On 10/25/2010 12:02 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 25, 6:32 am, Mike
wrote:
[snip]

Again the devil is in the details.

Where is the STC that allows a NavWorx ADS600-B to be installed in a
certified glider to comply with the new FAA STC requirements announced
this August? (yes an experiential glider can get away without this).
The NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is TSO as a UAT transceiver but its
built in GPS source does not meet the TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS
requirements to drive ADS-B data-out for the 2020 carriage mandate.
The NavWorx products were intended to have one of these higher end GPS
systems connected to it to meet the full 2020 carriage mandates for
powered aircraft but be usable now without that (which could easily
double or more their cost today and increase power consumption). And
that certainly seemed a good idea (and still doable for experimental
aircraft) but it looks like the FAA may have other ideas for certified
aircraft... since the FAA recently instituted this new STC requirement
it is not clear to me whether the FAA has any intention of allowing
STC approval for an install that does not meet the 2020 carriage
mandate requirements. And even if gliders were not otherwise required
to meet those GPS requirements. I've just about given up trying to
navigate this FAA mess, but then I'm not pushing people to adopt ADS-B
data-out now -- but Mike you are so maybe you can explain this actual
situation here. Will the FAA allow a STC to be developed for install
in a glider with a non-TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS? And who is funding the
development of that STC for installation of a NavWorx ADS600-B UAT in
a certified glider? Which gliders? Or any idea when the FAA plans to
drop the STC requirement and allow field approval/337 installs?

TIS-B will likely work well where there will be good GBT (ADS-B base
station) and radar coverage and with classic GA style aircraft
separation. But there won't be TIS-B coverage in many critical areas
such as many GA airport traffic patterns and other areas where I worry
about GA traffic - again that's not an overall slight on TIS-B but
pilots need to look at this coverage where they fly and be aware as
well when the TIS-B support is rolling out for their en-route (pretty
soon for most people) and approach/TRACON radar coverage (now for a
very few, over the next few years for most).

If you just fly a glider like a GA aircraft and never fly close to
other glider etc. then things are simpler, but most of us end up
flying in ways that cause some specific traffic display/threat warning
challenges. Again this UAT solution relies on a third party display/
warning system that processes data from the UAT transceiver. That
system likely needs to be optimized/designed for the type of flying
gliders do, and the applies to TIS-B data as well. To see why...
consider the case of flying within a short distance of other gliders
who are transponder equipped. This is not necessarily in the same
thermal, it could be a fraction of a mile or so away. But there is
more uncertainty with a SSR derived location data pumped through TIS-B
than there is with a GPS location based ADS-B direct or ADS-R (relay)
signal. Just how the traffic display/threat warning system handles
that situation might be critical but its may be something that only
somebody designing a system for gliders will worry about. In many
cases when a TIS-B based systems sees your glider buddy getting close
the best it may be be able to do is just throw up it hands and say
"threat nearby at altitude xxxx" it won't be able to give direction
data. And you don't want it to keep false warning you about your
glider buddies so you want some way to suppress that warning unless
they get really close (hopefully with an altitude and range margins
you can set) and an easy way to suppress recurring warnings and you
want those settings separate for TIS-B than ADS-B direct/ADS-R. The
devil again, is in the details. Who is going to get this right for UAT
traffic display/threat warning for a glider cockpit?

I believe that TIS-B is a useful add-on service for some GA folks who
can afford it and fly in the right areas. I'm more dubious that is is
financially justified in gliders now. This stuff may be interesting to
pilots if they can manage to legally install a UAT transceiver and
third party display/processor system, afford the thousands of dollars
purchase and install cost (could be over $5k or more with TSO GPS and
all the STC driven costs?), can power the system (over 1 amp with
display and TSO complaint GPS) and they need to check out that traffic
display/threat processing system indeed will meet the needs of their
glider cockpit/flying environment.

Mike if these things are here now and do TIS-B so well to solve the GA
traffic concerns you have mentioned so the obvious question is have
you purchased a NavWorx ADS600-Receiver? How have you legally
installed it in your glider? What traffic/display hardware are you
using and how well does it handle things like TIS-B when flying near
and thermalling with transponder equipped gliders or other UAT
equipped gliders? Seems like a research project not a product ready to
sell (to the glider market) to me.

Darryl

From what I see on the Navworx web site, the ADS600-B is NOT TSO'd,
even though it is FCC approved. I'm don't claim to be an expert on FAA
issues regarding installation of equipment in aircraft, so I have no
idea what that means.

I suspect that the current non TSO'd Navworx box will not meet the 2020
ADS-B rule. I suspect that you could install it in a certified glider
as a portable device, like you would a Garmin 496, without any trouble
(FAA trouble that is). However, the unit obviously doesn't look like it
was designed for this. I don't know what the ramifications are of a
permanent install.

Oh right the NavWorx ADS600-B is not TSO'ed just "designed to be" well
they better get cracking on that if they expect the FAA to let it be
installed in any certified aircraft under the current "need a STC"
requirement. I don't believe the FAA will grant a STC for a ADS-B data-
out device that is not already TSO'ed. The FAA is obviously being
paranoid/covering their ass on all ADS-B data-out compliance stuff. So
the market for the ADS600-B appears to be experimental aircraft only
until they develop TSO and STC approvals. Presuming a small company
can afford to do all that, maybe they just focus on experimental. They
have FreeFlight coming with competitive products - based on the Mitre
prototype (but be ready for the sticker shock, especially if it is an
install in a certified glider that looks like it requires an STC/
TSO'ed product) and FreeFlight is certainly pursuing full TSO approval
and differentiates their TSO and non TSO products for the experiential
and cerrified markets. No talk from FreeFlight of "portable" installs.
And FreeFlight has experience with STC approvals for their (expensive)
TSO'ed GPS units so presumably that likely helps them push ahead on
TSO approval for their ADS-B products. I'll drop them an email and get
their take on the TSO and STC approval situation of their and the
NavWorx products.

How the hell do you connect an ADS-B transceiver requiring a
connection to the aircraft's static line and call it a portable
install? It would be interesting to have the FAAs take on that. The
ADS600-B was clearly designed for fixed install. It needs antennas and
a external power etc. How does all that get packaged for a portable
install? And some of those issues are what the SSA was supposed to be
working on. Where is that research project at? The portable installs
that NavWorx talk about are likely their portable ADS-B *receiver*
products that come with a stub antenna and no need to connect to ships
static designed to stick on the top of an aircraft's glareshield (but
no ADS-B data-out no reliable TIS-B/ADS-R, ....). I expect the market
now for those receivers is as FIS-B (e.g. weather, TFR) receivers.

You are certainly correct that installation of this kind of equipment in
a glider (or any aircraft), at this stage of the product / regulatory
life cycle should be treated as a research project. The same applies to
PowerFlarm when it initially starts shipping.

No the regulatory quagmire that I'm pointing out does not apply *at
all* to the PowerFLARM. The whole point of not doing an ADS-B data-out
device was to avoid this mess. An approach that some other ADS-B
companies like SkyRadar is also taking.

PowerFLARM was developed for our market, Flarm have thousands and
thousands of existing units in the market and that company already has
done the research (real academic R&D not just software/hardware
development) to build the products to meets our technical market needs
I've talked about before. I suspect most pilots who want PowerFLARM
today share my views on this - which is I want it for the Flarm and
PCAS capability, and ADS-B data-in is icing on the cake for now and I
don't have high expectations for ADS-B overall since it is still in
its early days and there is very little data-out equipage. There will
be enough hairy bits around ADS-B that any ADS-B product is going to
need to be improved over time. I want to make sure the company to do
that will still be around to do so and has any technical and financial
interest in meeting the technical needs of the glider market.
So to try to summarize the situation with the NavWorx ADS600-B I'll
state the following and anybody can coorectly with factual data...

No TSO, No STC so no install in any certified glider
No known work to establish an STC for certified glider installs
Pesky things like 1 amp power consumption for a systems install
No threat/processing display system intended for glider applications
(e.g. suitable false alarm reduction, compatibility with popular
flight computers/soaring software, no contest/stealth mode, no IGC
flight recorder, ...)
No vendor or third party company developing a threat/processing
display system intended for glider applications
No vendor experience or any vendor commitment for developing products
for the glider market
No installs in any gliders (let me know if there are...)
No purchase himself of a ADS600-B by Mike Schumann

Glad this is the "simple" and "available now" solution we all
apparently need. BTW I have a bridge for sale if anybody is
interested.

Darryl

There you go again jumping to conclusions. Whoever said that the
Navworx transceiver was designed for portable installations? Their web
site doesn't say that, nor did I ever suggest that. My only comment was
that one possible way to install this type of device in a certified
glider was as a portable device, with the kaviat that the Navworx box
did not appear to be designed with that in mind.

Just for the record, I am not buying an ADS600-B for a variety of
reasons, some of which have been discussed at length in this thread.
It's a little bit frustrating that I am being vilified by a number of
people for suggesting that the soaring community should be putting the
heat on the FAA to solve the ADS-B mess so that we can move ahead and
get products that are affordable and meet the GA / Soaring communities
needs to market. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who's view
is that the PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is
good enough, so everything is going to be OK.

--
Mike Schumann