By DAVE HUGHES, FAA
As of Jan. 1, 2020, ADS-B-Out will be required in most controlled airspace — and that includes pilots who are practicing aerobatics, performing in an airshow, or competing in an event such as this week’s SUN ’n FUN.
This requirement is no different from the current requirement to use an operating transponder for these types of flight operations.
The FAA maintains that the ability of controllers and other pilots to identify and track aerobatic aircraft via ADS-B will enhance safety.
According to Sue Gardner, the FAA’s national event specialist, the agency has three messages for aerobatic pilots:
- ADS-B equipment does not function properly during aerobatic maneuvers, and the FAA will not penalize any pilot in that situation.
- ADS-B-Out is valuable for safety when an aerobatic aircraft is not performing dynamic maneuvers. It will transmit an aircraft’s identity and position to controllers and pilots of other aircraft equipped with ADS-B In, even if their aircraft is not being tracked on radar.
- Equipping with ADS-B Out and In will help pilots of aerobatic aircraft travel safely to and from events.
The FAA is developing a new policy on the aerobatic use of ADS-B, available by this summer. The policy will be accessible in the FAA’s Flight Standards Information Management System (Order 8900.1) and advisory circular, AC 91-45D, Waivers: Aviation Events.
Gardner says the FAA policy for ADS-B is being written in the same way as for transponders. The transponder rule has no waiver under 14 CFR section 91.205.
With few exceptions, pilots are required to turn on the transponder. For instance, while in formation when aircraft are not separated during the maneuvering sequence, only the lead aircraft needs ADS-B turned on. This must be authorized by the controlling FAA facility, in advance.
The easiest solution to this would be to have a discrete squawk to use while performing Acro…say 1207 or such. That way the Feds and anyone watching their ADS-B In would know what that plane is doing.
The Federales Against Aviation could tweak their NIC NAC Patty Wack algorithms to understand a 1207 airplane is going to gyrate losing GPS lock.
That might work, but toooo simple for the FAA . Would set a dangerous precedent!!
No they can’t do that. That makes way too much sense
Let me make a prediction. 20 yrs after ADS-B, and what ever else the FAA can dream up, the statistics will show negligible impact on aviation safety. People looking inside cockpits at TV screens will still be colliding with other aircraft and killing themselves. I have had several cases in the last two years where aircraft have over taken my bright orange nav lighted biplane on downwind after a radio call. I saw them behind me but they for some reason never saw me. Glass cockpit distractions, who knows? People just don’t look for other aircraft it seems. My dad always found loose change on the ground when I never did. When I asked him what his secret was he told me you have to be looking for it. It’s the same for traffic, you have to be looking for it to see it and avoid it.
Needing a transponder, I did a bunch of research and waited until a single box 1090ES solution was available at reasonable cost. Ready to pull the trigger last year, my next concern was over anonymity. At Airventure 2017, I talked to an FAA type in the FAA hangar who assured me that the FAA would not use ADS-B data for enforcement purposes. The Garmin GDL82 UAT was not yet available and I wanted to try to meet the ADS-B rebate date so I bought a GTX335. I got it in, certified and test flown by the cutoff date and received my rebate.
As part of that process, I learned about and used the PAPR process to prove that my installation met the requirements. I used Flight Aware to look at my tracks. I was aghast by how much “public” — ergo Government — information is available. Recently, I found an FAA website which states that the info would be saved for six months and longer for ‘enforcement’ purposes. Wonderful! Big brother is watching us. Entities who want anonymity … which IS their right … are out of luck. And lets just see what happens when the first enforcement action against a pilot based only on ADS-B data occurs. There’s going to be a public outcry! Being retired USAF, I see a BIG problem with US military aircraft having to comply. I think the ‘magic’ “O-F-F” mode is going to get used … rules be damned.
Now that I think about it … here is one part of the “Government” chiding Mark Zuckerberg for not protecting the privacy of Facebook users and another part of the “Government” releasing so much of it in the clear. Can you spell hypocrisy? I think privacy is going to become a BIG issue.
Negative diatribe notwithstanding (and there ARE some issues), I am impressed with the ability for ADS-B aircraft to transmit their position to other aircraft directly as long as they have ‘in’ capability (which is easy and cheap). I fly VFR only recreationally and use an Aera 660 and iPad in the cockpit. I am strongly considering installing a second Aera 660 dedicated only to displaying traffic and as backup. As ‘in’ boxes proliferate, safety will be enhanced … even only some of the airplanes have ADS-B. Something is better than nothing.
It is interesting that only ABS out is required. Many comments seem to focus on the ability to monitor some screen to see other traffic, but do not realize that to see that traffic requires the “IN” portion also. How many has the “OUT” with out the “IN” also. Expecting everyone else to “see” you without the capability to do so is no different than we have now with just plain transponders. Seems you are spending a lot of inflated money for no real benefit.
This article seem to indicate that “B”will required in ALL controlled airspace.
I have heard that, for all practical purposes, it will be required only wherever mode C required.
Big difference, but our empire builders may soon notice that!!!
I am an old pilot (81) and am not, (or never would be) an aerobatic pilot. However, I think you guys are missing the point. The FAA (my old world CAA) has put out their ruling and should be kept to their word. If the aircraft is going to be in the area where they need ADSB, put it in. Otherwise, they don’t have to have it. Period. Been flyin’ a long time. No need for unnecessary rules.
Interesting article on ADS-B. Well worth the read. In my opinion, ADS-B could be able to play a major role in enhancing safety during aerobatic and flight flight operations.
But, like all new technologies, ADS-B is not yet “perfect.” (Half-baked or fully-baked, let the reader be the judge!)
Frankly, ADS-B should be able to work during non-normal flight attitudes. The key technical consideration is ensuring that the installed avioncs can both receive GPS and ADS-B signals without drop-outs, as well as the ability to continuously transmit ADS-B information, also during unusual attitudes.
My sense from a human factors petspective is that aerobatic pilots really can’t “see and avoid” other intruder aircraft using their own 20-20 eyesight when doing intense aerobatic air work. Too much going on. Likewise, aerobatic pilots certainly can’t take a “time-out” to look at a panel-mounted ADS-B display, but, that said, they should be able —. under most circumstances, but not all — to possibly react to a voice-activated ADS-B annunciation, such as “Traffic, traffic two miles ahead, converging.” Not much more than this. Good news, though, the other aircraft (I.e., the intruder aircraft) that’s not doing air work should be able to see the aerobatic aircraft using ADS-B, then react accordingly.
I guess the same logic holds for pilots receiving flight training and practicing those maneuvers required by the regulations for ratings such as commercial pilot and CFI. ADS-B could become an effective safety tool during flight training to mitigate midair’s as well as reduce the distraction of looking for potential intruder aircraft, provided that operational flight technical procedures for its use during air work are well defined.
Technology, training, and pilot proficiency, all linked together by mature, well-written flight technical procedures and operational guidance.
My suggestion to FAA is for their staff to read-up on a concept called “antenna diversity.” This simply means that the ADS-B and GPS avionics has inputs from more than one antenna (I.e., top and bottom of the fuselage), allowing the onboard avioncs to both receive and / or send the appropriate signals, independent of aircraft attitude. Having two antennas increases install costs somewhat, but a risk analysis should prove that its use during flight training as well as aerobatic flying makes two antennas a good safety investment. Further, looking for other traffic is a major distraction that detracts from effective flight instruction, and this issue would largely go away if ADS-B traffic avoidance could be integrated into routine flight training procedures. (PS: FAA, please also consider the benefits of aircraft having two antennas during airport surface operations.)
In summary, FAA Flight Standards should investigate the merits of antenna diversity, and FAA certification folks should consider updating their enabling technical guidance on the subject. Additionally, FAA Flight Standards should develop and publish the flight technical guidance to allow ADS-B technology to be used operationally during both acrobatic and flight training. Not a sermon, just a thought.
@TRB…. Well thought out comment !!!
However an even a better solution is returning the ADS-B concept to its original roots, as primarily an Air vehicle to Air vehicle link, at low (variable) power, and NOT as FAA’s foolish ATS based “Pseudo radar”. Then dropping any need for DO-260B compliance, and dumping any need for UAT, or use of WAAS/SBAS, or ADS-R, …and completely relaxing NIC and NAC, so as to be equivalent to Australia and Canada’s original ADS-B criteria. All that would allow for much simpler and much lower cost ADS-B, including revised antenna criteria, for virtually ANY air vehicles, including even many drones. The acro issue needs to be solved. I once broke out of the middle of a scattered to broken towering Cu layer into the open, on an IFR arrival, into a sunset, at 250 KIAS, in a wide body, …with an acro practicing Zlin in a vertical dive less than 100m off my left wing tip. It all happened in a fraction of a second. He never likely even saw me until after I passed him, if even then. No TCAS display or response, likely due to angles. We need massively better air-to air links for virtually all mixed airspace types. FAA’s overblown fouled up 91.227 ADS-B, used for ATS “Pseudo radar”, still isn’t the right solution. In fact it’s going in the opposite direction to that needed, and is going to be one giant mess in 2020, with the airlines getting much needed “source” relief, via exemption, until at least 2024. We now need at least that same exemption “source relief” in GA.
ADS-B does not function correctly under a lot of different circumstances. I’ve been flying with it for 4 years now. It’s great when it works, but you never know, and it’s difficult to know what it isn’t displaying. IN my experience, much of the time it’s only displaying some traffic, not all traffic. The whole design is overly restrictive, overpriced, overly complicated, and unreliable.
I agree with your solution to simply. The FAA demands on it are ridiculous for what will turn out in the long run to be a non-viable solution.
Wow! what an astounding FAA insight! “…ADS-B equipment does not function properly during aerobatic maneuvers… ” Further, ADS-B will also not function properly if (easily) spoofed, jammed, or corrupted or interrupted, such as for aircraft with electrical system, engine, generator, alternator, or some battery failures.
Even worse, see the recent GAO related report, about DoD’s situation, in that “ADS-B signals on the military side can (entirely inappropriately) include classified aircraft position data”. On the commercial side, that could be sensitive, valuable financial data. Breaches of one or many aircraft simultaneously might compromise national security, privacy and physical safety in the air or on the ground”. See Joe Kirschbaum, GAO’s director of defense capabilities and management report.
In short, FAA’s seriously faulty and misused version of ADS-B as “pseudo-radar” (as opposed to the original good concept ADS-B as originally proposed back in the original FANS 1/A era for air-air BACKUP coordination), …is now one giant house of cards, about to take a serious tumble by 2020.