scottf wrote:Playing devil's advocate here, but you could say the same thing for the VHF radio in a VFR-only airplane. There are NO requirements in the FARs for radios for VFR use to be TSO'd, and nothing in the type certificates of many planes, nor the CARs they were certified under... but just try and find someone that will install a non-TSO's radio in a certified airplane...

You are of course correct Scott but there have been some posts here by people well versed in this technology that TSO'd equipment would be required for ALL aircraft installations and that FAA would never back down from that requirement. They have just removed the requirement. One of the main obstacles to ADSB-out installation of course has been the horrendous cost of compliance with the TSO. All it takes is ONE shop to install the stratus/garmin type solutions and they will ALL install them.

Mister701 wrote:

scottf wrote:Playing devil's advocate here, but you could say the same thing for the VHF radio in a VFR-only airplane. There are NO requirements in the FARs for radios for VFR use to be TSO'd, and nothing in the type certificates of many planes, nor the CARs they were certified under... but just try and find someone that will install a non-TSO's radio in a certified airplane...

You are of course correct Scott but there have been some posts here by people well versed in this technology that TSO'd equipment would be required for ALL aircraft installations and that FAA would never back down from that requirement. They have just removed the requirement. One of the main obstacles to ADSB-out installation of course has been the horrendous cost of compliance with the TSO. All it takes is ONE shop to install the stratus/garmin type solutions and they will ALL install them.

I hope this is the case. Due to it's pending-deadline nature, ADS-B may be the push the FAA needs, and this would really make a difference in terms of cost and likely none in terms of safety vs. TSO'd gear.

Mister701 wrote: They have just removed the requirement. One of the main obstacles to ADSB-out installation of course has been the horrendous cost of compliance with the TSO. All it takes is ONE shop to install the stratus/garmin type solutions and they will ALL install them.

The key word is "install". Folks have been wanting to use portable devices to meet the ADSB rule. To install a device means a certain thing in FAA speak. In order to install a device into your plane it must meet certain requirements. Portable devices will never meet those requirements.

And, you're still faced with the "meets performance requirements" wording. That means a manufacturer will have to prove to the FAA (and likely the same folks who approve TSOs) that their equipment meets the performance standards.

If you seriously think THAT is going to be easy, you need to talk to an avionics manufacturer.

And, as Bonanzaman noted, it still says "installed", so unless something big changes, this may or may not help much.

MTV

A1Skinner wrote:....struggling to decide if its worth trying to be ads-b compliant. We don't need it in Canada, but I would like to cross the border from time to time......

Just pondering the "ADS-B out" requirements again. Far as I know now, they will be the same as the current txp-mode c requirements:
1) in (or above) A B or C airspace
2) within the 30nm mode c veil around
3) at or above 10,000' MSL

I'd like to see AOPA etc advocating ADS-B to be required only inside A and B airspace, but I think for a lot of people the whole ADS-B thing isn't gonna be an issue. Personally, I have never been in class A airspace, and haven't been in class B since I was a student pilot. In the entire Washington / Oregon / Idaho area, I believe there's only four class C's: NAS Whidbey, Spokane, Portland, & Boise. I do go through Whidbey's class C pretty often, being based nearby, but could actually avoid it without too much trouble. Pretty easy to avoid the others too, unless you're based or going somewhere inside them. The big deal for me would be avoiding SeaTac's 30nm mode C veil, but since there's only 30 of these in the whole country they shouldn't be a problem for most folks.

hotrod180 wrote: I'd like to see AOPA etc advocating ADS-B to be required only inside A and B airspace, but I think for a lot of people the whole ADS-B thing isn't gonna be an issue.

Class C is radar environment, ADS-B is hoped to replace Radar one day.

Pretty easy to avoid the others too, unless you're based or going somewhere inside them. The big deal for me would be avoiding SeaTac's 30nm mode C veil, but since there's only 30 of these in the whole country they shouldn't be a problem for most folks.

Lucky me, I am about two miles inside the KSEA 30 mi. veil. Also trying to fly around the KSEA veil gets you into the area where there are trees and rocks in the clouds.

I would happily fly under 2500 in Class B if that can be wrangled, but it makes it pretty damn difficult to get East of the mountains if it is a bit cloudy.....what am I saying? this is Seattle most days are a bit cloudy.

TD

Waterboy wrote:

hotrod180 wrote: I'd like to see AOPA etc advocating ADS-B to be required only inside A and B airspace, but I think for a lot of people the whole ADS-B thing isn't gonna be an issue.

Class C is radar environment, ADS-B is hoped to replace Radar one day.

They say that, but I don't believe they will ever take down primary radar around big cities. Imagine the first time an unequipped aircraft wanders in and does something stupid and they never knew it was there...