What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Public ADS-B Performance Report Interpretation

jaustinmd

Member
Although there is a User's Guide published by the FAA to accompany the Public ADS-B Performance Report (PAPR), I still have difficulty interpreting my PAPR reports. Obviously, any parameter flagged red on the report is a problem, but I'm not sure what the FAA considers a "pass" when the total report is taken into consideration. NOTE: I'm NOT discussing testing for purposes of claiming an ADS-B installation rebate, but rather whether I have a basically satisfactorily-performing ADS-B installation or not.

Here's a specific example: I recently installed an ADS-B "out" device and have received at least two totally clean PAPR's with 0 errors in all parameter boxes. OK, that's great, BUT subsequent to that, I recently had a short flight (14 minutes) with a "Missing Elements" NACv error red-flagged (which I understand to be a GPS velocity parameter). It indicated a "13.55% Max Fail" with the maximum duration of the error (Max dT) of 1 min 48 seconds and 110 maximum consecutive failures (McF). All other parameters in the report had 0 errors.

However, earlier in the same report, it reported under "Exceptions" that NACv was "No," which according to the User's Guide, "No=Pass."

The User's Guide is confusing because on page 7 it states that a NACv Exception is whether the "aircraft failed to meet the performance standards of the identified parameter: Yes=Fail, No=Pass." Then, on page 8, where the Guide discusses "Missing Elements," it says "Missing Elements will be highlighted in red if the aircraft fails to meet the Performance Requirements."

So, am I to interpret that since there is no NACv Exception, that overall, this is a satisfactory/passing report? Does this mean that although the NACv parameter had a significant % error, the percentage was relatively high because it was such a short flight and therefore, not really of concern?

I'm hoping there's someone out there who is very familiar with these reports and can comment. If anyone can point me to a "plain-language" explanation of the PAPR reports and the significance or not of the various parameters, I'd really appreciate it!
 
Last edited:
John, it's been a couple of months since I flew my test flight. In my case, and in many others, the FAA was very prompt in sending me an email explaining my test flight score. Since I did not fly in Class B or C airspace and did not communicate with controillers, I knew ahead of time that my report would be delayed. But my final "OK" for my flight came about a week later.

I'm sorry but I can't interpret your test scores, but I do believe if you'll wait a few days, the results will be in your inbox.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about submitting a request for a PAPR to evaluate my installation, NOT in conjunction with application for a rebate. I do very promptly receive an email with an attached PAPR report, but there is NO interpretation by a human - just parameters red-flagged if there are errors. I know you can request a review/"manual interpretation" by a "real person" at the FAA, but no interpretation is sent automatically. Even when I have requested a "manual interpretation," they indeed do state if it is "OK" or not, but really don't go into explanation of errors and typically say "contact your avionics manufacturer or installer."

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what constitutes a "pass" or "fail" and what significance, if any, individual parameters constitute. I guess my basic question is that if there are no "Exceptions" in the report, despite individual parameters being red-flagged, is it a "passing" report? I'll see if I can ask that specific question on a manual review and see if the tech answers definitively.

Thanks,
John
 
Last edited:
After re-reading your post, I realize I probably should not have replied. Thus, I deleted my post. Hopefully, someone can provide the assistance you are requesting. Sorry for the quick trigger fingers.
 
Well, I emailed the PAPR for manual interpretation and here's the FAA's response:


The good news is the reports are easy to read because if there is red ANYWHERE that means the ADS-B system is not meeting performance standards (failure). However, there are exceptions and one is fringe of coverage due low altitude flying/mountains. In your case, it appears the red is due to low altitude (below 2000 ft) and lack of ADS-B coverage. I suggest you check the system again after a few more flights. It appears your system is functioning correctly.


His assessment is correct in that the flight started at low altitude (but, I've had 2 "perfect" PAPR's following the same flight profile). So, I guess one can't assume too much and has to request a manual evaluation anytime there is a failure to find out if it is significant or not! I certainly appreciate the FAA's prompt and personal response!
 
Altitude

FAA said:
... In your case, it appears the red is due to low altitude (below 2000 ft) and lack of ADS-B coverage. ...
Don't all flights start and end at low altitude? :S
 
Altitude

I've been flying around with a fully compliant ADSB system for a couple of years now, and up until two days ago, I hadn't even heard of a PAPR. Then a certified letter from the FAA showed up with $5.37 worth of stamps covering the right side of the envelope that someone manually applied. My initial reaction was that the contents must be really important, and what did I do to attract the attention?

The letter is dated January 19, 2018, and it informs me that a flight on January 4th failed to meet performance requirements. The report has red highlighted columns in the integrity and accuracy sections, and I'm instructed to reference the latest PAPR User's Guide to review the report and contact an Aviation Safety Inspector so he can provide me with additional details associated with the notification.

The flight in question logged .4 hrs, remained in the traffic pattern, never climbed above 1000' AGL, and flights conducted since then haven't generated any further PAPR letters. At least I don't think so, but with a delay of 3 months between the referenced flight and receipt of the letter, who can tell?

It appears that we have a new monster in our midst, spring-loaded to react on a flight-by-flight basis, as opposed to waiting for a series of flights in which failure to meet performance requirements for a specific aircraft can logically be attributed to onboard equipment malfunctions.
 
The PAPR has been around for 4-5 years. It started out as you have to request it from a person. I think the FAA has done a great job at improving the automation from it's early days.

Initially, there were many well known vendors that had issues with their implementations. Thanks to PAPR reports, folks were able to work with their vendors to work through all the issues.

You can request a PAPR anytime you want. It will usually respond within the hour with data from your last flight.

https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx
 
The PAPR has been around for 4-5 years. It started out as you have to request it from a person. I think the FAA has done a great job at improving the automation from it's early days.

Initially, there were many well known vendors that had issues with their implementations. Thanks to PAPR reports, folks were able to work with their vendors to work through all the issues.

You can request a PAPR anytime you want. It will usually respond within the hour with data from your last flight.

https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx

Thanks for this, and when requested by the ADS-B end user, the reports obviously provide a vital trouble-shooting function. My whining has to do with what appears to be an ineffective system for FAA monitoring of performance compliance.
 
Behind the times at the FAA

The PAPR has been around for 4-5 years. It started out as you have to request it from a person. I think the FAA has done a great job at improving the automation from it's early days.

Initially, there were many well known vendors that had issues with their implementations. Thanks to PAPR reports, folks were able to work with their vendors to work through all the issues.

You can request a PAPR anytime you want. It will usually respond within the hour with data from your last flight.

https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx

Unless you have an email with a single letter before the ".com" - The form won't work with my "@q.com" email address. :)

This was a problem fixed around a decade ago by most web sites when the short urls were issued. :)
 
Thanks for this, and when requested by the ADS-B end user, the reports obviously provide a vital trouble-shooting function. My whining has to do with what appears to be an ineffective system for FAA monitoring of performance compliance.

How would you suggest to make it more effective?

They had to print the PAPR, then look up your address in the aircraft registration, stuff and label the envelope, apply postage and drop it in the mail. Doing all that in two weeks is pretty efficient for the government. :D

Unfortunately, nobody on the registration side of the house has thought to solicit email addresses for more efficient communication. But then again, email doesn't have the same legal notification status as certified mail does.

The FAA was pretty lenient in the early days of ADSB. Actually the couple folks that worked in the office bent over backwards to assist people. The one gentleman even showed up at one of the OSH HBC events and solicited feedback on how to improve things a few years back on his nickel, not the FAA's.

I suspect that those days are gone. I would encourage everyone to periodically run the PAPR to ensure that everything is working as anticipated. Don't assume that if you're buying gear from a big name vendor that everything plug and play will work perfectly. At a minimum, I would make it a part of your condition inspection to ensure ADSB is working properly.
 
Performance reports

I am curious what self-installers are finding most often as errors in their performance reports. In other words, what are the common types of failures and fixes. Hardware? Setup? Or airframe/installation related? I bet they are setup/setting type errors that, once understood, are quickly fixed on the ground while sitting in the aircraft.

My RV8A install of AFS/Dynon, got a "passed" report the first time I requested one, despite being on the western fringe of SLC airspace. (Thanks Rob Hickman and crew.) That was about 3 months ago, and I should pull another report following a flight in denser coverage area like SLC or LAS.

The several fail reports I have heard (on self-installs in experimentals) have been software switch/setup errors. The one shop installation (a Piper Dakota in Class C airspace) glitch known to me was an antenna grounding error, diagnosed and fixed by the installing shop.
 
ADS-B Performance Report Requirements

Just finished installing an echoUAT / SkyFYXEXT system in my RV-8A. Flew 2 performance flights so far 0n 4 and5 Jan - both nearly 45 minutes above 10K. Traffic showed up on both my AFS-4500 and iPad (via Foreflight). However, multiple performance request replies for both days generated the reply:
Your Performance Report request for Tail Number N192NM on 1/05/2019 failed to generate a result." Got same reply for 4 Jan flight.

What am I doing wrong?
 
Just finished installing an echoUAT / SkyFYXEXT system in my RV-8A. Flew 2 performance flights so far 0n 4 and5 Jan - both nearly 45 minutes above 10K. Traffic showed up on both my AFS-4500 and iPad (via Foreflight). However, multiple performance request replies for both days generated the reply:
Your Performance Report request for Tail Number N192NM on 1/05/2019 failed to generate a result." Got same reply for 4 Jan flight.

What am I doing wrong?

Could you possibly be in anonymous mode?
 
I previously had this issue. Can?t provide the details from memory, but go through the uAvionix set up fields looking for the places where there is an opportunity to uniquely identify your plane. One of them is blank or incorrectly entered.

Erich
 
Did you put the correct day in with Zulu time?

Got same return on my first request then put date in reflecting zulu(UTC) time and received the report.
 
Back
Top