By DAVE HUGHES, FAA
Some general aviation aircraft owners may not recognize the consequences of waiting to install Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out until they discover in 2020 that they cannot easily fly out of their home airport.
Many GA airports are located in or near airspace that requires ADS-B equipage. Without ADS-B Out onboard, pilots will need to seek exceptions from air traffic controllers to depart from their home airport, which might not be granted or could lead to delays.
In 2010, the FAA published a rule mandating the use of ADS-B Out by Jan. 1, 2020, in most airspace where a transponder is required today.
Pilots who fly from GA airports in or near congested airspace may not have studied how Class B and C airspace or a Mode C veil might affect their operations to and from their home airport. ADS-B Out is required in all three of these types of airspace under the FAA rule.
You should confirm whether the following types of ADS-B airspace could affect your operations:
- Class B airspace: Airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet above mean sea level surrounding the busiest 37 airports in terms of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations. Airspace configuration is individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more layers. Class B is designed to contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace.
- Mode C Veil: This airspace within a 30-nm radius of a Class B airport from the surface to 10,000 feet requires aircraft to have a Mode C transponder with altitude reporting.
- Class C airspace: Class C airspace usually consists of a 5-nm radius core surface area from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10-nm radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above airport elevation. These airports have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and have a certain number of IFR operations. There are more than 120 Class C airports in the United States.
Class B and C airspace is shaped like an inverted wedding cake. Even if a general aviation airport is not covered by the bottom layer, an aircraft may pass through Class B or C airspace on the way to or from a runway. The Mode C Veil around 37 Class B airports with a 30-nm radius extends from the surface to 10,000 feet.
GA hotspots often correlate to congested airspace where ADS-B is mandated in New York, Florida, California, and Texas.
“This is where the highest density of general aviation aircraft is located and where there are a lot of Class B and C airports,” said Jens Hennig, vice president of operations for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA).
Nationwide, more than 20,000 general aviation aircraft are based at airports under a Mode C Veil, and those owners need to recognize how little time they have left to install ADS-B before the FAA rule takes effect.
“There are many general aviation pilots who do not fully understand where rule airspace is located,” Duke said. “Pilots should investigate how rule airspace affects them and take action soon.”
The FAA, the only thing standing between us, air safety and progress.
SPECIAL CAUTION FOR VOLUNTEER PILOTS CONDUCTING PUBLIC BENEFIT FLIGHTS AND OTHERS WHO ON OCCASION NEED TO USE SPECIAL CALL SIGNS!
.
Be aware that many installations will be programmed with a fixed call sign designator for your plane. This is fine if you will never need to use another, but if you fly any specialty flights such a patient transport, environmental observation, disaster relief, animal relocations, etc., and need to use a special call sign, be sure to order equipment and an installation that allows you to program your call sign prior to the flight.
.
There is some good information about this and other ADSB issues in the FAA SAFETY BRIEFING March/April 2017 issue. You can find the PDF of it by running a Google search – or see if the following link works:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiGttChspXTAhVK32MKHWOiB88QFggkMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fnews%2Fsafety_briefing%2F2017%2Fmedia%2FMarApr2017.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGCWyT7ChRajZxpoNTOWYWW6YVftA&sig2=4d-7CvmdqLRhvlIe_US7Xg
We plan to provide some information about this in the Resources / Regulations section of the Air Care Alliance website – http://www.aircarealliance.org
It amazes me how many pilots are counting on the ADS-B requirement to be delayed or eliminated as their “Plan A”. Like it or not, throwing around a bunch of 50-cent words in an effort to sound intellectually superior to others on the issue does not alter the cold hard facts. The FAA administrator has repeatedly and emphatically stressed that there will be no delay or extension of the time to equip. Notably, the European aviation authorities have recently granted a short delay but only one that is now more in alignment with the same 2020 date of the United States. So American based airlines that travel to Europe will need to equip for their requirements deadline as well as for the FAA. Lastly, on Price… My total installation cost me a net of $3500 with good-quality Garmin equipment. Total $4500 installed minus the $500 FAA rebate minus $500 retrieved from the sale value of my existing transponder. I’m now equipped, compliant, and feeling far safer in the meantime. 33 short months from now I will be enjoying the unrestricted use of my airplane while those who stuck their their heads in the sand and voiced their opinions on the many flaws or “inevitable” postponing of the program are all scrambling to find installers with both the available equipment and shop time to get their planes back in the air – probably doing so at a premium price compared to today.
@Bob W. Again, you’re seriously mistaken. First, that Garmin “boat Anchor” isn’t going to come close to actually satisfying the low cost C-N-S avionics (including even handhelds) that will be needed for GA in the long term to actually solve the airspace system access issues, from tiny drones, to LSAs, to Cubs and C172s, to A380s, F16s and F35s, …to SpaceX, fast UAVs, and cruise missiles. It is marginally useful, and essentially a throwaway. Second, Huerta is a “Lame Duck” already in worse political shape than ex-AG Sally Q. Yates. The President has even already said that he wants a real pilot at the head of FAA. Third, Europe, Australia, and Canada’s ADS A- ADS-B, and ADS-C is NOT THE SAME AS the FAA’s screwed up mess of ADS-B. The Australians have the right idea, NOT even needing WAAS (the Worthless Area Augmentation System) with an entirely excessive NIC and NAC. If ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C were properly defined and used (UNLIKE FAA’s convoluted and mis-applied ADS-B pseudo radar mess), a good ADS-B could cost UNDER $500, and could even be portable, for gliders, Stearmans, and even many drones that legitimately need to fly in mixed airspace, and be seen by OTHER AIR VEHICLES (and not necessarily by FAA ATS). Finally, it is already quite clear that US and Foreign airlines, and DoD, are NOT going to meet FAA’s 2020. So you and teh author of this article are both totally “Out to lunch”, as being detached from operational reality. Let’s see what this year holds for FAA. Remember,… MLS totally collapsed within a few weeks of (AOA-1) Mr. Del Balzo’s departure from FAA. And Ms. Peggy (AVS-1) is already now gone.
AMEN!!! Finally some common sense thoughts on the matter!
The General Aviation community needs to wake-up and smell the coffee. ADSB is a failed system… but it works VERY well to put the hammer down on General Aviation and especially weekend for-fun flyers.
Where’s the GAMA outfit? Why aren’t they PROTESTING this nonsense?
Just like the phony Global Warming scheme by Al Gore, this FAA Trojan Horse needs to be put in the barn and the door tightly closed!
Hogwash. I have been flying with ADS-B over two aircraft for four years. It is an astounding piece of tech and there is NO WAY it is not happening.
Again, whiners with old planes who can’t afford a couple of thousand to upgrade for safety – let them stay on the ground. The air belongs to those that can afford to fly.
Really tired of low-enders crowding the sky anyway…they are a hazard like a rock is in a lake.
gbigs,
I really saddened by your statement: “Again, whiners with old planes who can’t afford a couple of thousand to upgrade for safety – let them stay on the ground. The air belongs to those that can afford to fly.
Really tired of low-enders crowding the sky anyway…they are a hazard like a rock is in a lake.”
Remember the saying “If we don’t hang together we will all hang apart.”
Your comment sounds just like the airline operators who myopically wish you and all the other GA folks were not in the sky.
The sky belongs to all, not just those who can afford highly equipped aircraft. What works for you doesn’t necessarily work well for many others, and pushing many folks out of the sky is not a good answer if the imposed “solution” is unnecessarily expensive, inappropriate, poorly engineered, or inelegant, or inefficient.
I wish you had a broader understanding of the the many and valuable constituencies constituting the aviation community, and their needs. Just as I wish some of the myopic members of the airline aviation community did.
What you are seeing is end of patience. I have been hearing this whining for a long time over Mode C and ADS-B and radios. And no doubt this same group are flying around in round gauges and dissing glass panels.
With drones coming and pressure on airports to cling to their land it is time the guys resisting these safety systems and upgrades accept reality and either stick around non-towered airports and farms and quit trying to push-back on these things and make the upgrades.
Sure the sky belongs to all of us. But the sky is dangerous and unless you are prepared to pony up the cash and upgrade your old planes you really should simply stay on the ground.
I Don’t have a problem with compliance of the mandate,but I do have a problem with reliability versus cost of the system. Flying regularly below 10,000 feet I’ve experienced many ADSB targets that show up on my ADSB in system that aren’t there. I do know many transponder transmitting aircraft are rebroadcast by ATC on an ADSB format and can be viewed on ” in” equipment. Either way I’ve seen several aircraft that are ” phantom” aircraft on my ADSB in. Yesterday was a good example as 3 aircraft were displayed at my six o’clock position at my altitude….prompting “s” turns by me to look for traffic. I have no problem complying with the mandate,but until reliability is established…ill wait.
I’ve had the exact same issues and it’s very disconcerting to have that “six o’clock traffic appear. As you pointed out you’re looking for “phantoms” that aren’t there and this creates it’s own safety issues.
Your equipment is either installed improperly, broken or you don’t understand how the system works. The system is being used by thousands daily including me with no problems for years.
It is possible to have your own plane show up as a phantom which is an antennae issue for you. You need to go to a shop and have them fix it.
Well “ManyDecadesGA” you have hit the nail on the head. While I believe that the FAA will not turn away from this folly it will be a dismal failure as they may get only 50% of the GA fleet to buy in. That leaves the other half of the fleet with ADS-B and depending on it and they are only seeing half the traffic. PLUS, their eyes are focused on the display and the other half will be on a collision course. All the ADS-B “sales” meetings I have attended this is the concern for many of the pilots in the room. The see and avoid VFR rule will go out the window as folks try to figue out and look for targets on a display instead of keeping an eye outside.
The other big issue with this system is it’s too complicated and too expensive AND takes too much gear in the plane to make it work. Cost is a big issue already for GA and this is a folly that didn’t have to be made this expensive. The experimental fleet can have a non-TSO’d system that costs less then half and it will be accepted. You bet I’ll wait and so will other aircraft owners as the TSO requirements are being loosened and IF the system ever is made portable then the feds may see a higher participation rate. Until then no thank you I don’t need it.
The system is a total success. Tens of thousands are installed and using it without issue and increased safety and free weather. You naysayers are just going to be grounded if you don’t get in the game. You only have 28 months left.
I have a Navworx unit that the FAA put an AD on, now has to be turned off. It is in an experimental but not having a certified GPS in the unit keeps me from using as I did for three years. Navworxs will up grade the unit for cost . It is worth it as it has worked perfectly for three years. Not being aware of aircraft you can’t see is bliss , but does nothing for unsupervised flight into a busy traffic environment !
Let me guess, is this Garmin writing this?
The problem is I fly that cost me $18,000 to purchase including a Garmin GPS/com and will cost me between $4000 & $5000 to become ADS-B out compliant. 25% of what I paid for my plane. If it was an experimental it would considerably less, yet experimental planes will just as visible in the next gen ADS-B system with an un-certified system.
Your estimates are way too high. Here is a current buyers guide: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/ads-b-buyers-guide-final-countdown/#.WOatiaK1tPY
Well say what you want, I agree with Jeff. Even already owning a GNS-430W the installed price in my 172, from 3 different shops, is $4500.00 to $7000.00 for the least capable solutions. Makes me seriously consider purchasing an EAB airplane.
@gbigs. You’re a dreamer on your “lowball” estimates for the “affordable” cost of FAA’s kluged, overspecified, dysfunctional ill-advised concept for ADS-B (e.g., foolishly using ADS-B for ATS pseudo-radar, …versus using ADS-B for only a simple air-air link for trajectory exchange). Not only are your estimates too low for typical installations, but real costs are starting well over $5K for even most low end practical installations, …while ranging to five and even six figures $, for realistic integrated installations, …depending on the type of aircraft and present avionics suites installed. I can cite specific tail numbers, types, and avionics shops. Worst of all, your “minimalist” proposed installation solution noted above will actually detract, if not even preclude subsequent rational needed avionics equipage (or be a throwaway), for what inevitably will come, for any practical needed C-N-S capable GA avionics, so as to actually be useful for future economic and advantageous US and global airspace access and use.
The buyers guide is not my estimates they are listed costs. Some aircraft may not justify the cost to upgrade and so will be relegated to the scrap heap or go work on a farm in G airspace. But like the Mode C upgrade and the gnashing of teeth when that came out you no longer hear anyone bitching about Mode C. The same will happen with this…
I have been flying with ADS-B in/out for 4 years. Everything about it is worthwhile. I have even used Nexrad weather to stay out of trouble this past winter. And upgrades coming to this free weather service will make it just as real-time as Weatherscope costing tens of thousands of bucks. Which more than pays for the installation of the gear alone.
No such thing as ADS B airspace.
Basically ADS-B airspace is Mode C airspace. Except above 18k you need a Mode S xpndr with 1090-ES to comply with ADS-B.
Not a prayer that airlines, DoD aircraft, foreign airlines, drones, or GA are going to be equipped to meet that 2020 FAA deadline. Airlines already have relief until at least 2024. DoD will not only NOT meet the deadline, they may NEVER comply, ever. Same with foreign airlines. So it remains to be seen if ANY GA aircraft will be precluded from any US airspace in 2020 due to this seriously misguided and overspecified 91.225/91.227 poorly conceived rule. Instead, FAA should allow ANY ADS-B system that Australia, Canada, or Europe allows, and suspend any reference to or even rescind 91.225/91.227. To think GA or any other airspace user group will be in full compliance by 2020, or face substantive airspace restrictions, is pure folly. It is equally or more likely at this point that by 2020, FAA itself will be broken up and reconfigured, with a separate ANSP split out.
Wrong. The deadline will be met or you will not fly in controlled airspace. Period. It is astounding that ANYONE would not make this simple upgrade sooner rather than later anyway since the system is up and running.
Those waiting another year will find themselves grounded because there will be longer and longer lead times to getting the equipment installed due to the rush. Don’t be a fool and pretend this mandate will not be enforced. Mode C was enforced, this will be too.
@gbigs. Fortunately you’re the one who is wrong. See comment above. Some airlines, DoD, and others are already known to be not going to comply in 2020, if ever. They will most assuredly still fly in that designated US airspace, and any other continental airspace needed. There is virtually no chance that FAA is going to be able to politically or technically sustain this foolish, ill-designed 91.225/91.227 ADS-B rule compliance date, especially when the rest of the world has no intention whatsoever of following FAA’s lead, and has a far better and less expensive C-N-S set of solutions. Further, NextGen itself is heading straight for a $40B massive failure, and it too will likely also undergo a substantial redesign, as FAA itself has a high probability of being broken up, and reformulated from first principles, with a separate ANSP.
I am not wrong. All commercial will comply or be grounded. Some military will get an exemption but not be allowed to fly in civilian airspace. This has been announced for a decade. about a third of the fleet is upgraded. All new planes being made are equipped. If you guys with old planes don’t want to play, fine…but you will not be allowed to fly in Mode C airspace.
@gbigs. You state: “…All commercial will comply or be grounded???” Surely you’re kidding. Just try grounding foreign carriers flying across or to and from US international airports over some hair-brained 91.227 rule like this, without any measure of Annex 2, or Annex 6, or Doc 7030, support. Let alone try grounding a substantial portion of a fleet of UA, AA, DL, AS, or even fire bombers, etc.. Further you state: “…Some military will get an exemption but not be allowed to fly in civilian airspace??”. Simply an absurd statement by gbigs. DoD will essentially continue to fly ANYWHERE THEY NEED TO, ANY TIME they need to, …in accordance with long established airspace use policies, including with the ANG, AFR, and “Noble Eagle” like missions, …especially with access to MARSA and “due regard”. No chance there will be FAA’s version of ADS-B on Vipers, Eagles, Raptors, Lightnings, or Hornets any time soon, if ever. Sir, you clearly have no idea of the consequence of what you’re mistakenly asserting.
Mode C was a great deal less costly to comply with by a huge factor. Consider GA aircraft such as a C150. So far to meet the minimal requirement of ADSB out only I would need to install a GPS and a new transponder (portable equipment is not allowed, so my present GPS (which meets my needs perfectly) will not suffice. Most importantly air safety will not be improved, Consider the recent collision of a military jet and a C150. Both were being advised by air traffic control and had transponders. If the 150 had ADSB out it would not have made any difference, since the military are exempt from the . ADSB requirement and with “out” only a/c self traffic control (vice ATC advice) will still rely on “eyeballs”. The prohibition of portable equipment (permitting the significant cost saving of not having aircraft modification) seems to based on some sort of attempt to enhance identity security (which has nothing to do with safety).
I would suggest that the requirement for 2020 be restricted to large a/c only and to altitudes above 10,000 feet. I could also afford a “mode C” requirement with installed (not portable) equipment in all airspace as less draconian and achievable. This would satisfy whatever security needs are and enhance safety.
r. dantonio you totally get it and I am in agreement with you. This program is truly not about safety but about aircraft identification for enforcement. It’s also about the FAA’s failing “nexgen” system. If safety was the real driver for this a portable ADS-B transmitter would suffice nicely and would be cheap and could be thrown on top of the panel of any airplane you fly; a poor man’s TCAS. I have flow with a portable ADS-B “in” unit and in busy airspace there is just a lot of clutter. What was interesting for me was I was in a “group” of maybe eight airplanes and in a busy airspace and I never made visual contact with any of them. Not very impressive performance. Another thought to consider is of those that may be force to do the install they will only do the “out” portion to get them in the airspace they need to be. They will not be gaining (if there is any safety benefit to be had) any benefit but painting themselves on someone elses display.
I don’t think the FAA is turning away from this “over-specified” complicated system; their way too invested in this system now to turn back. But as “ManyDecadesGA” stated EXPERIMENTAL aircraft will get a system that will work just as good and it’s less then half the price. Plus I have a Stratux ADS-B in and it can be a huge distraction and in reality if more airplanes are equipped with this type of system it is going to take more eyes out of the VFR system that we have relied on for years and years and drive those eyes into the cockpit looking at a panel mounted display. Plus you will still have 50% of the fleet that doesn’t have the “out” and the complacency will surely lead to more accidents and not less. If the feds were really interested in safety they would make this system way cheaper to use and install and then everyone could afford to have one. A mode C transponder has been an industry standard for years and it works just fine. One more thought, the FAA is making it simpler to install non-STC’d equipment, maybe in a few years when they see what a colossal flop the ADS-B mandate truly is they may allow even cheaper solutions to this ADS-B; and maybe safer too.
It is beyond my comprehension why the FAA will allow LSA and Experimental Aircraft to use the non-TSO units but won’t allow certified aircraft to use these units. Seems to me if it does the necessary job on the LSA’s and Experimentals, it should be able to do the job in a certified aircraft. TSO is the FAA;’s way of making something cost 3 to 5 times more.
LSA and experimentals by DEFINITION use non TSOd gear. Making them put in certified avionics to meet ADS-B would be a violation of their own standards. Likewise, the certified world is stuck in the same way. If you have a problem with that you should argue why there is a certified world at all…
You completely missed my point, gbigs. There is nothing to stop an lsa or experimental from installing TSO’d equpment. My point was that if the non-tso’d part works in those two types, why does the FAA think they won’t work in a certified aircraft. It’s a stupid, etched in stone rule by the FAA that you can only put TSO’d equipment in a certified aircraft. Actually, they do allow it in some cases. For instance I put a non-approved TSO’d light weight battery in a certified aircraft and got it field approved. However, I had to write a 6 page maintenance manual for this non-serviceable sealed dry cell battery which basicly said: “If the battery is weak, charge it and if the battery won’t hold a charge, replace it”. The FAA requires answers to 16 items for a Field Approval, plus a Table of Contents and a cover page. There should be a path for the FAA to give blanket approval to the installation of these inexpensive ADS-B units that meet the requirements of ADS-B airspace without forcing the manufacturers to spend money and untold hours getting the FAA to “bless” their product which does nothing but cause the price of the product to go up.
Read what I said, ” If you have a problem with that you should argue why there is a certified world at all…”
The point being experimental and LSA are not certified and are therefore not required to use the more costly certified gear. Yes the gear works perfectly well, namley Dynon and Garmin glass made for the experimental market.
The FAA is moving a little on this now allowing non TSO’d glass in Part 23 certified aircraft under the yet signed-off rewrite. But it is taking years to get them to relent. Your argument is with the FAA…not with experimentals and LSA.
You brroke the code, gbigs. My aregument is with the FAA and their sometimes stupid rules that can’t be broken without going through reams & reams of paperwork. I never indicated that my argument was with experimental and LSA aircraft. I have built, frlown, and sold an experimental and presently fly a certified aircraft that meets the requirements of an LSA.
Richard, your point is well taken! It’s really a wait and see as I mentioned earlier as the FAA is loosening the TSO requirement for certified airplanes to be able to install non-TSO equipment. Your main point is that LSA and experimentals will have access to the same airspace with none TSO gear in their planes and are considered safe to fly with other “certified gear” equipped airplanes. It’s like buying a non IFR certified GPS or other avionics. You just can’t use it “legally” in an IFR enviroment. Cheaper gear. The ADS-B is about safety (supposedly) so why make it so hard and expensive to get into it. I, like many others fly an older 172 and to open it up for a big install for a certified ADS-B out only is a big deal and can open an expensive can of worms. Besides there are a lot of pilots out west that can easily fly around the very few “mode C veil” airspaces that are out there. It also means we won’t be spending any money at those airports that are now trapped under the “veil” come 2020. It’s just another typical not very well thought out governement mandate that will cause more issues then it solves. Bottom line.