Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

NavWorx ADS-B
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:45 pm Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

To the credit of our experimental EFIS suppliers they don't often engage 

in advertising vaporware.

I have heard whispers of Dynon having a certified WAAS GPS available for 

their ADS-B in the next 3-6 months (probably Sun n Fun if they can). 

Don't know whether it would also make any of the glass panel IFR as well 

or not. Given that their 1090ES transponder is around $2200 and their 

UAT receiver is around $1000.

I wouldn't be surprised to see GRT and AFS to find a solution as well.

I was rather disappointed in Mac McClellan's blog to see him spinning a 

bunch of misconceptions about experimental and LSA aircraft (considering 

he worked for EAA for awhile) based on his reading of an advisory 

circular that ignores experimental. I see nothing in the regs that 

prevents us from having a fully certified ADS-B Out installed in our 

aircraft, as long as you have a transponder that meets the TSO and a GPS 

that meets the TSO and install by following the manufacturer's 

instructions as closely as possible. We most certainly don't need STCs 

or field approvals, and quite frankly I think the FAA is really 

stretching their own regs to make ADS-B vendors get STCs and AML 

approval for each make an model certified aircraft, when neither are 

required to do a simple install of a certified WAAS GPS and an install 

of a mode 3A/C or Mode S transponder.

On 12/24/2014 9:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

[quote] 

 In the past couple weeks it's been discussed that homebuilts were kind of left out in some of the rules...not that they shouldn't apply but that they simply are written poorly and don't seem to incorporate amateur built airplanes in the same ways other avionics do.  I personally believe that the GPS should perform to certified standards but that some of the standards set for ADS-B as a whole may be overkill. Nobody is really sure what the end result will be, but clearly some clarification will have to happen at some point.  And many people and manufacturers are hoping for some more reasonable specs.  So actually, that's one of the reasons that I think NavWorX has for still offering the cheaper non-certified GPS at this time.  It allows you to get a system running at lower cost before 2020, yet is upgrade able later.  And, they have plans to offer the certified GPS at lower cost later.  So for us with Amateur built planes, they actually still encourage us to go with the regul!

   ar ADS600B yet.

 I am just glad to see people adopting it, and Amateur built is leading the way.  I think it gives us all some capabilities that every airplane should have.

 Tim

> On Dec 24, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

>

> 

>

> [quote="gengrumpy"]Bob and Rene,

>

> Thanks for the replies.  Iâ€™m interested in your opinions on the following:

>

> 1

>

> 3.  Do you have the certified or non-certified WAAS?  Iâ€™ve been trying to decide which to go with as there is a pretty large price difference.

>

> 4.  Any other thoughts you have on their system.

>

> Thanks - Grumpy

>

>  	  Quote: 	

>

> If you intend to use or need the ADSB-out after 2020 you need to have a "certified" (e.g. meets FAR specs) gps position source.

>

> --------

> Bob Turner

> RV-10 QB

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436131#436131

>

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B

GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750 you're all set.



Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them. The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul, there'd be legal trouble.



The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft, it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals, no alteration is now minor.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:56 am Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the performance specs of certified systems...just like so many systems today that we can use in our panels. It could at least open the door to better prices gear for us...just like in the cases where the box may be identical but the label different.  After all, it still reports our barometric altimeter and we still do pitot static tests so there are some numbers the system provides that would meet the specs identically. And then you primarily have to have a GPS engine that just demonstrates the same accuracy.  It's just a hope.  If it doesn't work then worst case installing ADS-B out is still a $2k-3k add for us. Give or take a couple hundred. No need to spend money on prof. installations and such.

Tim



Do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

 

 

 

 GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750 you're all set.

 

 Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them. The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul, there'd be legal trouble.

 

 The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft, it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals, no alteration is now minor.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436232#436232

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 5:22 am Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

Some field approvals are hard to get, but field approvals for panel upgrades are done all the time. Not all panel mounted avionics are STC'ed. However, as an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation versus a field approval. For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out a 337 form. No approval needed from anyone. Send in the form & it's done. The STC makes it easier for the installer as much as for the FAA.



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694



Sent from my iPhone



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

 

 

 

 GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750 you're all set.

 

 Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them. The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul, there'd be legal trouble.

 

 The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft, it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals, no alteration is now minor.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436232#436232

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 6:28 am Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

The FAA has various conflicting advisory circulars. The one for panel 

mount GPS states that a simple install, such as a 430W with no 

interconnect to an autopilot, or any navcom or other rack mount avionics 

install, such as audio panel is a MINOR alteration and requires no more 

than a logbook entry. Installing same in experimental amateur built 

requires NO approval at all. Filing 337s for minor alterations just gums 

up the works with certified aircraft. You have stupidity piled upon 

multiple layers, for example where one sunshade manufacturer got an STC 

for something that doesn't require one. Now all others are looked at 

with suspicion. In fact even the STC'd item can be installed without the 

STC, because it is just a minor interior alteration that affects nothing 

about the airworthiness of the aircraft.

The current AC about ADS-B in fact contradicts their own regs, in that 

the transponder and GPS installs are both minor alterations, and 

installing a single RS-232 between the two items does not change that. 

The FAA is just requiring the STCs and 337s to gather data to prove the 

install is in fact minor.

JMHO as an A&P/IA.

On 12/25/2014 6:19 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Some field approvals are hard to get, but field approvals for panel upgrades are done all the time. Not all panel mounted avionics are STC'ed. However, as an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation versus a field approval. For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out a 337 form. No approval needed from anyone. Send in the form & it's done. The STC makes it easier for the installer as much as for the FAA.

 Jesse Saint

 I-TEC, Inc.

 jesse(at)itecusa.org

 www.itecusa.org

 www.mavericklsa.com

 C: 352-427-0285

 O: 352-465-4545

 F: 815-377-3694

 Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

>

> 

>

> GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750 you're all set.

>

> Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them. The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul, there'd be legal trouble.

>

> The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft, it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals, no alteration is now minor.

>

> --------

> Bob Turner

> RV-10 QB

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436232#436232

>

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:09 am Post subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B

 	  Tim Olson wrote: 	
		  Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the performance specs of certified systems...

Tim



Do not archive

	
[/quote]



Actually that is true now. You do not have to use TSO'd boxes, you have to use boxes that meet the TSO specs. Unfortunately some of the specs are so arcane or complicated that it is virtually impossible for anyone (e.g., an owner) other than the manufacturer to say with certainty that they meet all of them.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

gengrumpy

Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 131
Location: Tullahoma, TN

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 1:20 pm Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

As I recall, there is a way for the experimental pilot to certify that the equipment meets the IFR requirements, like the way you are supposed to certify that your plane meets the requirements for IFR in the system.  

For ADS-B, you could confirm your location and altitude with a controller who is reading out your ADS-B info on his screen, document that in your logbook, and meet their requirements (assuming that you are using a WAAS gps).

grumpy

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

 Tim Olson wrote:

> Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the performance specs of certified systems...

> Tim

> 

> Do not archive

> 

> 

> 

 Actually that is true now. You do not have to use TSO'd boxes, you have to use boxes that meet the TSO specs. Unfortunately some of the specs are so arcane or complicated that it is virtually impossible for anyone (e.g., an owner) other than the manufacturer to say with certainty that they meet all of them.

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436263#436263

[/quote]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 1:44 pm Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

There is one tiny stickler of an issue though.  The box itself sends as part of the messages to the system, a code of either a 1 or 0 saying that it's using a certified GPS source.  Without one, you would not be able to transmit that, and ATC would have the option to treat you differently based on that.  Not that this would make it useless, but just saying that there is that bit of info in the data that would have to be overcome.

Tim

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Dec 25, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> wrote:

 As I recall, there is a way for the experimental pilot to certify that the equipment meets the IFR requirements, like the way you are supposed to certify that your plane meets the requirements for IFR in the system.  

 For ADS-B, you could confirm your location and altitude with a controller who is reading out your ADS-B info on his screen, document that in your logbook, and meet their requirements (assuming that you are using a WAAS gps).

 grumpy

> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Tim Olson wrote:

>> Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the performance specs of certified systems...

>> Tim

>> 

>> Do not archive

> 	

> 

> Actually that is true now. You do not have to use TSO'd boxes, you have to use boxes that meet the TSO specs. Unfortunately some of the specs are so arcane or complicated that it is virtually impossible for anyone (e.g., an owner) other than the manufacturer to say with certainty that they meet all of them.

> 

> --------

> Bob Turner

> RV-10 QB

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Read this topic online here:

> 

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436263#436263

[/quote]

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 2:56 pm Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

Unless the installer holds Inspection Authorization or Repair Station license, the 337 must be approved by an IA confirming the install was done per the STC requirements. But that is only on type certificated aircraft.



On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)>

 

  However, as an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation versus a field approval. For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out a 337 form. No approval needed from anyone. Send

 

[b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B

"For ADS-B, you could confirm your location and altitude with a controller who is reading out your ADS-B info on his screen, document that in your logbook, and meet their requirements (assuming that you are using a WAAS gps)."



If only it was this easy. One of the requirements on the position source is not only that it is accurate, but thru some complicated calculation it will nearly always be accurate, even with weird atmospherics or bad satellites. The "nearly always" is defined as an error less than once per very large number(I forget - ten million hours??).



OTOH, if you did use "certified" equipment, this could confirm that it was installed correctly and working properly. In fact, there is an FAA web site or email address that you can send an inquiry to, and it will tell you if your ADSB-out signal agreed with radar and was otherwise all okay. Apparently there are a number of planes out there right now thinking they're all set, but they are sending out a non-compliance code due to some set up error.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:18 pm Post subject: NavWorx ADS-B

Exactly. 



Jesse Saint A&P/IA

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 25, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Unless the installer holds Inspection Authorization or Repair Station license, the 337 must be approved by an IA confirming the install was done per the STC requirements. But that is only on type certificated aircraft.



On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)>

 

  However, as an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation versus a field approval. For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out a 337 form. No approval needed from anyone. Send

 





D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">www.aeroelectric.com

books.com"">www.buildersbooks.com

quot;">www.homebuilthelp.com

quot;">www.mypilotstore.com

">www.mrrace.com

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

dmaib@me.com

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 455
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B

 	  Bob Turner wrote: 	
		  " In fact, there is an FAA web site or email address that you can send an inquiry to, and it will tell you if your ADSB-out signal agreed with radar and was otherwise all okay. Apparently there are a number of planes out there right now thinking they're all set, but they are sending out a non-compliance code due to some set up error. 	




This is the email address to have the FAA check your ADS-B "out" integrity. 

9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck(at)faa.gov



Send an email with your tail number and ask for a performance check. They will send you a report. It took me a few tries to get it working properly. I had the right equipment, but needed a software update on my 430W and had to change a couple of settings in the 430W and the 330ES. Gets a perfect report now.

_________________
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum