UngaWunga wrote:http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/ads-b-solved

$1500 bucks would be digestible...but they still need to get a TSO. If this gets approved, it would gut any sales of the bloated $5k installs for most of GA (under 18k', US only). <$2k for the AHRS units.

Thabks again for the explanation Lesuther.
I'm currently in need of a comm and transponder upgrade, and 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. May be cheaper to just rent down there then equip and fly my own plane down though.

Here's a timely discussion of a portable (not yet legal) alternative.

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-di ... s-b-solved

I've thought that this topic would be worthy of a poll to see what everyone's plans are. I agree with MTV and Barnstormer....and share Scottf's frustration. Personally, I think (and hope) that the majority of owners are going to wait to see what happens and that as the deadline nears, there will be more pressure on the FAA to change the requirements. It seems that recently you're hearing AOPA be more vocal about it. Like Barnstormer said, who would have thought 5 years ago that you wouldn't be able to buy a paper sectional at your FBO? Look at how tablets have changed flying and who knows how technology will change it in another 6 years! Like everyone else, I don't want to spend a huge chunk of money for something that will be of little benefit to me. My primary reason for wanting anything ADS-B related was to get weather. But with my change to verizon, I'm getting cell service to 10K and not just over populated areas. Flip on the mobile hotspot and I have weather to my iPad. So even WX isn't much of a motivator now. Traffic would be nice, but not at that price.

Lesuther,

Thanks for the long but informative post. My opinion of the future of ADS-B is even lower now.....

But, frankly, I for one could care less about ADS-B, simply because I don't intend to fly in any of the airspace noted in the 2020 rulemaking.

That said, what scares the bejesus out of me about ADS-B is the Drones.....here's my logic:

The proliferation of drones, and the HUGE money and lobbying effort that's pushing for unrestricted access to the National Airspace System (NAS) is going to work, I have no doubt. There's just too much pressure pushing the FAA and Congress has the purse strings.

So, what does that have to do with ADS-B you ask? The primary means of separation of aircraft in VMC in the NAS is "See and Avoid". But, drones can't "see", at least not in a manner which would provide traffic avoidance.

Somehow, the drone industry and/or the FAA is going to have to develop some sort of "Sense and avoid" technology to make this work.......enter ADS-B.

I can easily see the FAA, who's been pushing NextGen and ADS-B for a long time, using the "sense and avoid" requirement to further justify and expand on ADS-B.

Will it work??? Probably not, but I simply don't see any other way that they are going to be able to separate drones from civil aircraft.

Well, there is one other way....simply ground all VFR traffic and give the NAS to the drones. Don't think that's possible? There are a LOT of people in this country that see no valid reason for general aviation.....

I really hope I'm wrong on both of these concepts. But, I'll bet the FAA is looking REALLY hard at ADS-B and drones.

And that to me is scary.

MTV

A proposal has been made to expand the ADS-B exemption to cover all aircraft which are based under the 30 nm mode C veil (not just those without an electrical system).

If adopted, this would mean that those of us who are based at airports around class c's who don’t need to fly in controlled airspace could avoid the expense of installing ADSB-out in our aircraft.

The proposal needs supportive comments to improve its chance of serious consideration.
To see the proposal and/or make comments, go to

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1061-0001

WilgaBeast wrote:A proposal has been made to expand the ADS-B exemption to cover all aircraft which are based under the 30 nm mode C veil (not just those without an electrical system).

If adopted, this would mean that those of us who are based at airports around class c's who don’t need to fly in controlled airspace could avoid the expense of installing ADSB-out in our aircraft.

The proposal needs supportive comments to improve its chance of serious consideration.
To see the proposal and/or make comments, go to

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1061-0001

I commented, Thanks WIlga

$1500? How about less than $300?

http://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/a-lightweight-lowcost-adsb-system-for-uas-applications
http://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/07_0634.pdf

It was designed for small UAS but the builders acknowledge that this could be a GA solution to ADS-B. Small, light, low-cost stuff is available, it just needs to be approved...... which is probably asking too much.

$700 for experimental!!
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

What do you guys make of this comment on the GA News article about that?

http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/02/ ... -and-lsas/

GAnews.com commenter Many DecadesGA wrote:FEBRUARY 12, 2015 AT 10:25 AM

While NavWorx effort is applauded to bring a lower cost ADS-B system to market for LSAs, and is certainly much appreciated, and would even perhaps appear to some to be a step forward, this kind of unit still is likely no “long term solution” for virtually any aircraft or airspace users. That’s because any UAT based system cannot see other aircraft using Mode S based ADS (and vice versa) without also needing ADS-R, which will not be available or will be ineffective in much of the airspace otherwise used by LSAs, and even many, if not most ASEL GA airplanes at low altitude nationally. As such, any equipage with UAT, even if the avionics unit was offered at zero cost to the aircraft owner, and the aircraft owner only needed to pay installation cost, would not be worth it for many users. Ultimately UAT is just going to actually make the airspace system less safe overall, than otherwise using a single Mode S based ADS standard (as will be done by over 185 other country’s globally and ICAO). Instead, we need revised and relaxed NIC and NAC criteria less restrictive than FAA’s current excessive TSO performance criteria, thus allowing for use of any GPS or Galileo GNSS sensors (and not requiring SBAS). More appropriate specification of a relaxed NIC and NAC allowing use of virtually any aviation quality GPS (or eventually Galileo, or both, and without needing SBAS), offers a much better and significantly less expensive ADS solution for all airspace users, as well as ANSPs globally. Other country’s like Australia have already long ago figured this out. It is time for FAA to now back off it’s entirely inappropriate and unnecessarily excessively stringent ADS-B TSO criteria, so as to allow companies like NavWorx to build entirely satisfactory Mode S based units for the global marketplace at much lower cost, for LSAs, UAVs, small amateur built aircraft, and also many tens of thousands of ASMELS GA airplanes, for retrofit.

WilgaBeast wrote:http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1061-0001

I can do without flying in class B airspace. but living where I do (north Puget Sound area in western Washington) I do fly through the class C airspace around NAS Whidbey. Avoiding it would be do-able but a PITA. Why not require ADS-B just for class A (of course) and class B, and/or above 10K feet AGL?

I agree with some of the items in the article (TSO WAAS requirement, costs), and am interested in looking at the Australian experience more closely.

The UAT users will receive the ground based traffic service, just not all of the air to air information. This will hurt in mountainous areas where the ground based signals will not be received.

I disagree that UAT's make the airspace less safe. While I argue against any need to have NextGen at all in its present form, shifting all traffic into the 1090es band would not appear to be a solution.

My understanding is that the current bandwidth of 1090es communications is insufficient to even address current users in some class B airspace. Few aircraft use this now, so it is not an issue. The amount of data being thrown around is sufficiently higher that adding users means a degradation of service (frequency of updates, which makes the WAAS update rate superfluous, or clipping the number of aircraft served). The UAT was offered as a way to add another band to service the higher volume of users that we have in the US. Other regions using the 1090es standards might not have this problem (fewer private aircraft, fewer flights).

I might support non-TSO GPS positioning, or at least develop a different approval for a GPS source for VFR. There are some things that are important that some commercial grade equipment simply does not support to make them adequate for the task,but I bet that many sources are just fine.

so if we all just flip the feds the finger and continue to fly anyway without ads-b, do you really think they will shut us all down? I have my finger ready to salute them..

I am wondering how strict they will be on Class C after the ADS-B deadline. Around here, if the workload is not high ATC is usually more than willing to allow aircraft without a transponder to enter Class C, or at least I have never heard them turned away. Post-deadline If you have a transponder but no ADS-B out they will know where you are anyway like they do now.

scottf wrote:I am wondering how strict they will be on Class C after the ADS-B deadline. Around here, if the workload is not high ATC is usually more than willing to allow aircraft without a transponder to enter Class C, or at least I have never heard them turned away. Post-deadline If you have a transponder but no ADS-B out they will know where you are anyway like they do now.

I doubt it. The current requirement for a transponder waiver is specified in the regs.....as you noted, it is waivable by ATC on a workload permitting basis.

The ADS-B out requirement doesn't have any such provision, at least not yet. It might be worth pushing that, though, but I don't know if the rule is cast in stone yet.

MTV

Class C was a pain in the ass for pipeline patrol. B, not a problem at all. You weren't in it until you hit D and called the tower. Solution, in both cases, if you go low they won't know. This new stuff will probably be a hassle for pipeliners, if they turn it on.

Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 26/Monday, February 9, 2015/Rules and Regulations page 6899

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA–2007–29305; Amdt. No. 91–334]
RIN 2120–AI92
Automatic Dependent Surveillance- Broadcast (ADS–B) Out Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service; Technical Amendment
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule published on May 28, 2010. In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations by adding equipage requirements and performance standards for Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B) Out avionics on aircraft operating in Classes A, B, and C airspace, as well as other specified classes of airspace within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). This document corrects errors in regulatory provisions addressing ADS–B Out equipment and use.
DATES: Effective February 9, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions concerning this action, contact Robert F. Nichols, Jr., Surveillance Services Group Manager, AJM–23, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–0629; email Robert.nichols@ faa.gov.
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Lorelei Peter, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC–200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:55 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM 09FER1
rljohnson on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
6900 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 26/Monday, February 9, 2015/Rules and Regulations
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202– 267–3073; email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for ‘‘good cause’’ finds that those procedures are ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’’ Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.
Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
This document is correcting an error that is in 14 CFR 91.225, ADS–B Out equipment and use. This correction will not impose any additional restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore, any additional delay in making the regulations correct would be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) public comment on these standards prior to promulgation is unnecessary, and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.
Background
On May 28, 2010, the FAA published a final rule entitled, ‘‘Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast Out Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control Service’’ (75 FR 30160).
In that final rule, the FAA established § 91.225, which provides the ADS–B equipment requirements necessary to operate in certain classes of airspace effective January 1, 2020. Under paragraph (a)(1) of that section and in order to operate an aircraft in Class A airspace, an aircraft must have installed equipment that ‘‘meets the requirements of TSO–C166b.’’ Under paragraph (b)(1) of that section, in order to operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in identified airspace described subsequently in § 91.225, an aircraft must be equipped with equipment that ‘‘meets the requirements of TSO–C166b; or TSO–C154c . . .’’. In reviewing these paragraphs, the FAA notes that the regulatory text implies that the equipment must meet all the requirements of the referenced TSOs. As the ADS–B Out rule is a performance-
based rule, it was not the FAA’s intent to arguably limit operators to only install equipment marked with a TSO in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, subpart O. The FAA’s intent was to permit equipment that meets the performance requirements set forth in the referenced TSOs. Evidence of that intent is found in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in § 91.225(a)(1) and (c)(1) that the equipment installed ‘‘Meets the performance requirements in TSO–C–166a’’ (72 FR 56947, 56971). The inadvertent removal of the word ‘‘performance’’ in the paragraphs implementing these provisions in the final rule was in error and resulted in confusion as to whether the regulation permits other than equipment marked with a TSO, provided that equipment met the specified performance requirements.
Technical Amendment
In order to address any confusion and clarify the equipage requirements permitted under this rule, the FAA is amending § 91.225 to insert text specifying the necessary performance requirements.
Because the changes in this technical amendment result in no substantive change, we find good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 91
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
■ 2. In § 91.225, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 91.225 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) Out equipment and use.
(a) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in Class A
airspace unless the aircraft has equipment installed that—
(1) Meets the performance requirements in TSO–C166b, Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) and Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS–B) Equipment Operating on the Radio Frequency of 1090 Megahertz (MHz); and
(2) Meets the requirements of § 91.227.
(b) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace described in paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has equipment installed that—
(1) Meets the performance requirements in—
(i) TSO–C166b; or
(ii) TSO–C154c, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) Equipment Operating on the Frequency of 978 MHz;
(2) Meets the requirements of § 91.227.
**** *
Issued under authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015–02579 Filed 2–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

So if I am understanding the language correctly, a TSOed GPS will not be required it just needs to meet the performance specifications. Will a portable Garmin meet those requirements?

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...