TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

5Z wrote on 1/7/2020 8:53 PM:
And of course there's the joke of Standard vs Experimental gliders, such as the ASW-27. Looking on the FAA database, first thing is that there are 3 manufacturer/model codes containing 3, 5, and 73 gliders for a total of 81. Of these, there are 47 Standard, 21 Experimental, and 14 Unknown (Experimental?).

Beyond paperwork, there's no difference between Standard and Experimental (except for a few customized ones). Gotta love FAA and consistency.
Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott
I have a brand new Trig TA70 antenna that's surplus to my needs. I ordered it prior to knowing that Experimental aircraft could use a smaller antenna. All reasonable offers entertained.

Craig Funston

Craig Funston wrote on 1/8/2020 3:03 PM:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott
I have a brand new Trig TA70 antenna that's surplus to my needs. I ordered it prior to knowing that Experimental aircraft could use a smaller antenna. All reasonable offers entertained.

I believe if you use it with your TN72, you can be fully 2020 compliant - not just
TABS compliant.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott

Please be careful how you say this. An experimental install done properly is fully 14 CFR 91.227/2020 Compliant. This keeps causing confusion, with people sometimes thinking they should pay more for say a TN70 because it's "better". There is absolutely nothing "non-2020 compliant" or any reduction in ADS-B functionality or reduction in performance implied in using a "meets 14 CFR 91.227 requirements" GPS source in an experimental install vs say a TSO-C145c GPS source in a type certified aircraft install. It's literally the formal requirements for 2020 Compliance you are meeting, so it's just wrong to describe that ever as not "full 2020" compliance.

What you likely meant to say is the FAA did not require us to meet that performance requirement with a TSO approved GPS source.... and initially they effectively actually did, although they claim that was an unintentional oversight, AOPA and the EAA and AOPA took them to task on that and the regulations were modified.

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 3:50:25 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z

at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott

Please be careful how you say this. An experimental install done properly is fully 14 CFR 91.227/2020 Compliant. This keeps causing confusion, with people sometimes thinking they should pay more for say a TN70 because it's "better". There is absolutely nothing "non-2020 compliant" or any reduction in ADS-B functionality or reduction in performance implied in using a "meets 14 CFR 91.227 requirements" GPS source in an experimental install vs say a TSO-C145c GPS source in a type certified aircraft install. It's literally the formal requirements for 2020 Compliance you are meeting, so it's just wrong to describe that ever as not "full 2020" compliance.

What you likely meant to say is the FAA did not require us to meet that performance requirement with a TSO approved GPS source.... and initially they effectively actually did, although they claim that was an unintentional oversight, AOPA and the EAA and AOPA took them to task on that and the regulations were modified.

I think that it is fortunate that the FAA allows us a path to install non-TSO compliant GPS source, albeit in experimental category aircraft only (I did it on my new ASH31Mi). One should not be surprised that standard category aircraft are required to use TSO certified equipment. Perhaps someone out there has gone thru the hoops of switching from certificated to experimental. I would think that you would have to have some significant reason for doing this.

Tom

Perhaps someone out there has gone thru the hoops of switching from certificated to experimental. I would think that you would have to have some significant reason for doing this.

Lots of people have gone from Standard to Experimental, and the hoops aren't complex at all. You just request to change your Certificate of Airworthiness, get an inspection and new Operating Limitations and file an annual Program Letter with your local FSDO. I am probably going to do that this year, primarily so I can do more of my own work on the glider and also to take advantage of the simpler and cheaper "meets 14 CFR 91.227 requirements" GPS source.

Now, the big caveat is that it is hugely complex and difficult to go BACK to Standard Type from Experimental.

You can’t do your “own work on� an experimental glider anymore than you can do on a type certified one. Either one requires an A&P or a Repairman to sign it off. Except for preventative maintenance which a rated pilot can do in either case.