Welcome! Becoming a registered user of ShortWingPipers.Org is free and easy! Click the "Register" link found in the upper right hand corner of this screen. It's easy and you can then join the fun posting and learning about Short Wing Pipers!

Page 13 of 69 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 690

Thread: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

  1. #121
    Homer Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Peoria Arizona
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    I think this is a prime example where our Congress doesn't know where money comes from. So, lesssseeeee, they are going to send me $500.00 for doing ADSB right now. Wow, what a deal !
    Where did that money come from ? ? ? It came from TAXES ! So what was accomplished? I take the $500.00 they send me and put it in my bank account to use to pay
    my income tax which now has an adjusted gross income $500.00 higher. Am I dense here by thinking I really didn't get any huge benefit from the transaction and actually, I will get dinged
    additionally because I will have to report the $ 500.00 the Feds send me as income on my Arizona tax filing! Damn! sure wish my money tree in my back yard hadn't died a couple of years ago.

  2. #122
    Homer Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Peoria Arizona
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by wyandot jim View Post
    I do believe we are talking about to different things here. Where ADS-B is required and if you have a transponder it has to be turned on. I THINK a hard one to figure out..

    Yes if you need a transponder to go places that you now go you will need ADS-B. Our Airpark is at the edge of the 30mile ring so I will need one. Will I get one probably not.

    Now if you have a Transponder it needs to be on per the FAR in ALL AIRSPACE. per FAR 91.215 - ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use

    (c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

    (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified in TSO C–112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100-foot increments. This requirement applies

    FROM 91.227
    Federal Aviation Administration, DOT § 91.227
    (f) Each person operating an aircraft
    equipped with ADS–B Out must operate
    this equipment in the transmit mode
    at all times

  3. #123
    Dennis Savarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Regarding the now official $500 ADS-B out rebate by the FAA, I'm curious how many folks are going to move forward with the purchase and installation of the ADS-B out equipment now that there is a $500 rebate?

  4. #124
    Pacer42Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winchester, VA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    $500 is a nice rebate, but the cheapest ADS-B out equipment is still around $3K plus installing it which probably runs another $1K. So after the $500 rebate it's still $3,500 for equipment you don't need if you don't fly in controlled airspace or IFR. My advice to my friends who fly strictly VFR is not to do it unless they really want to spend the money.

    Juergen
    Pacer N3342Z

  5. #125
    Dennis Savarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Your point is well taken. Now, if the FAA REALLY wanted to get this moving, they would put out something like "50% of the total cost up to $2500" or something similar. It would be pocket change compared to the total cost to the FAA to implement ADS-B based on the analysis published when the announcement was made for the $500. IMHO anyway.

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Homer Landreth View Post
    I think this is a prime example where our Congress doesn't know where money comes from. So, lesssseeeee, they are going to send me $500.00 for doing ADSB right now. Wow, what a deal !
    Where did that money come from ? ? ? It came from TAXES ! ...
    And some of those taxes were paid by people with low/moderate income. Not sure how to justify forcing people of lesser means to contribute money to the Treasury and then giving some of that money to other people who are all airplane owners.

  7. #127
    Homer Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Peoria Arizona
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by bluejeepdad View Post
    And some of those taxes were paid by people with low/moderate income. Not sure how to justify forcing people of lesser means to contribute money to the Treasury and then giving some of that money to other people who are all airplane owners.
    The other side of the coin (no pun intended) is you folks who do not need ADSB-anything or can fly without it are still paying the price by your tax dollars subsidizing the purchase of ADSB-Out by the people who do need it.

  8. #128
    Pacer42Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winchester, VA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Homer Landreth View Post
    The other side of the coin (no pun intended) is you folks who do not need ADSB-anything or can fly without it are still paying the price by your tax dollars subsidizing the purchase of ADSB-Out by the people who do need it.
    Government at its best.

    Juergen
    Pacer N3342Z

  9. #129
    Homer Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Peoria Arizona
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Well, here it comes, the Post-Mortem about my attempts to get a Field Approval for installation in a Certified aircraft the NAVWORX ADSB-Out unit that they make for the Experimental, LSA, and UAS aircraft. The bottom line is that the FAA will not grant a Field approval for that to happen. I worked that issue since about March of this year and felt it was going places until about 6 weeks ago but it steadily fell apart since then. Last week I got an audience with the FAA FSDO where they told me they didn't want to hear from me any more because it is a dead issue. Here is what happened, with a lot of editorial comments left out. The explanation started with the statement that the FAA sees the ADSB-Out installation as a MAJOR Alteration. My argument was that it wasn't and referenced FAR Part 43 and AC 43-210. FAA response was that "We see it as a Major Alteration that requires a TC or STC and to get the TC or STC, the unit has to be TSO'd to TSO-C154c or TSO-C166b. To that i argued that it doesn't because of the change to the wording to FAR 91-227 and 91-225 last February that indicated that only the operational requirements of those TSO need to be met not the full TSO. At this point they brought out the big guns. That came in the form of FAA Order 8900.362. (Attached for your reference enjoyment.) The conversation and references to that document were hugely frustration. It contains errors, undefined references, il-defined requirements and contradictory statements. As example: 4 Background Note: Compliance with §§ 91.225 and 91.227 requires installation of equipment meeting the performance requirements of Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C166b or TSO-C154c equipment after January 1, 2020.
    6.Follow On Installations must meet: a. Technical Standard Orders. The ADS-B OUT equipment is manufactured under TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c.
    91-227 and 91-225 just stated in 4. Background: only have to meet the Operational Requirements of the TSO thus they don't have to be manufactured to the TSO.
    but moving on to 6i. it says On FAA Form 337, Block 8, include the following compliance statement, “The installed ADS-B OUT system was shown to meet the equipment performance requirements of 14 CFR part 91, § 91.227,”
    but section 6 said it had to be manufactured I/AW the TSO.
    Another example: Section 5 Initial ADS-B OUT system pairings (transmitter and Global Positioning System (GPS)) must be approved for installation using the Type Certificate (TC), amended TC, or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) process.
    This is intended to be for a system that has another completely separate External GPS sending Data to the NAVWORX unit. However the ADSB600-Exp being installed has a self contained GPS and as such there is no "paring process" to do.
    Thus this paragraph 5 the 8900.362 is has undefined equipment and it can't be done.
    Finally, AC-20-165B says This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. This AC describes an acceptable means, but not the only means, to install ADS-B OUT equipment. I was told that the FAA considers AC-20-165B Mandatory.
    Anyway, that is the path for refusal to sign off for having "Acceptable Data". So it is kind of DOA for now but i still want to find out why there is so many "Because we said so answsers given.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Homer Landreth; 07-11-2016 at 06:38 AM.

  10. #130
    Dennis Savarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

    Your efforts Homer are most appreciated. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand how your particular FSDO can completely disregard the English language of AC-20-165 by making a statement that the FAA considers AC-20-165 mandatory when (unless I am totally wrong), aren't all advisory circulars not mandatory? It even says so right in the AC!!! I think your FSDO people were taking advantage of their position of power because they could not find a real reason to not grant your field approval, except for fear of opening up the flood gates for other similar field approvals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •