### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### mstull

##### R.I.P.
I am concerned that ADS-B will affect Part 103 U/L operations. I realize that ultralights are not classified as aircraft. But it's pretty clear that the FAA wants all operations in controlled airspace to be protected by ADS-B. So U/Ls will probably be limited to class G airspace. That will decrease our usable altitudes to below 1,200' or 700' AGL.

This will also affect "real" aircraft/pilots who can't afford the avionics or don't have electrical systems. It will be interesting to see if there's an increase in low altitude operations, when the rule goes into effect.

The FAA said on Tuesday it wants all aircraft flying in controlled airspace to have satellite-based avionics by 2020, so air traffic controllers can track them using Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). The agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PDF) that says the equipment will allow controllers to handle more traffic more safely with less separation. "Aviation must take the big step into the next generation of technology," said Acting FAA Administrator Bobby Sturgell. "It's safer and more accurate. Satellite technology is here to stay." Pilots with ADS-B cockpit displays can see, in real time, their location in relation to other aircraft, bad weather and terrain. In Southwest Alaska, the fatal accident rate for ADS-B-equipped aircraft has dropped by 47 percent, the FAA said. Aircraft that don't fly in controlled airspace will not be required to have ADS-B avionics, the FAA said."

#### etterre

##### Well-Known Member
ara: Oh good, I'm not the only paranoid oneara:

I'm personally not sold on the idea that ADS-B gear will only be required for "controlled airspace." I think there's a number of people in out government who would go gaga over the idea that they'd know exactly where all of those "dangerous little planes" are - just don't tell them that the airplane disappears off the screen if the magic box hiccups. The harder to fight part is the UAV problem. Think about it: If every airplane is broadcasting their position and velocity, then an ADS-B equipped UAV can automatically "sense and avoid" traffic with some TCAS-like algorithms. And the FAA is supposed to be figuring out how to regulate UAVs so that every police department can have a fleet of them...

#### orion

##### R.I.P.
. . . . . . and of course if everyone is broadcasting their position, then of course we have a multitude of accurately located targets for that person wishing to cause tragedy.

I've always thought it ironic that the original 9/11 hijackers missed the White House because apparently they got lost. So what did our government do? Place a nice big and centerd target over it (TFR) so it's well defined and identified on every chart, as well as position nicely visible blinking lights that can direct any hijacker directly to his goal.

Ahhh, paranoid governmental wisdom.

#### Dana

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Two separate issues:

First, many people say of ultralights, "Law xxx doesn't apply because we're not aircraft; we're ultralight VEHICLES" This is not correct.

According to FAR 1.1 (Definitions),
"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."

Not much ambiguity there. The confusion comes from the fact that unlike other aircraft, "ultralight vehicles" are required not to follow the requirements of Part 91, the General Operating rules:

§ 91.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States...

Note how the above is worded. It does NOT say that an ultralight vehicle is not an aircraft; it simply says that Part 91 applies to "aircraft other than ultralight vehicles", which have their own special regulations.

Now about ADS-B. "Controlled airspace" is no longer precisely defined in the sense that it used to mean anything other than what's now called Class G. The proposal isn't as bad as all that; they seem to want ADS only in places where you probably wouldn't want to fly anyway, and would need a transponder even today (and even then ultralights would be exempt, since they're "not originally certificated with an electrical system" (indeed not certified at all!) According to the text of the proposed regulations (available here:
...the FAA believes that it is reasonable to require that aircraft meet the performance requirements necessary for ADS-B Out for operation in airspace that currently requires transponders. Similar to § 91.215, proposed § 91.225 would require that aircraft meet ADS-B Out performance requirements to operate in Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas, and in Class E airspace areas at and above 10,000 ft MSL over the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. In addition, this proposal would require that aircraft meet ADS-B Out performance requirements to operate in Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, from the coastline of the United States out to 12 NM at and above 3,000 feet MSL. Similar to the transponder requirements, ADS-B Out also would be required within 30 NM of an airport listed in 14 CFR part 91, appendix D, from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL.
This proposal would permit aircraft not originally certificated with an electrical system or not subsequently certified with such a system installed (such as a balloon or glider) to conduct operations without ADS-B Out in the airspace within 30 NM of an airport listed in part 91 appendix D if the operations are conducted: (1) outside any Class B or Class C airspace area; and (2) below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower.

-Dana

The citizens of the United States are getting the government they deserve. The problem is that I'm also getting the government they deserve.

#### mstull

##### R.I.P.
Thanks for the clarification, Dana. I feel much better... really.

#### Daleandee

While I am "negative transponder" I did want weather in the cockpit. Found a good deal on ADS-B "in" that gives traffic and weather and should display on my iFly 720. A friend has this same set up and runs Avare on a cheap $100.00 Android based tablet. His setup works well. I just got my unit put together and will test fly it in a day or so. The deal I found was here: https://www.amazon.com/Vilros-Raspberry-Aviation-Set-Micro-Pre-loaded/dp/B01BX1QSFK Seeing other traffic is helpful I guess but this will not replace maintaining a good scan outside the aircraft. Same with weather. For cross country flying it would be a huge advantage. Still it must be kept in mind that the weather displayed is a few minutes old and not "up to the minute." Of course I don't plan to ever fly within a few minutes range of nasty weather anyway. Some folks do and it can get ugly: Dale Williams N319WF @ 6J2 Myunn - "daughter of Cleanex" 120 HP - 3.0 Corvair Tail Wheel - Center Stick Signature Finish 2200 Paint Job 132.2 hours / Status - Flying Last edited by a moderator: #### Daleandee ##### Well-Known Member As a follow-up to my previous post about the Stratux system I purchased through Amazon ... It works extremely well on the iFly 720. Amazing what is sometimes very close that you cannot see with the naked eye. Of course we still need to have our head on a swivel and our eyes outside the cockpit. When setting my unit up and testing it I went with a friend that did the flying while I was heads down. I wanted this mostly for the in flight weather but found myself a bit surprised at how much traffic is sometimes around that is never seen ... Dale Williams N319WF @ 6J2 Myunn - "daughter of Cleanex" 120 HP - 3.0 Corvair Tail Wheel - Center Stick Signature Finish 2200 Paint Job 132.2 hours / Status - Flying #### Robert Dingus ##### Well-Known Member In our current state of technological advance there is no reason to pay the big dollars for reliable low cost avionics, tied to a tablet or other device. since the use of the device could never replace a human looking outside the window, it is good to have a backup / smaller big brother with you in the cockpit, its a tool to help keep you out of harms way, but it should not cost you as much as the aircraft you install it into. Robert #### TFF ##### Well-Known Member If someone is flying sans transponder, they are not going to show up on the ADS-B in, so you still have to keep an eye out. Except for that or a UL, new pilots will be too scared to fly without ADS-B in time. #### Robert Dingus ##### Well-Known Member you are correct on that, we have a tendency as humans to rely on other things to keep us safe and we put too much trust in electronics sometimes. all pilots should be trained without all of those extra gizmos and use the good old paper charts, to learn to fly the aircraft, and monitor our surroundings. then after we complete our check ride, then we learn the other equipment, because when that equipment fails, its just you and the aircraft flying along, with nothing but black screens, and the rumbling of the engine to keep you alive. No electronic gizmo or gadget can step in and hit the reset button for you. Robert #### Pops ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Log Member If someone is flying sans transponder, they are not going to show up on the ADS-B in, so you still have to keep an eye out. Except for that or a UL, new pilots will be too scared to fly without ADS-B in time. True. Its almost there now. I know pilots that will not fly to an airport 50 miles away without filing IFR. They say they are afraid without someone looking out for them. No wonder this country is going to where its headed. Still babies wanting to be taken care of. #### TFF ##### Well-Known Member Want to know how bad it is? I know a pilot who can not use the Garmin 430 in his assigned aircraft. He can only navigate with his phone and tablet. Commercial pilot. Once he leaves the mom and pop company he works for and moves up, he will get a big surprise. Easy technology. #### ironnerd ##### Well-Known Member Want to know how bad it is? I know a pilot who can not use the Garmin 430 in his assigned aircraft. He can only navigate with his phone and tablet. Commercial pilot. Once he leaves the mom and pop company he works for and moves up, he will get a big surprise. Easy technology. #### gtae07 ##### Well-Known Member you are correct on that, we have a tendency as humans to rely on other things to keep us safe and we put too much trust in electronics sometimes. all pilots should be trained without all of those extra gizmos and use the good old paper charts, to learn to fly the aircraft, and monitor our surroundings. Agreed. Start from the basics so you have a fallback. then after we complete our check ride, then we learn the other equipment, because when that equipment fails, its just you and the aircraft flying along, with nothing but black screens, and the rumbling of the engine to keep you alive. No electronic gizmo or gadget can step in and hit the reset button for you. I would do this training before the checkride. Why? Because that way you'll actually get people trained to use it responsibly. All the "paper, only paper, and nothing but paper" method does is drive most people to ditch paper as soon as the checkride is over and go whole-hog to GPS. But they learn it on their own (because who continues with instruction immediately after the checkride, if they aren't aiming for a professional position?) and without someone teaching them good habits. Teach paper through the first cross-country or two. Then start teaching responsible GPS usage. #### BJC ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Paper charts, manual sprk advance, manual choke on a carburetor, A-N courses, analog tuning receivers, inner tubes that don't hold air, grade A cotton, exposed grease-lubed rocker arms, 1020 steel tubing, big heavy vented batteries, vacuum tube electronics, Loran, vacuum pumps, venturies, magnetos, the list goes on. If you like to fly with any of them, good on you. If you like to fly with the latest technology, good on you. Neither prevents you from becoming or causes you to be a competent pilot. BJC #### bmcj ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter True. Its almost there now. I know pilots that will not fly to an airport 50 miles away without filing IFR. They say they are afraid without someone looking out for them. No wonder this country is going to where its headed. Still babies wanting to be taken care of. I've met pilots that won't fly into an uncontrolled airport because there is no one to keep the planes separated. Of course, we all know that it's the controllers that perform our see and avoid for us, don't we? #### bmcj ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Aviation has the ADS-B, and cars will have V2V: Associated Press said: All new cars and light trucks would be able to talk wirelessly with each other, with traffic lights and with other roadway infrastructure under a rule the Transportation Department proposed Tuesday. Officials say the technology holds the potential to dramatically reduce traffic deaths and transform driving. Vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or V2V, enables cars to transmit their locations, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second. That lets cars detect, for example, when another vehicle is about to run a red light, is braking hard, changing lanes or coming around a blind turn in time for a driver or automated safety systems to prevent a crash. The technology has the potential to prevent or mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of collisions that don't involve alcohol or drugs, officials said. "V2V will provide 360-degree situational awareness on the road," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "We are carrying the ball as far as we can to realize the potential of transportation technology to save lives." Automakers and the government have been working together on developing technology for more than a decade. Under the department's proposal, V2V systems would be required to "speak the same language" through standardized messaging the government has developed with industry. The Federal Highway Administration plans to separately issue guidance to help transportation planners integrate two-way wireless technology into roadway infrastructure such as traffic lights, stop signs and work zones. Cars could communicate information on road conditions to the infrastructure, which could then be passed along to other vehicles as they come along. Traffic lights would know when to stay green to avoid unnecessary waiting and reduce congestion. There is a 90-day comment period on the proposal, and officials said they expect it will be about a year before a final rule is released. The proposal calls for 50 percent of new vehicles to have the technology within two years after a final rule is issued, and 100 percent of vehicles with four years. It would still take years or even decades after that for the full potential of V2V to be realized. That's because V2V can prevent collisions only among vehicles equipped with the technology. It takes decades for the entire fleet of vehicles on the road to turn over. But the process of spreading V2V throughout the fleet may go faster if, as expected, devices are developed that enable motorists to add the technology to older vehicles. Some automakers aren't waiting for the final rule. General Motors has said previously that it plans to include V2V in some 2017 Cadillacs. The 2017 Mercedes E-Class sedans are also equipped with V2V. V2V's range is up to about 1,000 yards in all directions, even when sight is blocked by buildings or other obstacles. That gives the technology the advantage of being able to detect a potential collision before the driver can see the threat, unlike the sensors and cameras of self-driving cars that sense what's immediately around the vehicle. Industry and government officials see the two technologies as complementary. Ultimately, self-driving cars that are also equipped with V2V may be the answer to traffic congestion because they'll be able to synchronize their movements so that they can merge seamlessly and safely travel in long, closely packed caravans at higher speeds. That would improve traffic flow and increase highway capacity. To address cybersecurity, the proposal requires that V2V systems employ a security level of at least 128-bit encryption and comply with benchmarks of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. To protect privacy, V2V messages are anonymous — they don't contain any information on the driver, owner of the vehicle, make or model, vehicle identification number or license plate. The messages are also of brief duration and not retained, therefore it's not possible to use the messages to determine where a vehicle has been or to search for a particular vehicle among others on the road, said Debra Bezzina, an engineer with the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute who works on the technology. One hurdle facing the technology is preservation of its exclusive right to use the 5.9 Ghz radio spectrum that Congress specifically set aside for V2V years ago. Since then, an explosion in the number of wireless devices and skyrocketing demand for ever faster Wi-Fi has led to pressure from technology companies who want permission to use the same spectrum. The Federal Communications Commission is in the first phase of a three-phrase testing program to see if sharing the spectrum with Wi-Fi would interfere with V2V signals. Spectrum sharing should be allowed "only if it can be proven that no harmful interference occurs," the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said in a statement. "Any interference could result in a crash, or even worse, an injury or fatality." ___ Associated Press writer Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit contributed to this report. ___ Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. #### pictsidhe ##### Well-Known Member #### BJC ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Thanks. That is a logical decision, which is why it was in doubt. BJC #### Daleandee ##### Well-Known Member As I admitted earlier in this thread ... I'm currently negative transponder and really have no desire to fly into places where the big birds fly. Still, I have friends that are sometimes located at non-towered airports yet under a Mode C veil or perhaps it would be nice to be able to transition through controlled airspace. For this reason I'm considering installing a transponder. A good used transponder now can be had for a few hundred dollars. But it only makes sense, if I do this, to take into consideration the upcoming mandate for ADS-B out. The rules for experimental aircraft give a bit more breathing room but there are so many options. Because I know so little of transponders, encoders, certified GPS units, and the whole ADS-B set up I'd like some guidance from those in the know. Currently I'm searching for something reasonable in cost, reliable, and that meets the requirements. I could possibly add this a piece at a time until I get everything in place. I like the Garmin GTX 327 transponder for a lot of reasons. It will need an encoder and for that I like the Trans-cal unit. For the actual ADS-B out the echoUAT units are getting good reviews. I would still need a compliant GPS unit and they have one that is available as an add on. Add a few cables and we're in the$2300.00 range.

I'm certain I could shave a few dollars off by using other products or a cheaper transponder. Anyone have a less expensive set-up that I should consider? Have I covered all that is needed?