VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > ADS-B
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #701  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:10 PM
Fred.Stucklen's Avatar
Fred.Stucklen Fred.Stucklen is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brooksville, FL
Posts: 287
Default Sill value

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonR View Post
This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with 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 National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"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.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?
So I have to ask, What is the transmitted SIL value of the EchoUAT-KL5 that is being offered up as a NavWorx ADS600-EXP unit? I have not seen it advertised anywhere.
__________________
Fred Stucklen
wstucklen1@cox.net
RV-7A N924RV Flying (1450 Hrs & counting)
RV-6A N926RV 875 Hrs (Sold)
RV-6A N925RV 2008 Hrs (Sold)
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 11-06-2017, 06:49 AM
JBPILOT JBPILOT is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jesup, Iowa
Posts: 1,545
Default Got my report day one - -

3 3 3 3 3 ( for enough info )
__________________
John Bender
Flying RV-12 - Serial #120036
Paid in May ( 5-10-17 )
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 11-06-2017, 06:54 AM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonR View Post
This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with 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 National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"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.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?
The short answer is that you can't. For EAB aircraft, the vendors can self certify. This means that the FAA will trust them until proven otherwise, which was Navworx's demise. Even Navworx was burned by a vendor that misrepresented their product to Navworx.

Caveat Emptor.......

The good news is that the community is pretty small and is very self policing. Unfortunately, that doesn't protect early adopters of their products.
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:44 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.