How would the FAA know? (ADS-B question)

cgrab

cgrab

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
2,162
Location
Huntsville AL
Display Name
Display name:
cgrab
I see lots of lower cost ADS-B out solutions for home-built and experimental planes that say they meet the ADS-B out standard. If I was to install one how would the FAA know I was not using a certified instrument?
 
cgrab said:
I see lots of lower cost ADS-B out solutions for home-built and experimental planes that say they meet the ADS-B out standard. If I was to install one how would the FAA know I was not using a certified instrument?
Click to expand...

Because someone might not sign off your annual, and insurance companies also look for excuses not to pay. Beyond that I don't know if any equipment serial number or model is transmitted in the data packet... I'd have to dig into the spec.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Could you mcgyver something, sure, would anyone know, nope.

Unless something bad happens and there's enough left over of the transponder and someone looks at it.

But for what the cost difference is, especially if you wait a few years, you're only saving probably a couple hundred bucks, yet opening a can of worms if anything happens that draws attention to the transponder, and also making a larger issue for yourself price point wise if you later decided to sell the plane.
 
I was thinking about the Sky beacon, it should be about a quarter of the cost of any other solution installed.

I read the "light reading" on decoding the signal. I want my signal decoded, what I'm wondering is can the FAA figure out HOW it is being sent. According to the decode map the answer is no.
 
cgrab said:
I was thinking about the Sky beacon, it should be about a quarter of the cost of any other solution installed.

I read the "light reading" on decoding the signal. I want my signal decoded, what I'm wondering is can the FAA figure out HOW it is being sent. According to the decode map the answer is no.
Click to expand...

If you do something to screw up, the answer is yes.
By itself, UAT specs do not provide a mechanism that I have seen which allows the FAA to reverse the machine type (certified or not). However, the UAT ID, is not really unique. In fact the FAA via records matching will be able to identify and follow backwards any single device for which they have records (a math whiz posted how the ID numbers are unique to a device and never change, no matter how many times you reboot the device).
So if you have any sort of incident, the FAA should be able to work backwards and figure it out.

Again, this is UAT signal only. Mode S, yes the FAA knows who you are.

Tim
 
There would have to be a lot of other people in on your scheme too for that to remotely work... like the people signing off on your annual or anyone that touches your avionics. Unlike they're going to put their career on the line so you can save a few bucks.
 
I believe there is a SIL (Source Integrity Level) code in the data stream that indicates the box type.....
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I believe there is a SIL (Source Integrity Level) code in the data stream that indicates the box type.....
Click to expand...

Correct, but there is nothing in the signal to denote the kind of plane this is installed on. hence, under VFR there is no mismatch of data.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Correct, but there is nothing in the signal to denote the kind of plane this is installed on. hence, under VFR there is no mismatch of data.

Tim
Click to expand...

They could of course detect the mismatch the first time you request VFR radar advisories


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK, they know my aircraft but do they know the manufacturer of the device that is transmitting the data?
 
cgrab said:
OK, they know my aircraft but do they know the manufacturer of the device that is transmitting the data?
Click to expand...
no....they'll know it isn't a certified box....and could determine along with your info whether you are legal or not.
 
At least someone has :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK, I guess a source integrity level is a box ID and not what we use those words for here which is a sort of checksum to validate the data.
 
OK, so is every SIL reported to the FAA or is it that if they don't have that SIL on file then they know the box is not legit?
 
cgrab said:
OK, so is every SIL reported to the FAA or is it that if they don't have that SIL on file then they know the box is not legit?
Click to expand...

The box basically is saying "I'm not certified".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cgrab said:
I was thinking about the Sky beacon, it should be about a quarter of the cost of any other solution installed.

I read the "light reading" on decoding the signal. I want my signal decoded, what I'm wondering is can the FAA figure out HOW it is being sent. According to the decode map the answer is no.
Click to expand...

The sky beacon?!

That's actually pretty price high and feature low, why not just get the certified all on one ADSB in/out/stealth mode navworx? Or the smart money, wait a couple years.

http://www.navworx.com
 
Source Integrity Level is transmitted. After 2020 every ADS-B out device will require SIL level 3 (IIRC).

If someone is building and selling devices that intentionally transmits false data I'd say there is a good chance they are subject to the slammer.
 
ktup-flyer said:
GDL-82 is a pretty low cost certified solution
Click to expand...

Indeed. I believe these are exempt from the "dealer installation only" policy so there is chance that handy folks will save some bucks by getting their hands dirty.
 
I'd also say that if you knowingly put in illegal equipment, equipment that is, oh, you know, to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths, potentially of lots of people on airliners, the Feds may just may take a dim view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bnt83 said:
Source Integrity Level is transmitted. After 2020 every ADS-B out device will require SIL level 3 (IIRC).

If someone is building and selling devices that intentionally transmits false data I'd say there is a good chance they are subject to the slammer.
Click to expand...
Are youse guys saying that ADSB-Out devices sold for "experimental / LSA" and are advertised as complying with the 2020 mandate don't actually comply with the mandate?
Example:
"echoUAT is a remotely mounted ADS-B transceiver that provides 2020 compliance, ... For use in Light Sport and Experimental Aircraft"
http://uavionix.com/downloads/echo-uat/echoUAT-Data-Sheet.pdf
http://uavionix.com/downloads/echo-uat/echoUAT-User-and-Installation-Guide.pdf
 
gsengle said:
I'd also say that if you knowingly put in illegal equipment, equipment that is, oh, you know, to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths, potentially of lots of people on airliners, the Feds may just may take a dim view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is really funny. ADS-B has nothing to do with that, in fact the driving reasons for ADS-B require airlines to implement. And guess what, they are excused from implementing...

Tim
 
gsengle said:
I'd also say that if you knowingly put in illegal equipment, equipment that is, oh, you know, to prevent mid air collisions and innocent deaths, potentially of lots of people on airliners, the Feds may just may take a dim view.
Click to expand...

I think you're thinking of TCAS. ADS-B isn't what you describe. At all.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Are youse guys saying that ADSB-Out devices sold for "experimental / LSA" and are advertised as complying with the 2020 mandate don't actually comply with the mandate?
Example:
"echoUAT is a remotely mounted ADS-B transceiver that provides 2020 compliance, ... For use in Light Sport and Experimental Aircraft"
http://uavionix.com/downloads/echo-uat/echoUAT-Data-Sheet.pdf
http://uavionix.com/downloads/echo-uat/echoUAT-User-and-Installation-Guide.pdf
Click to expand...

I thought the Navworx AD explained clearly.
(I'm not familiar with LSA cert rules tho)


While 14 CFR § 91.227 requires a SIL of 3, TSO-C154c (the TSO under which the affected units are produced) does not. Thus, when the affected units broadcast a SIL of 0, they are TSO-compliant. Until the performance requirements of 14 CFR § 91.227 become effective on January 1, 2020, the FAA does not find the internal uncertified GPS source objectionable, as long as the ADS-B unit is correctly broadcasting a SIL of 0. It is NavWorx's change of the SIL setting in these units to 3, without any qualification of the internal uncertified GPS position source to support broadcast of SIL 3, that the FAA finds unacceptable. In this condition, the units are transmitting to ATC and to nearby aircraft that they have 14 CFR § 91.227-compliant position source integrity, when their position source integrity is actually not compliant with that rule, or is unknown. We discuss the safety effects of this condition in greater detail below.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ndent-surveillance-broadcast-universal-access
 
Last edited:
ChiefPilot said:
I think you're thinking of TCAS. ADS-B isn't what you describe. At all.
Click to expand...

It's designed to allow tighter traffic spacing, aka separation, so yeah it's exactly about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Sorry but that is really funny. ADS-B has nothing to do with that, in fact the driving reasons for ADS-B require airlines to implement. And guess what, they are excused from implementing...

Tim
Click to expand...

Nope not excused. And yeah I'd think enabling tighter separation standards is exactly about not allowing aircraft to collide. And tcas uses mode s info to boot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
It's designed to allow tighter traffic spacing, aka separation, so yeah it's exactly about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly, it increases accuracy for azimuth positioning like the blind altitude encoder did for elevation.
 
gsengle said:
It's designed to allow tighter traffic spacing, aka separation, so yeah it's exactly about that.
Click to expand...

Not now it isn't, and it won't be until 2020, if even then. And primary radar will never go away.
 
ChiefPilot said:
Not now it isn't, and it won't be until 2020, if even then. And primary radar will never go away.
Click to expand...

We are explicitly talking about the 2020 requirement that is what, 17 months away. Primary radar only even now causes huge traffic backups due to increased separation requirements over transponder with mode C. But if you're a "chief pilot", you know all this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top