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
  #11  
Old 12-19-2014, 06:30 AM
Radomir's Avatar
Radomir Radomir is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,518
Default

Mac is "confused" but that shouldn't come as a surprise... (eg. you don't get an STC for an experimental to equip it for IFR flying yet you're perfectly legal when using correct/approved equipment -- and ADS-B story is/will be the same for experimentals).
__________________
Radomir
RV-7A sold
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-19-2014, 06:35 AM
Radomir's Avatar
Radomir Radomir is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk View Post
Doesn't it seem bizarre that the EAA would publish at article, written by an EAA employee, that confidently announces experimental aircraft are not allowed to install ADSB equipment?????
In a perfect world - yes it would be bizarre... but we're far from perfect world. EAA hiring a guy who's probably never seen an experimental aircraft as the editor of the magazine shows you how far from perfect world we are.
__________________
Radomir
RV-7A sold
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-19-2014, 06:40 AM
RVDan RVDan is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 564
Default

Actually, the rules (91.225 and 91.227) do not require STC or TC. They require certain TSO's for the equipment and are otherwise performance based. The only conondrum for the FAA is to determine policy on how you as that aircraft owner/operator demonstrate that your system meets the requirements. If you have equipment meeting the TSO's, you get 95% of the way there. The rest can be verified easily with ramp test equipment your favorite shop should have already or soon. A final verification could be the FAA report you can get by email, once you fly the aircraft and are observed by the ground system.

For part 23 airplanes, field approval, which is a far cry from an STC or TC approval, has always been on the table, the FAA just has to decide to go forward with this. As I understand it, a good number of the early instalaltions have not passed muster when observed by the ground stations. They either have been installed incorrectly or configured incorrectly. Perhaps a good reason for the FAA to be slow to ease the policy.

It is not rules that must change, but policy, which often happens as pressure mounts and deadlines come knocking.
__________________
Dan Morris
Frederick, MD
RV6 built and sold
N199EC RV6A flying
Learn the facts. "Democracy dies in darkness"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-19-2014, 06:54 AM
RVDan RVDan is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 564
Default

Perhaps this thread should be combined with the ADS-B group buy one.
__________________
Dan Morris
Frederick, MD
RV6 built and sold
N199EC RV6A flying
Learn the facts. "Democracy dies in darkness"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-19-2014, 07:02 AM
Joness0154 Joness0154 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 110
Default

This FAA document tells the exact opposite story that the author of the article is:

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/ga/media/...stallation.pdf

To summarize, it states that only aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate require an STC. EAB are also specifically mentioned in the document but that they don't require an STC.
__________________
RV-7 builder
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-19-2014, 07:23 AM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,529
Default

Even better was Mac's article in the most recent Sport Aviation calling into question the need for highly accurate ADS-B position reporting for VFR traffic where the rule of the sky is (and will remain) "see and avoid".

If someone at the FAA agrees with him, and he does make a good argument, then maybe, just maybe, we will be able to use a VFR capable GPS as long as we stay out of the clouds.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html

Last edited by N941WR : 12-19-2014 at 07:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-19-2014, 08:29 AM
Peterk Peterk is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVDan View Post
Perhaps this thread should be combined with the ADS-B group buy one.
Who can do that? If it can be done, yes it should.

I think its important that we get to the bottom of this rather than simply state our preferences. Where is Mac getting his info? What is he basing this on? Surely there is an ADSB manufacturer or aviation legal individual up to date on the regs that can straighten this out.

Mac states, with confidence, that ADSB equip CANNOT be installed in experimentals. Mac works for the the EAA. What if Mac is correct? Wouldn't this be a good time for someone who knows the answer to step forward? Before we all go out and spend $4,000 plus?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-19-2014, 09:06 AM
rvsxer rvsxer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Inver Grove Hgts, MN
Posts: 291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
If someone at the FAA agrees with him, and he does make a good argument, then maybe, just maybe, we will be able to use a VFR capable GPS as long as we stay out of the clouds.
I have ADS-B "in" (actually not quite yet - I need to get that GDL-39 Stein wants me to have) with a Garmin GTX-23ES and my G3X GPS providing the GPS feed. The G3X is "WAAS accurate" but not "WAAS certified" so I will not be "2020 Rule" legal when I add the GDL-39, as I understand it. The Feds really need to relax the GPS requirement because those of us in this position will be required to spend $2,000-$6000 or more to get the required GPS with no increase in functionality or accuracy.
__________________
Mike Hilger
RV-6 N207AM w/G3X, 1,500 hours +
South St. Paul, MN (KSGS)
Manager - Panel Design, SteinAir, Inc.
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor

We're all here because we're not all there...

Last edited by rvsxer : 12-19-2014 at 09:12 AM. Reason: Correction
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-19-2014, 10:47 AM
MartySantic's Avatar
MartySantic MartySantic is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk View Post
Doesn't it seem bizarre that the EAA would publish at article, written by an EAA employee, that confidently announces experimental aircraft are not allowed to install ADSB equipment?????
Agreed, the article is flawed. Sure would have been nice if he included the references from which he is basing his conclusions. Mac demonstrates once again he really does not understand the experimental world. He clearly does not know the difference between S-LSA and E-LSA.
__________________
Marty Santic ----- W9EAA
RV-12 N128MS ----- Now Flying
My RV-12 Build Log - http://www.martysrv12.blogspot.com/
Davenport, IA
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-19-2014, 11:12 AM
RV7A Flyer's Avatar
RV7A Flyer RV7A Flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 1,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartySantic View Post
Agreed, the article is flawed. Sure would have been nice if he included the references from which he is basing his conclusions. Mac demonstrates once again he really does not understand the experimental world. He clearly does not know the difference between S-LSA and E-LSA.
It would have been even nicer if the article was correct in regards to EABs, at least, seeing as the "E" in "EAA" used to stand for "Experimental".

So how many people reading that blog are now a) misinformed about what they can install on their EXPERIMENTAL amateur-built planes, and b) p*ssed off at the FAA based on a wrong understanding of the rules? Just go read the comments over on the blog...virtually every one is negative, based on *faulty information*.

Couple that with the constant barrage of "ADS-B is all bad, all the time!" from this guy (who represents EAA) and what a great way for EAA to foster a good working relationship with the FAA. Not.

Mac should stick to writing articles on how cool it is to fly the latest Gulfstream. For Flying magazine.

What was EAA thinking in hiring him for Sport Aviation?
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 10:42 PM.


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.