The FAA published a technical correction in the Federal Register Feb. 9 that allows future installations of ADS-B out equipment to meet performance standards of the appropriate Technical Standard Order (TSO) specifications without meeting the complete TSO requirements.
This technical amendment is a first step to exploring solutions for amateur-built aircraft to meet FAA’s year 2020 mandate for installation of ADS-B out equipment in aircraft flown in controlled airspace, according to officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).
Currently, the lowest-cost purchase and installation for such equipment is an estimated $5,000 – equal to 15% to 20% of the value of a significant number of GA aircraft that would need to meet the requirement.
At the end of 2019, aircraft will be required to have approved ADS-B out capability to fly in airspace that now requires a Mode C transponder.
“This technical correction is a good first step, but there is much more work to do,” said Doug Macnair, EAA’s vice president of government relations. “EAA supports the FAA’s desire to have full compliance with the 2020 mandate, provided cost-effective options are available. This amendment allows the culture of innovation that has been part of the homebuilt community to move forward toward those cost-effective possibilities.”
Historically, builders and owners of experimental aircraft have been able to install avionics that meet the performance standards of certified equipment but are not specifically approved by the FAA. EAA seeks to preserve that historical precedent for ADS-B equipment installation as well.
In its Federal Register publication, the FAA noted that “it was not the FAA’s intent to arguably limit operators to only install equipment marked with a TSO… The FAA’s intent was to permit equipment that meets the performance requirements set forth in the referenced TSOs.”
The FAA further stated that the inadvertent removal of the word “performance” in the 2010 final rule was in error and resulted in confusion.
I have two planes combined value is about fifty k I plan on moving them tem miles away to get out of transponder required area.
Um … excuse me, ManyDecadesGA … “TSO use, per se, has rarely if ever actually been mandatory for Part 23 …” And, WAAS is useless? What the heck are you talking about? And, what the heck is NIC and NAC … ? I don’t want to start a flame war but I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. What are your qualifications and references for those statements to a crown eager to both learn and equip? You are obfuscating the issue, here.
WAAS makes the otherwise less accurate GPS signal MORE accurate. When GPS came into wide use, folks sought to increase accuracy with local area transmitters correcting the ‘dithered’ GPS signal (LAAS). When President Clinton ordered the military to UNdither the civilian GPS signals in the 90’s, the position info still wasn’t quite accurate and so WAAS came to be. I am retired USAF and I’m here to tell you that the military DOES use WAAS / GPS when inside the US. And so do the airlines. Who the heck do you think OWNS the GPS constellation? The US military. Have you heard of RVSM above FL280?
You might try reading FAR 21.9, sir! If you own a certificated airplane — I have two — that FAR applies. An airplane’s OEM equipment — even if it’s trash that comes from Radio Shack — is covered by the airplane’s original Type and ProductionCertificates and everything in a new airplane is therefore an “approved” part. If the airplane is subsequently modified, FAR 21.9 applies … period! I suppose you could argue that an owner could ‘design’ his own ADS-B Out system under that reg. but I doubt if anyone would even think about it.
Show me one — just one — Mode A/C or Mode S transponder which is NOT TSO’ed. Anything which is transmitting — especially critical aviation data — is required to be both TSO’ed and have RTCA and FCC approvals, as well. SOME equipment in E-AB or S-LSA airplanes are not TSO’ed … and don’t have to be. In the case of ADS-B ‘OUT’ data, lots of systems are currently using non-TSO’ed equipment and are also transmitting a bit set to tell ATC that it’s GPS data isn’t as accurate as it might be because it’s not TSO’ed. FAA computers then give that airplane wider ‘berth.’ After 2020, there is a question as to whether those GPS sources will be able to continue to be used. The FAA update on Feb 9 was meant to allow continued use of those position sources. Hopefully, the FAA will also allow it to apply to certificated airplanes, as well.
To a point, you ARE right and I DO agree. Dynon has a superb one piece WAAS enabled GPS, the SV-GPS-250 which is an antenna AND GPS in one part. It doesn’t even need an RF cable because it’s output is RS-232. It needs only four wires, RS-232 Rcv and TX, power and ground. It’s priced at $200. Anyone with an E-AB or E/S-LSA airplane and a Dynon Skyview system can install one of those, hook it to a TSO’ed transponder (which is a Trig box renamed) and they have ADS-B out via the 1090ES method. The problem is that the GPS/Antenna aren’t TSO’ed. The recent FAA update sought to rectify that, I believe. So the REAL question is over use of that same equipment in a certificated airplane.
It is MY position that unless you are flying in class A airspace AND commercially, a unit like the Dynon GPS ought to be qualified as an approved position source. Unfortunately, the boys who are here to “help” could go either way on their recent update of FAR 91.225. I could easily see the price of 978UAT’s coming down significantly if the FAA would only REALLY put safety first.
Likewise, I agree that ADS-B out could be made cheaper. But NOT for $200. There’s no reason that a generic transponder — kinda like a VW bug of the ’60’s — couldn’t be designed. Arpareo is imminently going to produce and sell a TSO’ed Mode S ES transponder which will CONTAIN a TSO’ed WAAS GPS and hook directly to a Stratus II ADS-B ‘IN’ box. It’ll be the first totally integrated system and I predict more will follow once it comes out and as we get closer to 2020. That box plus a Stratus II and an iPad would solve the total requirement.
I also agree that use of a dual method of ADS-B out compliance makes the total system both more complicated, more expensive and more prone to failure modes OR attacks. The reason the FAA instituted both 1090 ES and 978 UAT methods was that they feared that recreational (GA, drones, et al) users would overwhelm the system, especially in busy areas. Having two methods of ADS-B ‘out’ thereby makes ADS-R necessary so that everyone can see each other. It is likely that the closer we get to 2020, manufacturers will come out with cheaper and cheaper solutions for ADS-B out. The Garmin GDL-84 could be one example. If they’d cut the price in half, they’d OWN the market. Are ya listening, Gar and Min??
Finally, Brett H, I’m with you. Once we start transmitting our personal aircraft ID’s, we’re open to all sorts of issues. Look at what the State of Oregon wants to do … charge vehicle owners by the number of miles they drive. I could even see the FAA ultimately having automated violation. ATC might ‘see’ an airplane flying too low over a populated area, know who owns it and issue a violation automatically. It’d be like the red light cameras — I LIVE in a City that has gone wild with ’em — a violation is issued to the OWNER of the car and does not necessarily know who drove it. Ultimately, I could see the FAA requiring entering a pilot ID number into their transponder prior to flight. They’d then be able to ID both the airplane AND the pilot. Next thing ya know … we’re in Soylent Green City.
Now then, I’m going to order a six pack of beer delivered to my front door via a WAAS GPS guided drone from my nearby brew house.
@ Larry. Very respectfully, sir, if you do not know and understand what NIC and NAC is, relative to ADS, and don’t realize that neither the airlines nor military avionics depend on SBAS (and GA avionics need not depend on SBAS either, if properly designed), and that (obsolete excessively expensive WAAS) is no longer needed (since SA has been turned off and other GNSS, GBAS, and inertial assets are or are becoming available – especially with Kalman filtering) to reduce the PDF for position from a few 10s of meters, at to a few meters or less with integrity, ….because that SBAS accuracy and integrity contribution reduction now has no meaningful relevant advantageous effect whatsoever on doing effective “S” for ATS, for either accuracy or integrity, in the “CNS” triad, …then it would likely take much more space than is available in this forum to help you appropriately understand this issue. The fact remains sir, the fundamental troubling issue with ADS-B today, AND ITS UNNECESSARILY HIGH COST, is the excessively and over constrained erroneous specification of NIC and NAC, as referenced by the source RTCA MASPS and MOPS criteria, in turn referenced by an errant FAA published TSO, bound by a seriously flawed FAR 91.225 and FAR 91.227.
NIC NAC NUCsubP MOPS SIL HFOM VFOM DO-260(A) DO-242(A) Aircraft Operational Status Message … and all that jazz.
We haven’t even equipped for ADS-B because it’s too expensive and the average pilot doesn’t know — OR care — what all the above means and NOW you want them to get inertial nav with Kalman filtering? Are you kidding?? You’re wasting our time and I’m wasting yours. Goodbye
I forgot to say … without WAAS GPS, there are no GPS approaches. If WAAS GPS didn’t exist, LNAV and, especially, VNAV wouldn’t be available. WAAS is the critical element of civilian GPS which makes it’s accuracy usable. It’s what makes ADS-B ATC possible. And, in the event of another 9/11 situation, WAAS can be turned off and the GPS signal dithered or removed altogether. What they do in Australia is the Australians business. This is the USA.
Drones already ARE using GPS’. As a result of the White House drone incident, DJI has changed their software such that you can’t fly near there anymore or near airports. Of course, it could be argued that a knowledgeable entity could modify the current ‘new’ software but the average Joe isn’t going to be able to.
I meant CROWD, not crown, in the first paragraph.
@ Larry. Sorry Larry, but again you’re apparently seriously mistaken. GNSS works just fine globally without WAAS/SBAS, especially now with 30+ SVs and Galileo about to arrive, and particularly with low cost inertial now filtered (in even children’s inexpensive toy drones), ….as does baro VNAV with RNP, which is safely and successfully being used globally, as the new ICAO standard. While obsolete WAAS based LPV, which still uses obsolete airspace wasting straight-in angular TERPS 8260.3 related criteria, is ultimately going to be seriously hurting GA, and GA airports, and GA airspace access, far more than any other single factor after perhaps cost growth. The real answer for GA is needing to do a complete reset on NextGen, using a vastly simplified and much lower cost ADS-A, -B, and C, along with wide implementation of sensor independent RNP, with a good low cost data link. Otherwise UAVs, LSAs, Soaring, sport GA, and even low end BizAv will simply be eventually priced out of the airspace system, by being required to install ill-advised systems like FAA’s present overbuilt and dysfunctional ADS-B, or UAT, and ADS-R. Hopefully more in GA will now become educated to see these real long term threats, and not fall for the “alchemy” of the present FAA NextGen plan, including the seriously flawed 91.225/91.227 rule’s TSO and RTCA DO-260 et. al. based ADS-B criteria, …or obsolete unneeded WAAS, with airspace wasting LPV ruining airport access, instead of just simply using tools like vastly superior and far less expensive RNP based procedures. It is only because of seriously flawed FAA criteria that we don’t already have RNP and more simple but yet effective ADS and data links available already today, in even low cost hand held avionics, for a small fraction of the price of a typical present GA panel mount offering. So I hope you’ll perhaps consider undertaking to learn more “technically”, about these critical issues to GA, and help us low end users in particular in GA, help steer the “FAA’s Titanic” away from this present ADS-B 2020 iceberg, that is threatening our very existence in GA’s future.
Y’all seem to be forgetting one of the primary purposes of ADS-B out, which is surveillance. And by surveillance, I don’t mean ATC knowing where your plane is in a specific airspace, it means knowing who owns (and is probably operating) that specific aircraft. In other words, ADS-B out will become the red-light-camera of the sky for airspace and numerous other violations of the FARs.
Having a portable box in your plane may well serve the alleged safety objectives, but unless you have to ID it on a mandatory VFR flight plan, it doesn’t satisfy the surveillance ID goal.
There is (currently) the possibility of avoiding the entire hassle by remaining outside of Mode C airspace, but that doesn’t help the thousands of recreational private pilots who are based at or near major airports.
Brett, respectfully not so, regarding our global evolving “surveillance” requirements. There are ways a portable ADS unit could certainly be used, just as we already have portable EPIRBs and ELTs that are now used. In fact, eventually it will even likely be necessary to use such portable ADS devices for some key airspace users, such as very small UAVs (drones) and for parachutists, as well as for pilots flying hang gliders or even gliders, which all need to be “seen” by other aircraft, irrespective of any ANSP ATS requirements.
Thanks for your comments. I am not an engineer. My comments are based on the explanations of several engineers which were posted in response to one of J. Mac McClellan’s recent articles on the EAA website:
http://macsblog.com/2015/01/the-faa-likes-my-ads-b-out-performance/
Not trying to stir up anything, but you might find some interesting info among the opinions exchanged.
Fly safe!
The concept of ADS-B is great as I am always for safety, but not at any price. The article seems to address FAA acceptance of non TSO ADS-B for experimental aircraft as positive (which it is) but what about certified production airplanes? It’s the same old thing where experimental airplanes have the advantage of installing the latest equipment (including glass panels) at a much more reasonable price because said equipment does not have to meet the TSO specs. In the meantime, we certified airplane owners have to live with non state of the art equipment (steam gauges and vacuum pumps that can fail at any time) simply because this outdated equipment meets TSO. It is more logical for production aircraft to have approval for the installation of reliable, less expensive non TSO state of the art equipment (whether portable or permanently installed) as opposed to ancient, expensive, unreliable TSO equipment in my view. So we have the traditional FAA double standard which penalizes the production aircraft owner into living with ancient technology. In closing, I’m no engineer, but why does ADS-B out equipment have to cost more than a Mode C blind encoder that can be purchased for $197.00? They both send OUT reliable trackable signals, no?
Nate is correct. ADS-B doesn’t need to cost more than about $200, either installed, or as a portable unit, if and only if they (FAA) properly revise NIC and NAC to be less unnecessarily restrictive, and more appropriate. And then FAA needs to drop ANY criteria reference, explicit or implicit, to needing to couple to obsolete, outrageously expensive WAAS (a $4B total wasted program cost that we’re essentially expected in GA to somehow implicitly be subsidizing, since the airlines and military don’t need it, or want it, and will not pay for SBAS/WAAS). While ADS-B is actually a good idea in concept, it needs to be implemented in a much simpler way, at much lower cost to users, as other country’s like Australia have already done. Hence, FAA’s recent rule change backing off using the “TSO performance” wording, vice actual meeting the TSO, is nothing but a political PR oriented placebo cure. Shame on FAA.
ADS-B/in is a nice (and relatively cheap) safety feature. The grinding complaint about requiring ADS-B/out equipment is that these boxes are likely to be very expensive, TSO waiver or no. Casual recreational pilots may only need ABS-B broadcast capability a few times a year. When most flying is in Class E airspace, ADS-B/out is not required. That needless expense will push a few thousand more pilots out of aviation. I trust that is not the FAA’s intention.
If the FAA is so steaming hot on making all of us equip our small and aging aircraft with ADS-B/out, why can they not just establish specifications for a suitable squawk box. Then issue a Request for Proposal to the aircraft electronic equipment manufacturers to build a simple, one-size-fits-all, standardized ADS-B/out box and distribute them for FREE to the light GA community. Low bidder can take advantage of large volume scale economies of production under a genuine government contract. FAA is setting standards for lead-free fuel even as I type, so this concept doesn’t break new ground. There is further precedent, too. Right now I can get transcribed weather broadcasts, digital weather images, ADS-B traffic, flight following, and other safety related services all for FREE. For which I am grateful, to be sure.
Manufacturers of current equipment would still be able to sell pricey specialty boxes to the airlines and to corporate and other big time commercial users. But a basic, standardized, FREE ADS-B/out box for the rest of us would ensure a higher degree of safety in the national system along with a far greater percentage of adoption among the airspace users that FAA wants regulatory compliance from. That would be us. Like many of you, I am aggravated with the ‘Big Brother’ aspects of all this discrete position reporting, but I do like improved safety.
If my squeaky old memory serves me it was the duty of VOR users to check that the signal was being received correctly by checking it against a known position on a regular basis. Based on this rationale why not accept even a ‘portable’ unit that would broadcast the ‘out’ position. That would meet the intent and obviously better than even a poor or non-existent radar return. This mass produced portable would be usable in other aircraft for renters or those with two or more planes.
I hope they will eventually approve portable ADS-B units. That would probably bring the cost down a good bit.
While perhaps a trivial step forward by FAA (Note: TSO use per se has rarely if ever actually been mandatory for FAR 23 or LSA aircraft related issues like this), this FAA alleged action is utterly useless. The ONLY meaningful way to significantly reduce ADS-B avionics costs properly is to completely revise and relax requirements for NIC and NAC, so as to allow for use of present aviation GPSs (i.e., NON WAAS), just as elsewhere worldwide. Further, FAA needs to scrap both UAT and ADS-R to additionally help contain unnecessarily high ADS-B overall system costs. UAT and ADS-R are used NOWHERE ELSE globally.
It would be really helpful if this could specifically apply to certified gliders.