What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA to limit ADS-B/FIS B (traffic) in 2016

Dan, your conjecture sounds reasonable given the entities involved.

I guess I should be used to it by now, but the level of incompetence in planning displayed by government agencies still amazes me. It's like living on the edge of the Grand Canyon... you see it all the time, but it still takes your breath away when you look out and see the enormity of it.

How many times have we seen them get deep into a project, only to have that moment of "Oh crud, we didn't have any idea we'd see this kind of volume (despite the years and millions of tax dollars we spent on "planning"). We can't handle this, the whole thing is going off the rails". Maybe the FAA just hired the healthcare.gov project manager.
 
N363RV said:
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs...ce_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webv2.pdf

Here is the summary found on the last page..

The results of these changes will be:
(1) All ADS-B-In systems will see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out and transponders in areas with
FAA radar/WAM coverage (complete & accurate traffic picture)
(2) Compared to the current state, aeronautical protected spectrum will be more efficiently used
(3) FAA will eliminate the current incentive for operators to equip with ADS-B Out systems that are not
compatible with certified ADS-B-In systems



After reading this... I have ADS600-exp (http://www.navworx.com/ADS600EXPDescription.php)
but I'm starting to wonder if it will still work after Jan 2016...for weather and traffic.

Here is the claim being made currently...
The ADS600-EXP meets the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225 (b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B OUT in the NAS with devices that meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c

There is a reference to TSO-C199 on the last page of the pdf I reference above.

Here is another link...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.225

Which has another link in it referring to
This one has a lot of definitions which untangle some of the rather confusing
ie NACp>4, NACv>0, SDA>0, SIL>0, and NIC>4.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.227

I hope this helps. I haven't figure it out yet. :)
Click to expand...


At the risk of thread creep...

So I emailed Bill at Navworx. Here is what I sent and his response.

John,

All of our products are 2020 compliant. That includes our ADS600, ADS600-B, and ADS600-EXP. This means YES to all of your questions.



Bill Moffitt


On Jun 30, 2015, at 11:03 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Bill,

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs...ce_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webv2.pdf

On the vans forums, folks are concerned about whether their adsb out/in solutions will still be 2020 compliant regarding the gps solution.

I am too. I just want to verify that this device will continue to deliver TIS now and into the future.

Questions: These questions are in regards to the information found in the PDF referenced above.

Will the GPS you are using be 2020 compliant?
Will the GPS meet all the requirements of 91.227
Will the ADS600-exp still get TIS services after 2016?

Thank you for addressing my concerns.

John Eldridge
 
DaleB said:
Dan, your conjecture sounds reasonable given the entities involved.

I guess I should be used to it by now, but the level of incompetence in planning displayed by government agencies still amazes me. It's like living on the edge of the Grand Canyon... you see it all the time, but it still takes your breath away when you look out and see the enormity of it.

How many times have we seen them get deep into a project, only to have that moment of "Oh crud, we didn't have any idea we'd see this kind of volume (despite the years and millions of tax dollars we spent on "planning"). We can't handle this, the whole thing is going off the rails". Maybe the FAA just hired the healthcare.gov project manager.
Click to expand...

Scenario 1 says it's like a lot of other organizations. Planning consists of lots of meetings setting requirements and deciding who's in charge, with lots of process flowcharts for that sort of thing. Execution is one box at the end labeled "do stuff".

In Scenario 2 their heads are perpetually buried under a few feet of sand, and they firmly believe that everything will happen right simply because they've declared it will happen by 2020. "I said it, therefore it will be".

Scenario 3 says they completely ignored everything below King Air size (see "small airplane, FAA definition of" above*) and figured on only airliners and corporate traffic filling the ADS-B network. They didn't count on tens of thousands of little airplanes having the gall to invade their airspace and clog the system.


* I keep making references to this based on conversations with FAA guys involved in the Part 23 rewrite. As most know, Part 23 governs certified airplanes under 12,500lb; a major reason for rewriting it is to relieve burdens on light airplanes, which most of us consider in the 6 seats or less, under 6000lb class. Yet so much of their attention has been devoted to the higher end (light jets, turbines, etc) and multiengine airplanes. I pointedly asked "what about the little guys--the kinds of airplanes an individual might stand a reasonable chance of owning or flying?" He seemed puzzled that I considered a turbocharged Baron to not be a "really small airplane" :confused:
 
Is it possible that the FAA has discovered the infrastructure for ADS-B does not have the bandwidth or capacity to handle the higher load realized from all our small planes buying, installing and using various ADS-B in products.

What is the max capacity a FAA ground station can safely accommodate.

Probably not the issue. They are just demanding a more accurate position source, hence the defined regulations.
 
Charlie,
The FAA has not indicated to the industry that bandwidth is an issue. Non-compliant equipment takes no more bandwidth than compliant equipment, and they are hoping everyone upgrades to compliant devices right away.

Only 10% of aircraft have ADS-B out right now (compliant or not). The FAA is expecting that to be 50%-70% within the next 5 years. If they have a bandwidth problem, removing a few percent now just delays the issue for a few months. If bandwidth was the issue, this is absolutely not a solution.

It is our opinion that the FAA is doing this because they want to encourage people to equip before the 2020 deadline, and they see non-compliant devices that allow aircraft to get all services as delaying equipage.
 
From Navworx

DanBaier said:
Part of the problem is the translation. This stuff is mind-numbing.

Using NACp as an example: The first part of the quote says NACp>4 which is to say 5 or greater. A NACp of 5 translates to an estimated position uncertainty of .5 nautical miles. Whereas the 91.227 NACp specification is .05 nautical miles.

For NIC, same thing: The first part of the quote says NIC>4 which is 5 or greater equating to less than 1 nautical mile. Whereas the 91.227 spec is .2 nautical miles.

In a nutshell, it would seem that equipment that meets this latest policy change may still work as of January but in the long run won't satisfy the mandate given 91.227.

My conjecture is that the FAA is badly behind the curve managing the implementation and that these (and more likely to come) "policy changes" are ad-hoc attempts by staff to throttle the rate of growth in the system. I'm guessing this policy change is specifically directed at preventing portable transmitters from triggering traffic display.

In plain language, on the one hand while they ain't ready, they have not been willing to discuss delay in the implementation. Collision to follow.

Dan
Click to expand...

According to the Navworx install manual:

"1.3 Regulatory Compliance
The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227."

If I read this all correctly, the parameters for the mandate: CFR 91.227, have stricter, tighter tolerance than the statement recently put out by the FAA in the beginning of this thread. Navworx is claiming that their units meet the stricter requirements of 91.227. Should be all set here.
 
Last edited:
DanBaier said:
Part of the problem is the translation. This stuff is mind-numbing.

...

In a nutshell, it would seem that equipment that meets this latest policy change may still work as of January but in the long run won't satisfy the mandate given 91.227.
Click to expand...

Dan, you are absolutely correct that you do not need a fully 2020 compliant GPS to receive traffic.

This was on purpose. The FAA believes there will be many aircraft that do not want to enter Class B/C airspace, but do want to get traffic when operating in less dense areas. They realize that for advisory traffic purposes, the integrity of the GPS does not need to be as high as when used for separation purposes. There's actually a whole TSO for these kind of devices - TSO-C199. Their goal is to have the industry create more affordable devices for use in less dense areas.

--Ian Jordan
 
Another - but diverging view on this?

As an IT professional who has seen the pendulum swing back and forth for 40 yrs, from centralized mainframes to decentralized personal computers, and back to network servers, and dozens of other 'distributed computing' environments, I would suggest that ADS-B is entering the realm of distributed computing environments in a big way, and unlike the centralized, secure, and tightly controlled ground based radar systems this change is monumentally shifting the 'integrity warm-fuzzy feelings' of those involved. The question is now becoming clear that any device that has INPUT authority into the position and status reporting to dozens of other OUTPUT (receiving) devices must be trusted. Accuracy and integrity, of the whole depends on all these distributed little and difficult to control 'parts'.

Just sayin' - there is a forest out there and it's not all about the tree.
gary
 
dynonsupport said:
Dan, you are absolutely correct that you do not need a fully 2020 compliant GPS to receive traffic.

This was on purpose. The FAA believes there will be many aircraft that do not want to enter Class B/C airspace, but do want to get traffic when operating in less dense areas. They realize that for advisory traffic purposes, the integrity of the GPS does not need to be as high as when used for separation purposes. There's actually a whole TSO for these kind of devices - TSO-C199. Their goal is to have the industry create more affordable devices for use in less dense areas.

--Ian Jordan
Click to expand...

One wonders, then, why that wouldn't be enough to operate within the Mode C veil but outside Class B. I know of a whole bunch of airplanes based inside a Mode C veil that pretty much never venture into B, C, or even D airspace, yet by the regs they need the fully-compliant IFR-class GPS.
 
It is our opinion that the FAA is doing this because they want to encourage people to equip before the 2020 deadline, and they see non-compliant devices that allow aircraft to get all services as delaying equipage.
Click to expand...

I am almost certain that this latest change will actually cause more distrust of the FAA's implementation ability. Rather than prompt people to move, I would think it more likely to make people decide to wait to avoid making a premature investment in the technology.

What they should have done - and could still do - is to push traffic to anyone who wants it. ADSB with 2 cans and a string? You qualify - here it is. That said, that's not saying they have to put junk into the NAS - if your ADSB out doesn't measure up, your data doesn't go into the NAS and that's what freezes you out of the class B/C airspace.

Too easy I suppose - the FAA mentality is that it's easier to have hockey pucks beaming all over the place.

Dan
 
NavWorx Products are 2020 compliant

Hello,

We've had several customers contact us to ask about the recent FAA change to TIS-A.

I want to assure everyone that all of our products, certified or experimental, meet the 2020 rule in all aspects (e.g. out, in, gps). All of our ADS-B OUT/IN products meet FAR 91.225 and FAR 91.227.

The FAA continues making changes to NextGen, which the TIS-A change is but the first. Coming down the road is expanded FIS-B services. When the FAA expands FIS-B services to include digital IFR flight clearances, separate ADS-B Out and ADS-B In devices won't be able to support these new features since the user must acknowledge the clearance; this can only be accomplished with integrated systems (i.e. ADS-B Out and In contained within the same unit, communicating back and forth).

Please see our valued distributors at Oshkosh this year to learn more - Seattle Avionics, iFlyGPS, and MGL.


Bill Moffitt
President
 
Last edited:
Bill Moffitt said:
Hello,

We've had several customers contact us to ask about the recent FAA change to TIS-A.

I want to assure everyone that all of our products, certified or experimental, meet the 2020 rule in all aspects (e.g. out, in, gps). All of our ADS-B OUT/IN products meet FAR 91.225 and FAR 91.227.

Bill Moffitt
President
Click to expand...

Bill,

Does this require a software update? Last I checked, my ADS600B was broadcasting a SIL of 0.
Don
 
cfiidon said:
Bill,

Does this require a software update? Last I checked, my ADS600B was broadcasting a SIL of 0.
Don
Click to expand...

I had sent Bill a similar email before I saw your post.

My original ADS600B transmitted a SIL=1. My current TSO'd unit with a uncertified GPS transmits a SIL=0. This was the only flagged item with the FAA assessment of my transmissions.

I'm looking forward to his response.

bob
 
All units require a software update. Some units will require a hardware upgrade. Send an email with your serial number and we will let you know what needs to be done.
 
Bill Moffitt said:
All units require a software update. Some units will require a hardware upgrade. Send an email with your serial number and we will let you know what needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm a little confused. If I buy a new ADS600-EXP right now will it need a Software update before 2020 to be compliant?
 
Last edited:
This is seriously one messed up deployment, changing rules, SW and/or HW updates required.... Oh my !!!

Sometimes I think the FAA is worst than a five year old.
 
caveat: i'm a european air traffic controller with quite an international horizon... and am a long-time ads-b critic.

to all the ads-b fans, i'm surprised that the "free lunch", as some said, even got/developed this far... the FAA looked at ads-b as a self-selling proposition for the users to equip but did not expect all those light, portable, tablet type receive-only applications popping up... and likely did not expect that certified sources would remain so expensive (which could also be partially due to all the tablets/bluetooth/wifi bugs...)

whereas the intent from the beginning for the FAA was clearly to replace radars! (purely economic thinking / hope for cheaper coverage for more remote areas and more range)
and the pilot/airline community in the 90s had seriously wet dreams of being able to remove controllers one day by doing airborne self separation, for which ads-b was seen as an enabler as well.
in the meantime 9/11 happened and some other realities hit the ground...
self separation is clinically dead except for over the oceans in-trail...

now, from a purely technical point of view, the absolute minimum is a certified position source or at least one with the same performance, specs and design parameters. IMHO that's undebatable and i'm glad the FAA (so far) manages to stick to this stance! anything less is not worthy to eventually replace radar. period.

have you ever closely followed what can happen to your position fix of an uncertified gps in a narrow valley, during aerobatics or in the shadow of buildings on the ground? and, depending on the source, how much latency/delay/smoothing and averaging can go on?
now, when you have a concept where life and death (separation) depends on the accuracy/timeliness of that data, any single wrong piece of data can cause havoc. certified gps sources will immediately downgrade integrity / rather not transmit data than false/uncertain positions and all behave in the same/similar manner.
drop the radar/self sep. idea and go for information-only, and suddenly things become a lot easier...

add to that the inherent problem with security/spoofing/jamming in ads-b, which in the meantime have been admitted to with only conceptual ideas how they could be adressed... the issue is regularly downplayed as it fundamentally questions one of the pillars of nexgen...

considering that in aviation everything is expected to remain at equal safety levels or even improve, given the current situation, substituting radars/not having to replace them looks ever more unrealistic. especially by 2020...
will be interesting to see how this plays out...

regards, Bernie
 
Last edited:
flyvans.com said:
now, from a purely technical point of view, the absolute minimum is a certified position source or at least one with the same performance, specs and design parameters. IMHO that's undebatable and i'm glad the FAA (so far) manages to stick to this stance! anything less is not worthy to eventually replace radar. period.
Click to expand...

Certified is a pretty broad term. A certified position source that is legal in the EU or Australia, isn't necessarily legal in the US. For some reason, the FAA adopted the strictest standard in the world for ADS-B position sources. I have a TSO-C129 GPS that is certified to IFR approach standards; it isn't good enough for the US ADS-B requirements.

Paige
 
The value of ADS-B to VFR aircraft in a busy terminal area just as an awareness device to "fit" into the traffic flow is pretty high imho.

EG - This morning flying from the high country to KIWA - a busy reliever airport to Phoenix, a lot of student traffic, a contract tower with a lot of training and a lot of commercial and private and military jet traffic, I had 3 traffic alerts and was able to instantly see the traffic on my Skyview, see what kind of airplane it was (e.g. - N number ending in "ND" obviously a student....etc...) and where it was higher or lower and where it was moving and instantly get a visual on all 3 targets....I was cleared to a left base entry to the right, I noticed a commercial flight number on my ADS - B paralleling me to the right and 1000' feet higher, an Allegiant flight number - I was able to see him instantly and figure out what would happen next before the trainee controller did. At first I was asked to follow him, I said I would and slowed down and widened out to avoid his wake and then just as I realized that wouldn't work and about to key the mike, the other controller keyed in and said change to the center....

All worked out fine, much better than head on a swivel.

ADS-B on our Skyviews are fantastic imho. I have yet to see it provide erroneous information relative to my visual acquiring of the same traffic.

In my ~15k hours of flying, the situational awareness benefit alone of ADS-B to VFR flying and acquiring VFR and IFR traffic is a huge gain in safety imo.
 
Last edited:
cactuspilot said:
The value of ADS-B to VFR aircraft in a busy terminal area just as an awareness device to "fit" into the traffic flow is pretty high imho.

EG - This morning flying from the high country to KIWA - a busy reliever airport to Phoenix, a lot of student traffic, a contract tower with a lot of training and a lot of commercial and private and military jet traffic, I had 3 traffic alerts and was able to instantly see the traffic on my Skyview, see what kind of airplane it was (e.g. - N number ending in "ND" obviously a student....etc...) and where it was higher or lower and where it was moving and instantly get a visual on all 3 targets....I was cleared to a left base entry to the right, I noticed a commercial flight number on my ADS - B paralleling me to the right and 1000' feet higher, an Allegiant flight number - I was able to see him instantly and figure out what would happen next before the trainee controller did. At first I was asked to follow him, I said I would and slowed down and widened out to avoid his wake and then just as I realized that wouldn't work and about to key the mike, the other controller keyed in and said change to the center....

All worked out fine, much better than head on a swivel.

ADS-B on our Skyviews are fantastic imho. I have yet to see it provide erroneous information relative to my visual acquiring of the same traffic.

In my ~15k hours of flying, the situational awareness benefit alone of ADS-B to VFR flying and acquiring VFR and IFR traffic is a huge gain in safety imo.
Click to expand...

Just found out that my gtx-23 w/es I just received from Van's as part of my g3x touch package will be 2020 compliant (ads-b) simply with a software upgrade from Garmin. Which should be available end of month....yippy skippy!

Edit: additional equipment must be added (Garmin GPS 20A) for $845.00ish to provide 2020 compliant GPS feed...oh well it's just coffee change.
 
Last edited:
Ric,
Just because the transponder is compliant, doesn't mean the GPS connected is.
Dynon's transponder has been ADS-B compliant with the latest rules since 2014, and the GPS included with the SkyView package can be used for ADS-B out until 2020.

Plus, SkyView can upgrade the transponder right in the plane, you don't have to take it to a dealer to get it upgraded when there's new software ;)

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics
 
Transponder - Software Update

I use the Dynon/Advanced Flight's SV-261 transponder. A recent software update through the AFS5600, automatically updated the 261.

Before the update the ADS-B report was showing Geo Alt errors (I have not idea what that is!). After the software update, the FAA ADS-B report showed no errors; their comment "Everything looks great now." The SV-261 with GTN-650 is now compliant.

Easy peasy, 23 skidezy!
 
New Garmin GPS 20A

For thoughts of us with the Garmin gtx-23es. Garmin has just come out with a solution to our 2020 ads-b compliance. The GPS 20A will provide a 2020 compliant GPS feed.

Yippy Skippy😎 read all about it....will sale for around $845.00.
 
Brantel said:
What's stopping someone from using this as a position source for a UAT?
Click to expand...

I have a Navworx UAT. Bill Moffitt says Garmin won't allow others to use the Garmin as a position source. Therefore, the Navworx must provide its own compliant GPS.

Don
 
cfiidon said:
I have a Navworx UAT. Bill Moffitt says Garmin won't allow others to use the Garmin as a position source. Therefore, the Navworx must provide its own compliant GPS.

Don
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how Garmin can stop anyone. I send gps coordinates from my 650 to a variety of devices in my RV. Unless it needs something other than the coordinates.
 
cfiidon said:
I have a Navworx UAT. Bill Moffitt says Garmin won't allow others to use the Garmin as a position source. Therefore, the Navworx must provide its own compliant GPS.

Don
Click to expand...

This announcement includes language that points to a change in Garmin's position around that and this box...
 
Brantel said:
What's stopping someone from using this as a position source for a UAT?
Click to expand...

rleffler said:
I'm not sure how Garmin can stop anyone. I send gps coordinates from my 650 to a variety of devices in my RV. Unless it needs something other than the coordinates.
Click to expand...

It does need more than the coordinates.

ADS-B transmits a variety of reliability metrics. These are not available over ARINC-429, nor over the old standard aviation RS-232 format, NMEA, or any other format that was commonly in use.

To satisfy the ADS-B out requirements, Garmin created the "ADS-"B RS-232 serial format. However, this is a proprietary, unpublished format. Some companies have reverse engineered this format so their ADS-B out devices can use it, but this is not a trivial task.

Garmin then published a SB declaring the ADS-B format non-compliant. They then came up with the ADS-B+ format, which is different from the ADS-B format, and is also proprietary and unpublished. Again, some companies reverse engineered this.

According to the wiring diagram posted, this module outputs ADS-B+ format over RS-232, so to use it with your ADS-B out device, it needs to support Garmin's proprietary, unpublished format.

There is the possibility that Garmin will be publishing the ADS-B+ format in the future to make it easier for other devices integrate with their GPS position sources, but that's something only they can answer.

As far as I know, as of today the only ADS-B OUT devices which support the ADS-B+ format are Garmin, Trig and Dynon Mode-S transponders, but there may be others.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics
 
History of Transponder 1090 Mhz Performance Standards

Those of us that develop and certify Mode S 1090ES transponders understand the long history of the standards associated with these transponders which began in 2000 when RTCA DO-260, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) was issued. This has become known as "Version 0".

In later years, DO-260A was released with further changes to the ADS-B Out broadcast data (Version 1). Garmin created the "ADS-B" serial format for our IFR navigators to provide all of the data needed by the transponder to satisfy the DO-260A version of the standard.

ADS-B Out data format was changed again when DO-260B was issued (Version 2), which is what is called out to satisfy TSO-C166B, which is called out in 14 CFR 91.227 (2020 ADS-B Out compliance requirements). Garmin created the "ADS-B+" serial format for our IFR navigators (and now the GPS 20A) to provide this format data to our TSO-C166B certified Mode S transponders.

Garmin's Mode S transponders, including the GTX 23ES and GTX 330ES, have been re-programmed and re-certified multiple times over the years as the rules have changed and are currently certified per TSO-C166B (again required for 2020 compliance).

We sometimes see competitors spreading misinformation on their forums suggesting that Garmin "got it wrong" with the "ADS-B" serial format, so they changed it to "ADS-B+", to "fix it".

As explained above, the standard changed, and since we had fielded installations depending on the Version 1 "ADS-B" serial format, we had no choice but to create a new Version 2 "ADS-B+" format that could be used by newer, more compliant systems, while still allowing older systems to select "ADS-B".

Thanks,
Steve
 
Limiting Adsb

Getting back to the original post. I thought I would get the information
Directly from the FAA. In a recent trip to Oshkosh, I spoke with an FAA
Individual that is involved with the ADSB program.

They will not be limiting ADSB "in"to the majority of us that receive traffic and weather with our ADSB receivers. However, they will be limiting this information
To users of "out" systems that do not meet their requirements.
 
agirard7a said:
Getting back to the original post. I thought I would get the information
Directly from the FAA. In a recent trip to Oshkosh, I spoke with an FAA
Individual that is involved with the ADSB program.

They will not be limiting ADSB "in"to the majority of us that receive traffic and weather with our ADSB receivers. However, they will be limiting this information
To users of "out" systems that do not meet their requirements.
Click to expand...

My read is that users of a non-compliant GPS position source will no longer be able to excite an ADS-B ground station to transmit localized traffic data. But if that same airplane is flying in proximity to an aircraft that does have the compliant position source, then it will be able to glom onto the "puck sized" airspace data destined for the compliant aircraft, for ADS-B In services. My question is whether or not a participating/compliant aircraft will see a non-compliant ADS-B Out equipped aircraft via air-to-air datalink.
 
Last edited:
I am old enough to remember these very same arguments and concerns when the FAA mandated Mode C in certain airspace in the 70's, then came TCA's (Terminal Control Area now known as Class B airspace), then TCAS for collision avoidance for certain airplanes, and then GPWS systems for terrain avoidance for certain aircraft. And we can't forget mandated Cockpit Resource Management training! Each of these changes were met with howls of protest. Believe me, the concerns were almost identical to the concerns with ADS-B. Poorly designed, not well thought out, heavy handed, etc. I was one of the protesters for some of those changes. I eventually came to appreciate these changes as the bugs were worked out and safety records improved. I am not saying we shouldn't be questioning the policies at all. I think that is healthy, in fact. But, I am not getting too excited about it because I have already seen the benefits that ADS-B provides to me, and suspect that in the end, safety will be enhanced. Yes, I understand that many of those changes mostly affected air carrier and business type aircraft. However, the improvements in safety affect all of us.
Flame proof suit is now in place!
 
maus92 said:
My read is that users of a non-compliant GPS position source will no longer be able to excite an ADS-B ground station to transmit localized traffic data.
Click to expand...

There is a different compliance level required for traffic than for full 2020 ADS-B compliance.

Traffic only needs a SIL/SDA=1 while 2020 requires SIL=3, SDA=2
 
dynonsupport said:
There is a different compliance level required for traffic than for full 2020 ADS-B compliance.

Traffic only needs a SIL/SDA=1 while 2020 requires SIL=3, SDA=2
Click to expand...

That is new info for me, thanks - wish it was more widely disseminated. Coincidentally, I was at an ADS-B event today where it was mentioned specifically that Dynon had coordinated with the FAA about this issue, and that its current Skyview WAAS GPS would comply with whatever reliability specs necessary to continue to qualify as a position source (after a S/W update I think, NBD though) until the 2020 rules go into effect.

I own a G3X system, and had planned to use its internal WAAS GPS for position. I'm not sure if it can provide a SIL/SDA=1 or better - maybe the G3X boys can respond - but I decided to move my MLU schedule forward a bit, and installed the GPS 20A which is 2020 compliant.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are some innocent, yet sketchy setups out in the wild that are driving some ADS-B Out installations, so I can see how the FAA might be somewhat concerned about them. The presenter mentioned that pilots have asked him "Why can't I just configure my [assumably non-compliant] GPS with SIL=3 SDA=2?" The answer was that the FAA can detect "misconfigurations."
 
Last edited:
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/program...ce_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webV2.pdf

The results of these changes will be:
(1) All ADS-B-In systems will see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out and transponders in areas with FAA radar/WAM coverage (complete & accurate traffic picture)
(2) Compared to the current state, aeronautical protected spectrum will be more efficiently used
(3) FAA will eliminate the current incentive for operators to equip with ADS-B Out systems that are not
compatible with certified ADS-B-In systems

Can anyone help me understand result 1 a bit better? Does this mean those of us with ADS-B in only (for example, Stratus 2, GDL-39A, etc.) will now receive a complete traffic picture as long as we're in an area with radar coverage? The puck no longer applies?
 
It actually means the reverse. With a Stratus you will now see less traffic than before because less aircraft achieve client status and trigger the ground station.

In the FAA's eyes, you are not ADS-B IN unless you are ADS-B out, so they don't mean any portable device.

The change they are discussing in (1) is that they are turning on TIS-B for aircraft with SIL=0 so that certified displays that filter out SIL=0 devices will be able to see the aircraft via TIS-B instead of ADS-B/ADS-R.
 
dynonsupport said:
It actually means the reverse. With a Stratus you will now see less traffic than before because less aircraft achieve client status and trigger the ground station.

In the FAA's eyes, you are not ADS-B IN unless you are ADS-B out, so they don't mean any portable device.

The change they are discussing in (1) is that they are turning on TIS-B for aircraft with SIL=0 so that certified displays that filter out SIL=0 devices will be able to see the aircraft via TIS-B instead of ADS-B/ADS-R.
Click to expand...

The part that confuses me is where they state "ADS-B Out and Transponders" which leads me to believe it could be aircraft with just transponders, or both.

The "complete and accurate traffic picture" is a misleading statement should what you are saying be true.
 
Just change the words "ADSB-IN Systems" to "Aircraft with compliant ADS-B IN and OUT" because that's what the FAA means. I think it reads correctly if you use that interpretation.

So, "Aircraft with compliant ADS-B IN and OUT systems will see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out and transponders in areas with FAA radar/WAM coverage (complete & accurate traffic picture)"

Remember, the ADS-B system was designed with the idea that nobody would ever have ADS-B in without ADS-B out, and that all out installs would be TSO'd. Nobody considered cheap, battery powered, portable receivers (this was 7 years before the first Iphone) and nobody thought of experimentals not needing authorization.
 
dynonsupport said:
Just change the words "ADSB-IN Systems" to "Aircraft with compliant ADS-B IN and OUT" because that's what the FAA means. I think it reads correctly if you use that interpretation.

So, "Aircraft with compliant ADS-B IN and OUT systems will see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out and transponders in areas with FAA radar/WAM coverage (complete & accurate traffic picture)"

Remember, the ADS-B system was designed with the idea that nobody would ever have ADS-B in without ADS-B out, and that all out installs would be TSO'd. Nobody considered cheap, battery powered, portable receivers (this was 7 years before the first Iphone) and nobody thought of experimentals not needing authorization.
Click to expand...

And your new GPS-2020 receiver puck with Skyview and your high-power transponder gets us there, correct?
 
For traffic, the SV-GPS-250 and either of our transponders gets you there. There's a different compliance level for 2016 traffic and 2020 entering airspace.

The 2020 GPS and the Class 1 transponder get you a complete, go anywhere after 2020 system.

No customer with any of our GPS units and our transponders will lose traffic in 2016.
 
dynonsupport said:
Remember, the ADS-B system was designed with the idea that nobody would ever have ADS-B in without ADS-B out, and that all out installs would be TSO'd. Nobody considered cheap, battery powered, portable receivers (this was 7 years before the first Iphone) and nobody thought of experimentals not needing authorization.
Click to expand...

Typical FAA approach. Nothing will improve, nothing will get better, nothing will change, and everything will happen the way the FAA wants it to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top