ADS-B Mandate preparation / IFR GPS... View from my perspective

[Ruffair]

The deadline for ADS-B "Out" is approaching, a few years off, but it’s coming, and there’s no stopping it. Jan. 1, 2020. ( Or.... is it the year 2112..? )
Feels like I’m learning a new language too..!

Not the best written, but it helps. http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/instrumentaccessories/ads-b-mandate-options-demystified?page=0,0
Another explanation...... http://www.trig-avionics.com/knowledge-bank/ads-b/introduction-to-ads-b/
Transponder information..... http://www.freeflightsystems.com/news/blog/132-keep-your-transponder-2



First question is, if we “need” to comply or not. Here is airspace where you need to comply with ADS-B “out”.

Over the contiguous 48 states.

1. 
   [*=2]Required from FL180 and above (Class A airspace)
   [*=2]All class B and C airspace
   [*=2]Class E from FL100 and above, excluding the airspace from 2,500′ above ground level (AGL) and below.
   [*=2]Over the Gulf of Mexico from FL030 and above, within 12NM of the coastline of the United States.

Notice how this is stated “over the Lower 48”..? Must have forgotten ADS-B got its start in Alaska, and I’m sure it will be required there too.


Starting out big here, Alaska has only Anchorage International that will require compliance. That is the area within Class C airspace. Your choice if you fly into the busy airports of Lake Hood, Merrill field and others which are near the class C.

Fairbanks has a TRSA, not many of those around, and ADS-B not required in a TRSA. So for me, most AK flying is done in the interior. And none planned into PANC, I’ll not need ADS-B.

In the lower 48, it depends where you fly. Reference the chart above, which is from the FAA’s site. Flying into Denver’s Front Range airport, which is under Denver’s class B, Going to need to comply. Phoenix area, under the Class B, same thing as far as I can tell. Albuquerque area, Class C, need it. In the Sandhills of Nebraska, the Badlands of South Dakota, and a whole lot of other areas, not required. Even in the Tulsa area. If you approach correctly so’s to stay out of class C, you could land South of Jenks airport without having to comply.

I’ve determined I need to comply with the ADS-B Out requirement. I also need a WAAS GPS that’s IFR, approach certified.

Now what do I get…? I got along just fine with the ol Garmin 90, then the Garmin “pilot III” and now the Ipad with Foreflight Pro with Stratus. Great way to navigate. With Foreflight and Stratus you get 1 meter accuracy, you can see where you are on an approach with chart overlay, and you have synthetic vision. Great situational awareness.

Foreflight is great!! But the FAA mandates you’ll need an IFR-certified ADS-B-compliant GPS position source.I’m finding that many older units were designed before ADS-B was thought of, and may not have what it takes to work with the newer equipment. So I could be flying around with a fully functionally IFR certified unit and still may end up buying a WAAS GPS receiver to comply with ADS-B “out” requirements.

So this is how is see my options for ADS-B compliance and IFR GPS Certified, for a ‘63 C180

1. Buy an older IFR certified gps unit. and hope it will be supported by manufacture for long time. Make sure it has RS 232 date line capability. Hook it up with a NAV head and fly GPS approaches, get a new transponder that works with it all cause mine is old and unreliable, and now I’m ADS-B compliant. Cost less up front. Hope it works for long time. Bad news would be if the older gps unit does not work with transponder and or encoder and I have to buy and install the WAAS gps receiver.

1. 2. Buy a not so old IFR certified gps unit….. Same thing, cost more up front. Should last long time. Hope manufacture supports it long time.

1. 3. Buy the current IFR certified gps unit. Plug and play with encoder and transponder. Cost a lot more up front. Lasts longer than I do.

1. 4. Get one of these low cost all in one units like what Stratus/Appareo is putting out. Stratus ESG Transponder, WAAS gps receiver, all in one. (https://www.appareo.com/aviation/stratus-esg/) But problem is no gps approaches for the 180, I would use this setup in a Cub however.

1. 5. Late 2019, and Foreflight gets a modification that allows it to be used for ADS-B out and legal to fly all gps approaches…..! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

That’s my options, as I see it. From several thousand $ to over $10000. I’d rather do it without breaking the bank. Anyone have another idea..? And thanks to Web, and others for getting me pointed in right direction.

Once again..... My Membership $$'s paid to Supercub.org has paid dividends many times over....!

Kem

 

[SteveE]

I'd go with option 4... low cost all in one unit. Let it send out the signal required, then use your Foreflight you already have..... Disclaimer,,, Its me giving advice...

 

[wireweinie]

It's all valid points . . . for now.

My call is that the requirements will change at least once, maybe twice before the deadline. If that does happen and you've gone the route of newer Garmin, Avidyne, Honeywell, etc. (options 2 or 3, above) they should be adaptable to the new changes. Even the FAA understands that these requirements, or any newer ones, need to build upon, at least some, existing equipment. In other words they know that lots of people simply will not comply/fly if the ADS-B system required all new avionics.
If you go experimental, you have lots of cool, small sized, systems to choose from. It's completely up to you to make sure it works for you and the feds.
If you are certified, the choices are much more restricted. Do you want to work with what you have (use existing WAAS GPS, transponder. etc) or all new stuff? Be aware, if you want to piece together a system; Lots of transponders out there do not use RS-232 data for communication. Lots of GPS's are not WAAS enabled. Some have two versions, one enabled and one not. In a nutshell, piecing together a system will cost less for parts but may lead to a high labor bill. Some of the early system components will communicate with each other but may need extra wiring or matching boxes to make it happen. This increases the labor bill. The later model stuff is extremely expensive to purchase but is much easier to wire and program. And if you go all one brand, the initial programming is amazingly easy. The components are, literally, made for each other.
Another thing to consider is space for mounting components. In something like a Cessna, it's doable but takes some imagination. In a Cub, you may end up choosing component brands or models simply for size. You may want to go all Garmin but space may dictate all Trig.
And for all of you that think we avionics types just love this new requirement, think again. We like happy customers. Customers that are being forced to spend money on a system they may not use much at all, makes the them VERY unhappy.

Web

 

[mvivion]

The deadline for ADS-B "Out" is approaching, a few years off, but it’s coming, and there’s no stopping it. Jan. 1, 2020. ( Or.... is it the year 2112..? )
Feels like I’m learning a new language too..!
4. Get one of these low cost all in one units like what Stratus/Appareo is putting out. Stratus ESG Transponder, WAAS gps receiver, all in one. (https://www.appareo.com/aviation/stratus-esg/) But problem is no gps approaches for the 180, I would use this setup in a Cub however.

Kem

When did nearly $3500 (plus installation, of course) become "low cost"? For lots of folks, that constitutes nearly 10 % of the value of their aircraft.

MTV

 

[behindpropellers]

If you go experimental, you have lots of cool, small sized, systems to choose from.

Web

I find this interesting. You have the aircraft side requirements and the FCC etc side requirements. You can go experimental with one and not the other. Makes no sense to me.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/sport-aviation/gps-20a/prod525504.html

 

[Steve's Aircraft (Steve)]

When did nearly $3500 (plus installation, of course) become "low cost"? For lots of folks, that constitutes nearly 10 % of the value of their aircraft.

MTV

10% !!!!!!!! Try 30 to 70% on some of us. If you have more than one airplane, can the stuff be moved from one to the other? I paid $4000 for my Pacer, Dad paid $4000 for our Cub, and I recently acquired a Grumman AA5 for $10000. I never could understand why radio equipment cost more than the airplane. The airplane flies just fine without the radio, but the radio is not worth a tinkers damn without the airplane. Any radio tech outside of aviation who looks into an aviation radio can not believe that this stuff should cost like it does. They usually tell me that this stuff has about $50 bucks worth of Radio Shack junk in them. There are only so many transisters, condensers etc. that you can stuff in there, and the component parts are not that expensive. Sure certification takes a little, but come-on, you do not have to make it all back on each unit.

Steve

 

[wireweinie]

It is a lot of money. But I have a $2400 scope that was put on a $1000 rifle, so I guess I'm in the same boat.

When it comes to the experimental vs certified question, think about it this way: All systems, certified or not, need to communicate within the ADS-B coverage area. That means they all have to send/receive a signal that can be read and understood by all units. The 'certified' portion is for the box that is actually installed into the aircraft. While I am a big proponent of maintaining an aircraft to it's certification basis (in this case CAR 3) the ADS-B mandates call for some specific requirements. So, not sure how much wiggle room there is if you're certified. But to answer the original question, yes, experimental ADS-B equipment does the same job as certified equipment, but for a LOT less money.

Steve, I think the $50 for radio parts are a little exaggerated. But not by much. I've been on the inside of aircraft and mobile radios, both. The resistance to vibration and reliability is much higher in most aircraft radios. The cost difference is due to lawyers and insurance. Besides, I've seen a pile of parts and a logbook go for more than $4000. So you scored big!

Web

 

[mvivion]

I've talked to a couple of engineers who work for avionics companies, and they've told me it is more difficult and more expensive to certificate avionics than it is to certify airframes.

Makes a a lot of sense to me......

in any case, the ADS-B mandate, IF it becomes any more restrictive, could be the end of flying for a lot of folks.

And, near as I can tell, the exclusion in the transponder rule, excluding aircraft that have never been equipped with an electrical system, does not apply to the ADS-B mandate. If this is accurate (and I'm not totally sure it is) those folks with non electric airplane's will be required to equip with ADS-B (read expensive) equipment. And, what happens if your battery dies, and you don't have a means to charge it?

This is stops me from installing a transponder now....by regulation, transponder, if installed, must be "on" at all times while in controlled airspace.....like Class E airspace. Same will doubtless be true for ADS-B.

MTV

 

[Richgj3]

If I'm still flying in 2020 this will push me over the edge to move my Legend Cub to E-LSA. The Legends and the CC Sport Cubs as well as Carbon Cubs being S-LSA can be moved with stroke of the DAR pen. I guess several Carbon Cubs are already E-LSA.

I say this because I assume the availability of the equipment will be bigger and the prices will be lower in the experimental world

Rich

 

[slowmover]

I fly a 180 under IFR and am based at a Class C field. All that means ADS-B is a bigger deal for me than some others and I've been following this over the past couple of years.

In 2010 I replaced a bunch of 1980 junk with an Aspen PFD, a 430W, a panel-mounted 496 with XM, and a Garmin 327 (so no ADS-B out). A couple years ago I started flying with an iPad mini and then I got a Stratus II. After looking at a bunch of avionics at Oshkosh and reading dozens or hundreds of articles and posts I finally replaced the 327 with a Garmin 330ES this summer. Now I'm ADS-B out compliant and I get my ADS-B in through the Stratus.

Since I already had a 430W my big questions were what transponder to buy and whether to display any In information on my existing displays. Ultimately I opted for the more expensive 330 over something like a Trig because I wanted to eliminate any future compatibility issues. The swap cost me $4500 but I traded in my 327, sold my 496, and canceled my $600/yr XM subscription so it is cheaper than it sounds.

I'm not afraid of the federal government tracking me anymore than they already do, and I like the benefits of ADS-B. The XM might be a better weather service but the annual cost of it and the fact that I had to scrunch down to see it on my 496 means that I don't mind letting it go. What I really like about the ADS-B is the traffic info. Not as good as a TCAS/TAS system but good enough to give me some peace of mind when I'm in busy airspace with the family.

 

[bob turner]

Without checking, I believe MTV is incorrect - if you have never had an electrical system, you do not have to install this stuff. My J-3 will be flying in 2020, and my Decathlon will go down on Jan 1,2020, awaiting some more rational approach to certification. Either that, or I will stick an experimental box in there and not tell anybody.

 

[Curtis]

Something that needs to be kept in mind is you can still operate without an ADS-B system after Jan 1, 2020. You will have to stay below 10,000' or 2,500' or below AGL in the mountains and remain clear of both Class C and Class B airspace. Even with my RV I'm considering my options as to whether or not I will be ADS-B compliant.

 

[Darrel Starr]

I operate in the Minneapolis-St Paul metro area. Already just with the Stratus 2S ADS-B IN box, I am getting quite a bit of traffic painted on the iPad Mini screen and both audio & message alerts when the traffic gets close. Looking forward to adding the Appareo Stratus ESG Transponder to get a larger slice of the traffic -- everything with at least a Mode C transponder. Seems like one of the better safety features for a "City Cub". Doesn't see it all but probably 90% around here (under the Mode C vale) when ADS-B Out equipped. Cost -- about the same as a one year fuel bill.

 

[wireweinie]

Either that, or I will stick an experimental box in there and not tell anybody.

Things that make you say 'hmmm...'

Web

 

[fobjob]

Another thing to consider is whether Canada is going to have 978MHz ground stations...right now, they will only allow transponder based ADS-B in Canadian airspace. Lotsa cubs transverse Canadian airspace.

 

[GeeBee]

Interesting that you bring this up. My Cub is in the shop right now for ADS-B. I elected to go with the L-3 Lynx NGT-9000 with WiFi out (L-3 is currently offering WiFi free with the purchase of a Lynx). I chose this unit because it is both 1090 and 978 so I am good in Canada as well as the US. I get FIS inbound. The WiFi out is rumored to be able to pair with ForeFlight in the near future and L-3 recently dropped their price. One thing that I like about the Lynx is it displays traffic and weather on its own display. I like that redundancy. I'll let you know how I like it. It may seem like over kill but I have two needs. One, I live near the ATL Class B umbrella and I fly regularly under it. Two, where I am based gets piled up with an overcast from the east against mountains to the west so being able to do a quick IFR to VFR on top as well as drop through an overcast is important to me so I also had the shop pull my Garmin GNC 420 and upgrade it to a GNC 420W (WAAS) so I can do LPV approaches back to my home base. Cost for that was about 3500. It also gives me two WAAS receivers.

 

[mvivion]

Without checking, I believe MTV is incorrect - if you have never had an electrical system, you do not have to install this stuff. My J-3 will be flying in 2020, and my Decathlon will go down on Jan 1,2020, awaiting some more rational approach to certification. Either that, or I will stick an experimental box in there and not tell anybody.

Bob, your right, I checked: The ADS-B Out rule does not apply in the airspace defined in items 1 and 2 above for any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders.

Hopefully, that provision remains.

MTV

 

[Darrel Starr]

The real issue that Bob Turner brings up, fudging on compliance, is the liability exposure and the fact that insurance companies pay out right AFTER verifying that the plane and pilot are legal.

 

[wireweinie]

It's like driving without insurance. No one knows that you don't have it until the accident. So make your own choice.

As for the requirements for certified, I just looked up 91.225. Paragraph (a) (1) specifically states that the installed equipment must meet TSO-C166b standards. So I don't see any wiggle room if the feds look at the installation.

Web

 

[stewartb]

Notice how this is stated “over the Lower 48”..? Must have forgotten ADS-B got its start in Alaska, and I’m sure it will be required there too.


Starting out big here, Alaska has only Anchorage International that will require compliance. That is the area within Class C airspace. Your choice if you fly into the busy airports of Lake Hood, Merrill field and others which are near the class C.

No requirement is stated for Alaska including in and out of Lake Hood where we aren't required to have transponders, either, which brings into question the value of having ads-b in for traffic.

 

[hotrod180]

...If you go experimental, you have lots of cool, small sized, systems to choose from. It's completely up to you to make sure it works for you and the feds. If you are certified, the choices are much more restricted. ......

Are you sure about the experimental equipment? Currently radios are not required equipment, so in an experimental aircraft you can run whatever you want. However, transponders are mandated (for electrical-system-equipped airplanes anyway). I've never seen an "experimental only" transponder, and I don't think the feds are gonna approve an "experimental only" ADS-B out device either. ADS-B in, yes, as "in" is not mandated (yet).

Personally, I'm hanging loose until the drop dead date gets a lot closer. I keep hoping the mandate will go away, like the 406 ELT mandate did, but I doubt that will happen. I just think we'll have a lot more options to choose from as time goes on, hopefully some will be "low cost" -- and I agree with MTV that $3500 isn't. I'm hoping for somewhere in the one-to-two thousand dollar range.

 

[mvivion]

No requirement is stated for Alaska including in and out of Lake Hood where we aren't required to have transponders, either, which brings into question the value of having ads-b in for traffic.

Stewart,

Just to clarify, Lake Hood is outside the ANC Class C airspace. The airspace was specifically designed that way to enable aircraft to operate in and out of most of the ANC airports, including LHD, without transponders.

MTV

 

[wireweinie]

Are you sure about the experimental equipment? Currently radios are not required equipment, so in an experimental aircraft you can run whatever you want. However, transponders are mandated (for electrical-system-equipped airplanes anyway). I've never seen an "experimental only" transponder, and I don't think the feds are gonna approve an "experimental only" ADS-B out device either. ADS-B in, yes, as "in" is not mandated (yet).

You can build up an ADS-B system with the Garmin G3X system and it's not TSO'd. Navworks offers non TSO'd systems for LSA and experimental aircraft.

Web

 

[stewartb]

FYI

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news...s-ads-b-flexibility-for-experimental-aircraft

 

[bob turner]

So say for argument that the FAA is perfectly happy with a $2000 box in your RV-7, and it does everything they want. In a certified Cub, the TSO unit is $6000. Does the same thing, and ATC cannot tell the difference.

Now the FAA finds out about it, and hauls the owner in for some criminal cause of action. Where does the owner wind up? In prison? Guantanamo?

Next scenario - same Cub runs out of gas, lands on the freeway, injures a ten year old girl in an auto, and her parents sue. In Alaska maybe the fact that an illegal radio was installed will allow the insurance company to wiggle out, but not in California. The illegal part has to be a proximate cause.

Change the subject: BG, how did you get that Cub IFR Certified? Is it a J-3 or PA-11? I don't think the PA-18 can be flown IFR without a field approval to IFR status. The earlier airplanes just need the equipment installed.

 

[GeeBee]

What makes you think the -18 cannot be flown IFR? Some left the factory that way.

 

[skywagon8a]

Change the subject: BG, how did you get that Cub IFR Certified? Is it a J-3 or PA-11? I don't think the PA-18 can be flown IFR without a field approval to IFR status. The earlier airplanes just need the equipment installed.

Bob, What makes you think that the airplane "must be certified" to fly IFR? The way I read the regulation only the required equipment needs to be installed. The word "certified" is not in the regs. Part 91.205 is too lengthy to copy here. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=se14.2.91_1205&rgn=div8

The following is the pertinent section for IFR. Notice item (2). If you are out in the "boonies" the requirements could be rather sparse. For example a T&B and an ADF could be the only required extra equipment, if there is no one within radio range to talk to.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

 

[bob turner]

Good to know. Our FSDO led us to believe that if the type certificate says "Day or Night VFR" and does not say "IFR" then the airplane cannot be flown IFR. My Decathlon has such a restriction, yet I have all the equipment. This is good news for me.

 

[mvivion]

Good to know. Our FSDO led us to believe that if the type certificate says "Day or Night VFR" and does not say "IFR" then the airplane cannot be flown IFR. My Decathlon has such a restriction, yet I have all the equipment. This is good news for me.

Bob,

I too was told that the TCDS language is regulatory. But where in 1A2 does it say day vfr? I thought I'd seen it there, but didn't find it in a quick search.

I researched this with the CC18, which has a clear statement in the TC : Day VFR under kinds of operations. I was told by the FSDO that, even though the plane had all the lights required for night ops, it was not legal to fly because of that limitation in the TC. And, in fact CC had to go through a LOT of hoops to get the plane approved for night VFR.. So much so that to get your CC18 night certified, you'll have to take it back to Cub Crafters, and bring lots of $$$. I imagine the newest ones already have the mods, maybe.

But, again, I can't find that language in the PA 18 TC.

MTV

 

[GeeBee]

The PA18 is a CAR 3 airplane and so is the TDCS. That is the reason why you will not find any "type of operation" within the TCDS. No where does it say the following words. IFR, VFR, Night. Equally so, no where in my AFM for my PA18 are those words written. So to fly IFR all one has to do is comply with FAR 91.205 and maintain the airplane to IFR requirements within part 91.

Now why do those words appear in other TDCS and AFMs? Answer is they are certified under FAR Part 23 which requires those words and certifications within the TDCS per FAR 23.1585. Now why is the CC Top Cub not able to do IFR? Answer lies in the certification requirements of amended Part 23 which among other things requires HIRF (high intensity radiation fields) i.e. lightning strike testing.

Now the 8KCAB is an FAR 23 TDCS, so the limitation written within the AFM and placards are binding. To fly it IFR, you would have to undergo an STC regardless of your instrumentation in compliance with 91.205

It is a case where "newer" is not necessarily better.

If you notice AOPA got it right in its description (somewhat) when it said of the PA18

"This airplane is certificated in the normal and utility category. See the aircraft’s P.O.H for approved maneuvers. The airplane is approved for day and night VFR/IFR operations when equipped in accordance with F.A.R. 91 or F.A.R 135."

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Piper-Super-Cub

versus this language for the 8KCAB

"This airplane is certificated in the normal and acrobatic categories. See the airplane’s P.O.H. for approved maneuvers in the acrobatic category. The airplane is approved for day and night VFR operations when equipped in accordance with F.A.R. 91 or F.A.R 135."

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources...craft-Fact-Sheets/American-Champion-Decathlon


Sorry to disappoint you Bob, but you cannot fly your 8KCAB IFR without an STC. That STC would require you to do all the tests required for original issuance of an FAR 23 IFR aircraft.