin...
 
How many of those airplanes will truly need it? Given that a large number sit around, only fly VFR, and never go near B/C, I doubt if their owners will care.

Interesting stat, but I'm not fully buying it. Either way, with 6 years until deadline, we've got time to get it completed.
 
Funny that you mention that Ted. Same comment came out of the group in that how many of the registered aircraft are flying and how many will never fly in airspace needing the ADS-B out. But, if it is only half thats still a lot of airplane to upgrade.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
How many of those airplanes will truly need it? Given that a large number sit around, only fly VFR, and never go near B/C, I doubt if their owners will care.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to imagine that they already haven't installed ADS-B. Look at all the benefits - you get free weather for less than $10,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, if all these people don't install at least ADS-B out, the system won't really work.

Personally, I figure that with any luck, I'll be dead before I have to install some worthless avionics that cost 1/3 of what my airplane is worth.

Still have a 121.5 MHz ELT too...
 
tmyers said:
Funny that you mention that Ted. Same comment came out of the group in that how many of the registered aircraft are flying and how many will never fly in airspace needing the ADS-B out. But, if it is only half thats still a lot of airplane to upgrade.
Click to expand...

I'd wonder if it's even half, but you are correct, it's still a lot.

I fly all around the country to all sorts of airports. Most of the country does not have airspace that will require ADS-B, and most of the pilots out there seem to fly VFR. A large number of GA planes are under-utilized (or not utilized at all), and barring some major change in the industry that I don't see happening, they will probably stay that way. Fast forward another 6 years and matters will only get worse.

It will be interesting to see what happens, though. Right now I haven't installed ADS-B for a few reasons. First, I have no idea if we'll still have the 310 in 6 years. Second, a lot can happen regulation wise in that time frame. Third, the benefits of it today have not been sufficient to convince me it's worth the cash. Fourth, I expect prices will come down and features will go up.

Now, I am thinking that in another 15 months or so when the plane comes due for its next pitot-stat, that will probably be when we do the ADS-B upgrade. By then I figure the cost/benefit will make sense.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I find it hard to imagine that they already haven't installed ADS-B. Look at all the benefits - you get free weather for less than $10,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, if all these people don't install at least ADS-B out, the system won't really work.

Personally, I figure that with any luck, I'll be dead before I have to install some worthless avionics that cost 1/3 of what my airplane is worth.

Still have a 121.5 MHz ELT too...
Click to expand...

I think when my shop quoted a Garmin ADS-B setup it was around $5k installed range.

You're right that it has limits on how much traffic avoidance it will give you, but I suspect it will still give you some, which is better than none. Honestly, while I consider the traffic to be a nice feature, it's not something I'm really interested in. The weather I consider more useful. The number of weather accidents is far, far higher than the number of mid-air collisions.
 
Neal Howard said:
"Portable" ADS-B Out for EAB here:

http://skyguardtwx.com/UAT_TRANSCEIVER.html

If you've got an iFly 720, here's a special promo:
https://ifly.adventurepilot.com/shop-t136/skyguardtwx-vision-pro-ads-b-transceiver-special.aspx
Click to expand...

I don't think that stuff meets the 2020 rules. Of course, rules change, the horse may sing, etc., but I'm not throwing money at a solution unless I know it will meet the letter of the mandate.

This shouldn't be as hard as it is. Particularly for VFR aircraft, any current handheld GPS with WAAS is plenty accurate to feed the data to the various transmitters, and those handhelds are available for <$700. But the way the rules are written, handhelds aren't an option. Aargh. Garmin, or the other industry rep's who helped write the legislation really did us wrong on this one.
 
"Helped write". Oh that's rich. Helped themselves to your wallet, you mean.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
kyleb said:
I don't think that stuff meets the 2020 rules. Of course, rules change, the horse may sing, etc., but I'm not throwing money at a solution unless I know it will meet the letter of the mandate.

This shouldn't be as hard as it is. Particularly for VFR aircraft, any current handheld GPS with WAAS is plenty accurate to feed the data to the various transmitters, and those handhelds are available for <$700. But the way the rules are written, handhelds aren't an option. Aargh. Garmin, or the other industry rep's who helped write the legislation really did us wrong on this one.
Click to expand...


I bought one of the SkyGaurd units. I figured I was going to spend around $700 for the receive portion of the ADS-B and that if an added $700 would give me portable ADS-B out it was worth it to have the traffic all the time.

For what it is worth the SkyGaurd unit has been submitted for TSO approval. When / if approved it will need to be permanently mounted with permanent antennas and power. If it never gets TSO approval it is still legal for ADS-B out till 1/1/2020. If that happens I will turn the transmitter off and use whatever I have to. I will keep the in portion for weather and traffic.

I figured $700 over 6 years was worth it.

In the three months I have had it I am amazed how many aircraft are out there that I have never seen or been told about.

YMMV
 
WmInce said:
Dollars to donuts . . . that Dynon comes out with an affordable ADS-B out solution within the next 18 months. Those engineers there do not waste time with anything . . . and what's even better . . . they listen to their customers!
Click to expand...

They've got it already - the problem is it requires a certified GPS feed for location, which they don't currently have. In my RV I've got their ADSB box (both in AND out) and I'm feeding the GPS location to it from a G430W, that's good for the 2020 mandate.

To my knowledge, there is currently no EAB device for ADSB out that functions to the 2020 mandate without a certified GPS device for location. They will make use of an uncertified GPS location up until then, but the way the mandate is currently written a certified GPS device is required after 2020. It's so troublesome and expensive to certify a GPS device that any companies doing it are building full-blown navigators and charging a premium dollar for them - but if you're going to have GPS IFR approach capability in the aircraft anyway, you're already going to have one of those boxes.

For the large portion of the GA fleet that is VFR only and will be squeezed by this, I'm just hoping that the FAA will relax the certified receiver ruling, otherwise they are screwed. The first EAB avionics maker that rolls out a certified position source will have all the business they can shake a stick at.
 
Last edited:
And that's my rub, this will be a decidedly VFR only plane. I have a feeling a UAT will be the only viable option. If I wasn't sitting under the shelf of the CVG Bravo things would be different.

Still have to do a W update to the 430 and ES to my 330 for my 182 as well.


Grrrrr
 
airguy said:
...For the large portion of the GA fleet that is VFR only and will be squeezed by this, I'm just hoping that the FAA will relax the certified receiver ruling, otherwise they are screwed.
Click to expand...

GPS accuracy is needed to make traffic avoidance work. That's no less critical on VFR flights. It could be argued that if you need WAAS-level accuracy to avoid someone, you were already waaaay too close.

I suspect the ADS-B and UAS issues will soon find each other and mate, and having all aircraft equipped with ADS-B will wind up being how "send and avoid" is implemented. The only good news there is it will require certified GPS solutions priced low enough for Amazon and Papa Johns to buy in bulk, allowing new options for at least EAB.
 
Last edited:
PW_Plack said:
GPS accuracy is needed to make traffic avoidance work. That's no less critical on VFR flights. It could be argues that if you need WAAS-level accuracy to avoid someone, you were already waaaay too close.

I suspect the ADS-B and UAS issues will soon find each other and mate, and having all aircraft equipped with ADS-B will wind up being how "send and avoid" is implemented. The only good news there is it will require certified GPS solutions priced low enough for Amazon and Papa Johns to buy in bulk, allowing new options for at least EAB.
Click to expand...

GPS's are already plenty accurate. The issue *everyone* faces is the reliability issue which means testing and certifying hardware (software too?) to a NASA level of reliability, which costs $$$$.
 
PW_Plack said:
GPS accuracy is needed to make traffic avoidance work. That's no less critical on VFR flights. It could be argues that if you need WAAS-level accuracy to avoid someone, you were already waaaay too close.

I suspect the ADS-B and UAS issues will soon find each other and mate, and having all aircraft equipped with ADS-B will wind up being how "send and avoid" is implemented. The only good news there is it will require certified GPS solutions priced low enough for Amazon and Papa Johns to buy in bulk, allowing new options for at least EAB.
Click to expand...

Agreed - WAAS level accuracy is needed for this - what I meant (intended message) by my statement was my hope that the industry can find a way to produce/certify a WAAS-level GPS receiver to feed the ADSB box, with a price tag that is somewhat reasonable. Without that, there are going to be lot of "little guys" left in the dust.
 
kyleb said:
GPS's are already plenty accurate. The issue *everyone* faces is the reliability issue which means testing and certifying hardware (software too?) to a NASA level of reliability, which costs $$$$.
Click to expand...


Easy solution. Require two cheap GPS receivers. Way cheaper than certifying crap like RAIM with a be jillion lines of code inside it.

Why do we make everything so f---ing difficult? The chances both are going to fail is nil anyway. And it was fine for VOR receivers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
Easy solution. Require two cheap GPS receivers. Way cheaper than certifying crap like RAIM with a be jillion lines of code inside it.

Why do we make everything so f---ing difficult? The chances both are going to fail is nil anyway. And it was fine for VOR receivers.
Click to expand...

Two cheap GPS receivers can both be easily fooled, in the same way, by a single bad satellite. RAIM not only ensures that the unit is working properly, it can ignore a bad satellite.

VOR's were never being used to keep planes from hitting each other.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Two cheap GPS receivers can both be easily fooled, in the same way, by a single bad satellite. RAIM not only ensures that the unit is working properly, it can ignore a bad satellite.



VOR's were never being used to keep planes from hitting each other.
Click to expand...


And neither will GPSs. They're not going to shut down the RADAR systems for ADS-B and it'll be a very long time before ADS-B is used for primary separation. Unless they're not planning on having air defense RADAR over CONUS.
 
denverpilot said:
And neither will GPSs.
Click to expand...

These ones will, eventually at least.

it'll be a very long time before ADS-B is used for primary separation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'bout another 6 years and 15 days. ;)

You're also thinking about ATC separation, which is IFR to IFR.

Two VFR aircraft out on a sunny day not talking to ATC, however - Well, if I'm one of 'em, I sure want my traffic system to know EXACTLY where the other guy is, not with 100m confidence. I'd hate to not see them, think they're going to pass 100m off my left wing or something and then hear a big "crunch" as we fall from the sky.

Also, I would bet that ATC will be using ADS-B much sooner than you think. Yes, they'll still have radar, but ADS-B will be used to enhance radar. Radar only hits you so often - That's why TRACONs can have 3-mile separation but the ARTCCs with their longer-range (slower-sweep) radar have to have 5-mile separation. If they can see what you're doing in between radar sweeps, well, I bet the separation standards will be revised in 2020 or shortly thereafter. So yes, ADS-B will be used for separating aircraft, even with the presence of radar... And that means the GPS needs to be accurate.
 
PW_Plack said:
GPS accuracy is needed to make traffic avoidance work. That's no less critical on VFR flights. It could be argues that if you need WAAS-level accuracy to avoid someone, you were already waaaay too close.

I suspect the ADS-B and UAS issues will soon find each other and mate, and having all aircraft equipped with ADS-B will wind up being how "send and avoid" is implemented. The only good news there is it will require certified GPS solutions priced low enough for Amazon and Papa Johns to buy in bulk, allowing new options for at least EAB.
Click to expand...

WAAS accuracy can be had for $30, I don't think there is a non WAAS GPS chipset available anymore. There is more to the certification standard at this point than just WAAS, it has to meet other quality and reliability standards as well.
 
PW_Plack said:
GPS accuracy is needed to make traffic avoidance work. That's no less critical on VFR flights. It could be argues that if you need WAAS-level accuracy to avoid someone, you were already waaaay too close.
Click to expand...

I'm 90% convinced this whole system is designed to enable avoidance for all the drones that are coming on line. Much easier to steer them around everybody if all aircraft are required to pump out hyper-accurate GPS data that the drones can see. Traffic and weather for us is just a bone they toss us to make us 100% visible to the drones.
 
bullwinkle said:
I'm 90% convinced this whole system is designed to enable avoidance for all the drones that are coming on line. Much easier to steer them around everybody if all aircraft are required to pump out hyper-accurate GPS data that the drones can see. Traffic and weather for us is just a bone they toss us to make us 100% visible to the drones.
Click to expand...
The system is designed so that the big guys can get their loads to Disney World 10 minutes sooner.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
They expect to be able to squeeze airplanes in a little tighter inside the class B. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Plus better descent profiles that allow more time at higher altitudes where the fuel burn is lower.

10 minutes a plane on something that costs thousands of dollars per hour to operate is a big deal, especially when you multiply it by every commercial jet in the sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top