Portable ADSB-Out...?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

SpruceForest

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
236
Be aware everyone...the FAA requirement for ADS-B Out in some airspace is not to be viewed as a nifty gadget to serve YOUR needs and wants. It is a very serious system for accurately tracking both "participating" (IFR) and "non-participating" (VFR) aircraft by ATC that is much better than radar. It replaces radar and instead uses a satellite network.
I know the FAA was big at hawking ADS-B as a space-based component of Nextgen, but it is not yet a space-based system in the US. Yes - airborne transmitters use GPS with and without WAAS for position and time in message construction, but the many, many receivers for ATC and the cross-linked relays for UAT to 1090ES/1090ES to UAT rebroadcast are ground-based. In summary, the only component that is currently space-based is not actually a component of ADS-B or necessarily even operated by the FAA or their contractor - the GPS position and time source (OK... FAA runs WAAS, but that's not actually a requirement for all users). The notion that we don't have a huge ground infrastructure necessary to support capability is a consequence of some creative and incorrect story-telling.

So how about actual space-based ADS-B? Yes - it's a thing, and we've been in testing with regard to requirements, etc. for a number of years. Given antenna diversity (upper antenna), a satellite can receive the ADS-B Out broadcast message, which can then be downlinked and used pretty much like any other CAT 33 message within the surveillance system. Single antenna installations appear to be less reliable when it comes to message update rates, but could possibly work in the interim for those aircraft without a diversity-capable install. For those of you running UAT - sorry...space-based stuff is 1090ES only right now, primarily because it was envisioned for austere or over-water service, so the lowest common denominator (1090ES) was selected.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,417
Location
US
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect there will come a time when we'll be sorry that we have become so very reliant on space-based components for many critical functions of our economy. Even hardening and redundancy for these components isn't of great utility.
We are in a glass house and folks with much less to lose are picking up rocks.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,364
Location
Pocahontas MS
On an experimental aircraft, or even on most light, certificated aircraft, a transponder is not required, period, regardless of whether or not the aircraft has an electrical system or when an electrical system was put in
I understand the spirit of what's here, but as written, the statement is false. Builders, or nonbuilder owners, the owner's buddy, or the family dog (if he can grow thumbs) can install radios and transponders (and ADSB-Out) in experimental aircraft. The radios can be operated legally with no intervention from 'rated' techs. The transponder must have at least a VFR static check (and biennial checks thereafter) by a licensed tech for it to be operated legally. The ADSB-Out isn't legal unless the transponder has a current check. And it's illegal to turn off the ADSB-Out and fly the plane at any point after it's installed and registered. And if memory serves, this brings up an interesting dilemma. In the past, if a transponder failed or the cert expired, you could still legally fly the plane outside controlled airspace by turning it off/placarding it 'inop'. What happens if you're ADSB-Out equipped and the transponder fails?

Again, I understand the spirit of the full post above, but that particular statement would lead the inexperienced to believe that they can't install their own avionics/radios.
 

SpruceForest

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
236
ADS-B didn't become mandatory to help prevent mid-airs. That was only a by-product. ADS-B 's purpose is to replace the antiquated rotating radar system and the pilot-position-reporting system (if not in radar covered areas)...with a more accurate, more modern, less maintenance-intense means of tracking.
Actually, midair reduction was part of the justification, as was reduction in primary radars away from coastal/border areas, reduction in weather-related mishaps, and even some moving map benefits. If you look at the NPRM or have access to the Basis of Estimate docs used for the JRC packages, you'll see that the ADS-B program grabbed any and all available benefits, to include swallowing the up-until-that-time very cost-effective and very successful Alaska Capstone run by the Alaska Region (Sue Gardner... awesome person, smart, and above all ethical leader) to include Phase 3 (statewide roll-out) and yet-to-be-realized Phase 1 and 2 benefits. This appetite for even seemingly insignificant benefits was and is a consequence of how the government makes programs estimate benefit and cost per the 80/20 rule (costs are considered to be 80th percentile/benefits 20th percentile... sucks, but you get more realistic ratios that way on programs which are by nature somewhat speculative until rolled out).

Reduction in total cost of the surveillance system was certainly a chunk of the eventual benefits pool used, but a big chunk of the GA benefits were related to ADS-B In and FIS-B... primarily because in any given year, only about half of GA aircraft end up filing an IFR flight plan (actually, Mar 2021-22 was down to just 32% - 65,939 aircraft filed out of a 205,961 total for corporate and GA operators, and closer to 30% when you pull out 14 CFR Part 91 corporate jet/TP stuff).

ADS-B went on to win the 2007 Collier largely on the back of the seminal efforts and advances made in the field by Alaska Capstone, Project Safeguard (2004-2005 Washington DC-based implementation), the East Coast Program, and the developing national program. And yeah, I have that t-shirt and the cute little coin thingie that you get... ADS-B from about 1997 through the space-based analysis in 2018-2020.
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,941
Location
Memphis, TN
If the plane fits the bill, you can not have to have transponder and ADSB in D and E airspace. You only need a radio for D. If the plane doesn’t fit the caveat, then it does need them. It’s simple. In time everyone will have it, but if you don’t now, relish it.

My old company equipped four aircraft off the bat with ADSB. One left with the wrong code; previous customer code installed by accident. The minute the FAA saw our N number with the wrong code, they were calling. From what I understand anonymous is only anonymous to flight aware and planes around you. The FAA at the computer level know who you are. I know plenty of towers are not looking at the data, but there is a file of you flying with ADSB.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,364
Location
Pocahontas MS
Reduction in total cost of the surveillance system was certainly a chunk of the eventual benefits pool
I'd love to see those numbers. 'Reduction in cost' sounds a liiiitle bit like gov-speak for 'transfer costs to a direct cost to the user'. ;-) (With the totally unnecessary reduction in privacy thrown in as a side benefit for not only the government, but any private entity that wants to look.)
 

SpruceForest

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
236
I'd love to see those numbers. 'Reduction in cost' sounds a liiiitle bit like gov-speak for 'transfer costs to a direct cost to the user'. ;-) (With the totally unnecessary reduction in privacy thrown in as a side benefit for not only the government, but any private entity that wants to look.)
They are summarized in the ADS-B NPRM...


And if you want to file a FOIA request, just ask for any Basis of Estimate documents used to support the FAA's decision to implement ADS-B in the NAS... that should reduce the page count to a few thousand and keep costs down. ;)
 

SpruceForest

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
236
If the plane fits the bill, you can not have to have transponder and ADSB in D and E airspace. You only need a radio for D. If the plane doesn’t fit the caveat, then it does need them. It’s simple. In time everyone will have it, but if you don’t now, relish it.

My old company equipped four aircraft off the bat with ADSB. One left with the wrong code; previous customer code installed by accident. The minute the FAA saw our N number with the wrong code, they were calling. From what I understand anonymous is only anonymous to flight aware and planes around you. The FAA at the computer level know who you are. I know plenty of towers are not looking at the data, but there is a file of you flying with ADSB.
Of the 40 aircraft equipped under Project SafeGuard, I ended up having to reprogram or otherwise correct installations on nearly all of them, to include US CBP, Park Police, MD State Police, and all of the aircraft done at the FBO we worked with in Maryland. I carried a complete set of cables and a laptop to every field visit, as well as stuff to pull-test racks in aircraft that needed supporting 337 stuff for the FSDO to sign off (delegated from ACO even then). Not unusual to see screwed-up APM programming due to lack of review of Garmin's instructions for the boxes or bad pinouts (had one where everything was reversed side to side... despite PIN numbers!).

At one point, we were launching to Sun and Fun at about 10 AM the next day, and ended up doing an all-nighter to totally rewire the FAA's demo unit after their in-house contractor gave up and said the system could not be made to work (more bad pinouts). The fun part was the Home Depot and hardware store antenna mast that got fab'ed the evening we arrived and assembled over another all-nighter after the shipper lost the antenna unit (I carried everything else aboard... fun explaining to folks why I had a complete surveillance system in my carry-on and backpack). By first day of show, we had it all working... sort of. We found more issues with programming (Lakeland is covered by en route SSR with 12 second or so sweep rate, while the internal programming had a 10 second lost track trigger... we saw every lower altitude TIS-B overhead track scintillate... even more fun to explain to folks the FAA was trying to sell on the concept). Showed Garmin and we were flashing the program about 90 minutes later with a 2x terminal SSR sweep rate (9 seconds? I don't recall, but it worked... maybe 18 seconds hold time)... really good guys and sharp engineers.
 
Last edited:

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,801
Location
NJ
The builder of an experimental cannot legally install radios
wrong...need to be a radio tech to repair it but .....with certified any A&P can install might need an IA for the 337 if required for specific radio......but experimental any one can install. Anyone can work on an experimental...need repairman certificate or A&P to do the condition inspection once a year.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,801
Location
NJ
Not your opinion, using the FAR's.
All regulations are subject to interpretation....if there has not been case law in court or a clarification letter from the FAA it is possible your interpretation is valid.....if they rule against you in the extremely rare event that they would notice you..... probably you would not be sanctioned because your interpretation is not unreasonable.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,801
Location
NJ
From what I understand anonymous is only anonymous to flight aware and planes around you

in the thread above "As you can see my true ICAO code is not in any of the transmitted data. This is truly anonymous."
 

GeeZee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
286
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Proppastie is correct. The thread he linked is a couple of years old. Garmin modified their code so when it detects the Anon mode switch set to Anon it doesn’t transmit your ICAO at all, not even at startup.
 

SpruceForest

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
236
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect there will come a time when we'll be sorry that we have become so very reliant on space-based components for many critical functions of our economy. Even hardening and redundancy for these components isn't of great utility.
We are in a glass house and folks with much less to lose are picking up rocks.
Yup... but wait...there is DFMC and MFMC... so if one constellation or freq set gets blanked, we can use another. Like if GPS gets slammed by the Russians, we can use Beidou, as encouraged by our best buddies the Communist Chinese. If Beidou gets toasted, we can use the system run by China's satrap, the Russians.

Wait... crap... so two of the alternatives are run by not nice people? Hmm... like, uh, no one would ever go after more than one system's SV's right? Right?
 
Last edited:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
11,084
Location
CT, USA
I think everyone on this site knows that. Special airworthiness certificate is not certified. No one has answered my question. Post #13.
If it has a certificate, it's "certificated", not "certified".
What I am getting to is this. I had my JMR inspected by the FAA and and was" originally certificated" with a Special Airworthiness Certificated
with no engine driven electrical system. If I install a engine driven electrical system, do I need a Transponder since the "originally Certificated" was without an engine driven electrical system. Not your opinion, using the FAR's.
91.215 says U.S.-registered civil aircraft. 91.215 says “originally certificated“ and ” not subsequently certified”with an electrical system.
The language is weird. First they say "certificated", and the aircraft was not originally "certificated" with an electrical system. Ok so far. But then they use the word "certified"... mistake, or deliberate? When the annual condition inspection is done, the logbook entry is supposed to read, "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected..." Does that count as being "subsequently certified"? It seems you'd be legal in rule airspace at least until the first condition inspection after installation of an electrical system, but after??? The mechanic or repairman is certifying that the aircraft has been inspected, is that the same thing as certifying the aircraft itself?

If OTOH they really meant "certificated", then.... a standard aircraft is type certificated with a list of installed equipment so it's "certificated with" the transport and/or ADS-B, or via a supplemental type certificate.. An experimental had no such list, so one could argue it wasn't "certificated with". Of course the FAA might argue otherwise...
 

SpruceForest

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
236
They could have cleared this up with 'type-certificated' which seems to be only meaningful type of aircraft certification within the context of the paragraph, but there are plenty of sky lawyers that can argue that if they meant type-certificated, they would have said type-certificated.
 

bryancobb

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
26
wrong...need to be a radio tech to repair it but .....with certified any A&P can install might need an IA for the 337 if required for specific radio......but experimental any one can install. Anyone can work on an experimental...need repairman certificate or A&P to do the condition inspection once a year.
Agreed! As a homebuilder x3 myself and one who is not an A&P or Avionics Tech, I have installed my avionics in all three. As a fairly-intelligent and very responsible pilot, I took the aircraft to a licensed avionics tech BEFORE TURNING THEM ON THE FIRST TIME, to certify that the comm's, nav's, and especially the transponders/ADS-B devices met the latest revisions/were operating correctly, so as to not introduce "data correspondence error" into the ATC system. It's a multi-facet lookup for clarification. I attempt to translate below.
 

Attachments

  • 111111b.jpg
    111111b.jpg
    156.5 KB · Views: 0

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,364
Location
Pocahontas MS
Transponder/ADSB-Out (which must have the 'calibration checks' by a qualified tech) needs to be separated from comm/nav, when discussing requirements for experimentals. All info I've ever been able to find says that comm & nav have no such limitations for experimentals. The FCC will require that they don't create and 'issues' in their operation (like any other device that can emit RF), but I've never found any restrictions on experimental installation/operation of comm/nav from the FAA. There's not even any PMA/etc required for the hardware.
 

FinnFlyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
122
Location
Bell, FL
...

The builder of an experimental cannot legally install radios, especially transponders. An avionics tech is the only one who can test and certify that all FAA required parameters are met. Well, splitting hairs, I suppose the builder can install it but it would be illegal to turn it on and test and certify its installation unless you are a licensed avionics tech.
Your posts appear to be an odd mixture of true and false statements.

At a guess, more than half of homebuilts have avionics installed by the builders. If this were illegal don't you think insurance companies would have jumped on this when someone files a claim?
 

bryancobb

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
26
Your posts appear to be an odd mixture of true and false statements.

At a guess, more than half of homebuilts have avionics installed by the builders. If this were illegal don't you think insurance companies would have jumped on this when someone files a claim?
I will agree that most homebuilders do their own radio work. I have never had insurance on any aircraft I owned and never bent one I was flying that I didn't own so I have no idea what the underwriters' philosophies are. I suspect they are "making money" without looking at this issue.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,801
Location
NJ
Installing an checking performance are perhaps two different issues (depending on your point of view) I should have said "repair and or check" my last post# 49....At least two local radio shops have related to me that for certified aircraft an A&P was required to do the mechanical install of the tray, antenna, etc. and hooking up the wires of the radio harness to the aircraft.....home built aircraft do not require an A&P license to work on them....
 
Top