I can't believe that there's been no comment on the latest post on the ADSB thread. I've posted a page from the latest Federal Register regarding the TSO requirement. Contrary to much of the discussion FAA claims that they left the word "performance" out! It's great news. In 5 years we should be able to implement ADSB-out for about the cost of a weekend in Vegas.

If you want to get people's attention on this topic you should name your thread something relevant. You'll never see a newspaper editor approve a headline like "Take a look dang it" or "ADS-B"

I think comparing prices for a "weekend in Vegas" might not be an accurate unit of measure!

You can have an awfully good time in Vegas!

JB

Mojave Flyer wrote:I think comparing prices for a "weekend in Vegas" might not be an accurate unit of measure!

You can have an awfully good time in Vegas!

JB

Depends on who you're with, what you're doing, right?

Cary

Zzz wrote:If you want to get people's attention on this topic you should name your thread something relevant. You'll never see a newspaper editor approve a headline like "Take a look dang it" or "ADS-B"

Well certainly Z. But we don't want two threads open on the same subject either. A certain ennui develops after a thread has been open for awhile. I know I quit watching them. This is big news. I might have started a thread entitled: "Huge Developments on ADSB-out front"

Sorrry.

Or call it "Weekend in Vegas!" That would get my attention.

Brett

I don't know, I've had some REALLY expensive weekends in Vegas, and not just monetarily...

Now I am still a bit confused. The performance characteristics of the TSO include temperature, vibe, shock, and emc levels. They also specify update rate and an error computation that is anything but standard on any portables I have played with. So the FAA needs to clearly outline which TSO performance specifications are *Performance* specifications and which are merely performance specifications. The TSOs are specific. As an example, some portables will not meet the -40 to 80c opersting requirement.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the FAA is inching in the right direction. If this is done right, it will slash the costs of the equipment by 2-3 times.

lesuther wrote:Now I am still a bit confused. The performance characteristics of the TSO include temperature, vibe, shock, and emc levels. They also specify update rate and an error computation that is anything but standard on any portables I have played with. So the FAA needs to clearly outline which TSO performance specifications are *Performance* specifications and which are merely performance specifications. The TSOs are specific. As an example, some portables will not meet the -40 to 80c opersting requirement.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the FAA is inching in the right direction. If this is done right, it will slash the costs of the equipment by 2-3 times.

I was hoping you'd jump in here. So the TSO numbers given in the FR update don't pertain to the update are?

Mister701 wrote:

Zzz wrote:If you want to get people's attention on this topic you should name your thread something relevant. You'll never see a newspaper editor approve a headline like "Take a look dang it" or "ADS-B"

Well certainly Z. But we don't want two threads open on the same subject either. A certain ennui develops after a thread has been open for awhile. I know I quit watching them. This is big news. I might have started a thread entitled: "Huge Developments on ADSB-out front"

Sorrry.

That's a good point. You gotta re-introduce something sexier.

@ Mister701

I enjoyed both threads. There are a lot of really high info-content posts in those two threads. I really learned a ton, and the whole ADSB is such a rapidly evolving area that it spins my few remaining gray cells. I keep bouncing between buying certified or buying/building an Experimental.

Glass, radio gear, auto pilot, & other options really make the Experimental choice tempting. ADSB with WAAS for $699.!! . oh man...keep it rolling...

Link: http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/instrumentaccessories/ads-b-compliance-699-its-true-sort?cmpid=enews021215&spPodID=030&spMailingID=22128912&spUserID=OTU2NTIzNzY5NDgS1&spJobID=501334499&spReportId=NTAxMzM0NDk5S0

There was a thread on here somewhere about an SOS landing where XAVION software basically identified a local airport, determined it was doable, an then engaged autopilot to fly the plane to destination. If a $699 WAAS/ADSB unit can help improve that even just a little bit…. Again…wow.

The article was titled: "Watch An iPad Land An Airplane: Failed airplane engine? Unconscious pilot? There's an app for that. "

Link: http://www.popsci.com/xavion-ipad-app-can-make-emergency-airplane-landing-autopilot

I have flown many fine airplanes with no electrical system. Are they still legal most places when low?

Mister701 wrote:......... In 5 years we should be able to implement ADSB-out for about the cost of a weekend in Vegas.

Which is how much again?
And will this apply to all aircraft, or just experimentals?

Contactflying wrote:
I have flown many fine airplanes with no electrical system. Are they still legal most places when low?

This plane has no electrical, is fully legal at low altitudes, and is okay re ADSB at least until 2020. Tail dragger, nice large tundra tires (though a bit thin), CS prop, great visibility over the nose, and all metal construction..... why what's not to like. I love the cub like tail.

I’d buy one right now, but I can’t get any info on fuel burn, climb rates, and there is no quick build kit available. Anyone here logged any time in this beast ?

Thanks Denali,

That one will work real well for me in my golden years.

Contact

Thinking of thread ennui... our dog gets that around midday at the office... but we tell her it's better than being stuck in a kennel at home!

contactflying wrote:I have flown many fine airplanes with no electrical system. Are they still legal most places when low?

The current regulations for ADS-B contain about the same exemption for no-electric aircraft that the transponder regulations did.

I'm sure we will debate this at some point - but you should read the new reg and compare the old one regarding transponders. I note the conspicuous absence of the term "engine-driven" when referring to aircraft originally certificated without an electrical system. That term was always the "out" for us J3-guys. I maintain the interpretation should continue to be the same but who knows - it can all change with an AC from the FAA with a ruling from the legal department.

Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

contactflying wrote:I have flown many fine airplanes with no electrical system. Are they still legal most places when low?

The current regulations for ADS-B contain about the same exemption for no-electric aircraft that the transponder regulations did.

Call me a dreamer, but I'm still hoping that getting the new gear approved will be such a cluster-fuck and that everyone will raise so much hell about it, that the whole ADS-B thing will just go away. Or just be applicable in class A & B airspace, which is where it belongs (if anywhere).

When the transponder requirement came along, staying low and out of the way worked well. When the Mode-C requirement came along, staying low and out of the way with the transponder off worked well. If this one can see down low, low and out of the way with the switch off should work.

Be aware when there is a terrorist threat, those big airplanes with the big radar dome mounted on top the fuselage can see you with everything turned off. Lots of crop dusters got caught the week after 911. The next week the government figured out that it would not be wise to let the terrorists cause massive crop failure and undetected pipeline failure.