FLARM.....for good, or evil??

On 10/28/2010 5:15 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:54 pm, wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:40 pm, "Wayne wrote:



"Darryl wrote in ...
On Oct 28, 8:47 am, wrote:

Just to give a flavor ADS-B data-out systems as mandated for 2020 in
the USA for power aircraft (basically where a transponder is required
today) will put out the following data

Aircraft ICAO ID (can be made anonymous for a UAT on VFR flight)
Aircraft callsign/flight number (not required for VFR flight)
Time of applicability
GPS Lattitude
GPS Longitude
GPS altitude
Airborne/on-surface status
Northbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS)
Eastbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS)
Heading while on the surface
Ground speed while on the surface
Pressure altitude
Vertical rate (may be pressure or GPS based)
GPS uncertainty/integrity (which needs information form a fancy TSO-
C145 class WAAS GPS)
Ident (equivalent to transponder ident/SPI)
Distress/Emergency status
ADS-B data-in/display capability
TCAS equipage/status

This is a simplified list and there is various other status/validity
data as well. There is also the concept in ADS-B messages of an
estimated position, and even estimated velocity. But AFAIK this is not
intended for fancy manoeuvrings predictions - it is more intended to
allow different parts of the ADS-B infrastructure to project position
or velocity updated to a single time of applicability. There is space
for future expansion and as an example there is long-term work
underway to look at an ADS-B based replacement for TCAS that could
well utilize extra data transmission than that above, but think well
post 2020 for this to actually happen. My brain hurts enough thinking
about ADS-B as is.

---

BTW my suspicion is given that the FAA currently requires a STC for
any installation for ADS-B data out that it is currently not possible
to install any ADS-B data-out system in the USA in any certified
aircraft (including gliders) that only meets a subset of the 2020
mandate requirements (ie. does not include all the stuff above). Which
I expect the FAA would also require fully TSO-C154c/DO-282B (UAT) TSO-
C166b/DO-260B (1090ES) and with the corresponding TSO-C145 level GPS.
Experimental aircraft are another question since an STC cannot apply
to them. This STC restriction hopefully is short-term as its is going
to have a chilling effect on ADS-B data-out adoption in general
aviation and gliders. Besides some more complex issues you can start
to see even simple installation concerns that are probably causing
this current STC requirement, such as squat switch/or other on-ground
detection, needs to have a single squawk code and ident button across
any installed transponder(s) and ADS-B data-out devices, ability to
transmit a distress/emergency code, ability to turn off the ADS-B
transmissions if requested, etc.

Darryl

The following is not directed at any individual, it is simply an observation.

Even the old Garmin 12XL provides a lot more information in it's NMEA sentences the most of us realize. It is data output sentences are fully compliant with NMEA 0183 ver 2.0. The following link give an example of the data provided by "GPS engines" to software developer thus minimizing the amount of calculation required in display devices.http://www8.garmin.com/support/pdf/NMEA_0183.pdf

As I watch these PowerFLARM discussion it is apparent that many assume that things provided by the GPS must be created by the FLARM software.

Let us accept the fact that the PowerFLARM is just an upgrade of previous units that have been proven effective in increasing glider flight safety.

Respectfully,
Wayne

There have been several comment regarding the need for an STC to
install an ADS-B system in a certified aircraft.

This is not unlike the original situation with the installation of IFR
certified GPS systems, in the early 1990s. I was involved in several
installations and most of the concerns were about the placement of
antenna and the effect of spurious signals on navigation.

Today if you get an IFR GPS installed in an aircraft the manufacturer
has a detailed description of antenna placement, cable routing and
possible interaction. This data was collected during the earlier STC
period and as experience with more installations was gained, the FAA
changed the requirements from an STC to a 337, if installed in
compliance with the manufacturer's instructions.

I expect that the STC requirements for the ADS-B will follow the same
path over time.

Mike

Absolutely right (and antenna issues are one of the concerns with this
STC requirement as well). Its a matter of when the STC process
migrates to a 337/Field approval. Given the complexity of ADS-B I
wonder what the time frame will really be. And the FCC has stated that
clearly but the STC requirement still seems to have come as a bit of a
surprise to some developers--and maybe regulators where there are
questions if the cost of this was included in disclosures. I see no
way for now but for this to freeze a lot of adoption--but I suspect
from the FAA viewpoint it is needed. I do worry that smaller
manufacturers won't be able to develop many STCs and I am doubtful
you'll see folks willing to develop STCs for gliders. My purpose of
promoting the STC issue is just nobody seemed to be aware of it in
the glider community yet there are (a few) owners starting to look at
install of ADS-B data-out. Some of those owners have experimental
gliders and are in a better position. Those with certified gliders
need to have a discussion with vendors about STCs. In a practical
sense as well most vendors are busy finishing off their "-B" rev data-
out products (e.g. Garmin, Trig and others) and getting TSO approval
on those. And I see that as a gate to STC approval, but clearly they
could be overlapping TSO approval and STC development. And larger
companies beside having lots of STC approval experience may also be
able to leverage past ADS-B STC developed for trails, such as the
GOMEX ADS-B trials.


Darryl

I find it difficult to understand the "complexity" involved in ADS-B.
This is basically the same technology as FLARM (UAT) or Mode S
transponders (1090ES). The main difference between FLARM and UAT is the
frequency and power level of the transmitter. (Yes I know that UAT
doesn't include any of the collision detection logic of FLARM).

At some point, the FAA will figure this out or the whole ADS-B exercise
will come to a dead end.

--
Mike Schumann

On Oct 28, 3:57*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/28/2010 5:15 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:







On Oct 28, 1:54 pm, *wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:40 pm, "Wayne *wrote:

"Darryl *wrote in ...
On Oct 28, 8:47 am, *wrote:

Just to give a flavor ADS-B data-out systems as mandated for 2020 in
the USA for power aircraft (basically where a transponder is required
today) will put out the following data

Aircraft ICAO ID (can be made anonymous for a UAT on VFR flight)
Aircraft callsign/flight number (not required for VFR flight)
Time of applicability
GPS Lattitude
GPS Longitude
GPS altitude
Airborne/on-surface status
Northbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS)
Eastbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS)
Heading while on the surface
Ground speed while on the surface
Pressure altitude
Vertical rate (may be pressure or GPS based)
GPS uncertainty/integrity (which needs information form a fancy TSO-
C145 class WAAS GPS)
Ident (equivalent to transponder ident/SPI)
Distress/Emergency status
ADS-B data-in/display capability
TCAS equipage/status

This is a simplified list and there is various other status/validity
data as well. There is also the concept in ADS-B messages of an
estimated position, and even estimated velocity. But AFAIK this is not
intended for fancy manoeuvrings predictions - it is more intended to
allow different parts of the ADS-B infrastructure to project position
or velocity updated to a single time of applicability. There is space
for future expansion and as an example there is long-term work
underway to look at an ADS-B based replacement for TCAS that could
well utilize extra data transmission than that above, but think well
post 2020 for this to actually happen. My brain hurts enough thinking
about ADS-B as is.

---

BTW my suspicion is given that the FAA currently requires a STC for
any installation for ADS-B data out that it is currently not possible
to install any ADS-B data-out system in the USA in any certified
aircraft (including gliders) that only meets a subset of the 2020
mandate requirements (ie. does not include all the stuff above). Which
I expect the FAA would also require fully TSO-C154c/DO-282B (UAT) TSO-
C166b/DO-260B (1090ES) and with the corresponding TSO-C145 level GPS..
Experimental aircraft are another question since an STC cannot apply
to them. This STC restriction hopefully is short-term as its is going
to have a chilling effect on ADS-B data-out adoption in general
aviation and gliders. Besides some more complex issues you can start
to see even simple installation concerns that are probably causing
this current STC requirement, such as squat switch/or other on-ground
detection, needs to have a single squawk code and ident button across
any installed transponder(s) and ADS-B data-out devices, ability to
transmit a distress/emergency code, ability to turn off the ADS-B
transmissions if requested, etc.

Darryl

The following is not directed at any individual, it is simply an observation.

Even the old Garmin 12XL provides a lot more information in it's NMEA sentences the most of us realize. *It is data output sentences are fully compliant with NMEA 0183 ver 2.0. *The following link give an example of the data provided by "GPS engines" to software developer thus minimizing the amount of calculation required in display devices.http://www8.garmin.com/support/pdf/NMEA_0183.pdf

As I watch these PowerFLARM discussion it is apparent that many assume that things provided by the GPS must be created by the FLARM software.

Let us accept the fact that the PowerFLARM is just an upgrade of previous units that have been proven effective in increasing glider flight safety.

Respectfully,
Wayne

There have been several comment regarding the need for an STC to
install an ADS-B system in a certified aircraft.

This is not unlike the original situation with the installation of IFR
certified GPS systems, in the early 1990s. *I was involved in several
installations and most of the concerns were about the placement of
antenna and the effect of spurious signals on navigation.

Today if you get an IFR GPS installed in an aircraft the manufacturer
has a detailed description of antenna placement, cable routing and
possible interaction. *This data was collected during the earlier STC
period and as experience with more installations was gained, the FAA
changed the requirements from an STC to a 337, if installed in
compliance with the manufacturer's instructions.

I expect that the STC requirements for the ADS-B will follow the same
path over time.

Mike

Absolutely right (and antenna issues are one of the concerns with this
STC requirement as well). Its a matter of when the STC process
migrates to a 337/Field approval. Given the complexity of ADS-B I
wonder what the time frame will really be. And the FCC has stated that
clearly but the STC requirement still seems to have come as a bit of a
surprise to some developers--and maybe regulators where there are
questions if the cost of this was included in disclosures. I see no
way for now but for this to freeze a lot of adoption--but I suspect
from the FAA viewpoint it is needed. I do worry that smaller
manufacturers won't be able to develop many STCs and I am doubtful
you'll see folks willing to develop STCs for gliders. My purpose of
promoting the STC issue is just nobody seemed to be *aware of it in
the glider community yet there are (a few) owners starting to look at
install of ADS-B data-out. Some of those owners have experimental
gliders and are in a better position. Those with certified gliders
need to have a discussion with vendors about STCs. In a practical
sense as well most vendors are busy finishing off their "-B" rev data-
out products (e.g. Garmin, Trig and others) and getting TSO approval
on those. And I see that as a gate to STC approval, but clearly they
could be overlapping TSO approval and STC development. And larger
companies beside having lots of STC approval experience may also be
able to leverage past ADS-B STC developed for trails, such as the
GOMEX ADS-B trials.

Darryl

I find it difficult to understand the "complexity" involved in ADS-B.
This is basically the same technology as FLARM (UAT) or Mode S
transponders (1090ES). *The main difference between FLARM and UAT is the
frequency and power level of the transmitter. *(Yes I know that UAT
doesn't include any of the collision detection logic of FLARM).

At some point, the FAA will figure this out or the whole ADS-B exercise
will come to a dead end.

--
Mike Schumann

ADS-B and its implementation and role in NextGen and all the different
players looking at this beast from all different angles and trying to
solve all sorts of different problems makes this is one of the most
complex undertakings ever in aviation.... and that includes everything
from the details of the data transmitted on up (e.g. the GPS chip in a
Flarm likely costs a few tens of dollars at most, a GPS box or module
for an ADS-B data-out TSO'ed product currently costs thousands of
dollars). All that extra stuff and bureaucracy that make it cost that
much really has no practical benefit for glider-glider collision
avoidance but has benefits to others.

Lets see, ADS-B data-out, ADS-B data-in, 1090ES, UAT, ADS-R, TIS-B,
FIS-B, surface surveillance, terminal surveillance, en-route
surveillance, essential services, critical services, TSO-C166b/
DO-260B, TSO-C154c/DO-282B, TSO-C145a/TSO-C146a WAAS GPS, SIL, NIC,
STCs, ... if this does not make your head ache you may not be thinking
about it hard enough. Most people just don't need to worry since this
is all years away from being interesting for them. Years away when FAA
ground services, ADS-B products, product cost, fleet adoption and
market awareness all start to line up.

And this applies to the ADS-B receiver part PowerFLARM as well -
especially its dependence on having ADS-B out for ADS-R and TIS-B to
work. There is a lot more the FAA and its providers have to do and
there is a lot more we all have to do to understand all this
technology and how best to use it moving forward - given that by 2020
a significant part of the entire USA aircraft fleet will be ADS-B data-
out equipped. But again I'm not trying to hawk ADS-B as being at all
ready for our market now, but I've very happy to see products like
PowerFLARM providing a path to include that in future.

Darryl

On 10/28/2010 10:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:57 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 10/28/2010 5:15 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:







On Oct 28, 1:54 pm, wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:40 pm, "Wayne wrote:

"Darryl wrote in ...
On Oct 28, 8:47 am, wrote:

Just to give a flavor ADS-B data-out systems as mandated for 2020 in
the USA for power aircraft (basically where a transponder is required
today) will put out the following data

Aircraft ICAO ID (can be made anonymous for a UAT on VFR flight)
Aircraft callsign/flight number (not required for VFR flight)
Time of applicability
GPS Lattitude
GPS Longitude
GPS altitude
Airborne/on-surface status
Northbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS)
Eastbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS)
Heading while on the surface
Ground speed while on the surface
Pressure altitude
Vertical rate (may be pressure or GPS based)
GPS uncertainty/integrity (which needs information form a fancy TSO-
C145 class WAAS GPS)
Ident (equivalent to transponder ident/SPI)
Distress/Emergency status
ADS-B data-in/display capability
TCAS equipage/status

This is a simplified list and there is various other status/validity
data as well. There is also the concept in ADS-B messages of an
estimated position, and even estimated velocity. But AFAIK this is not
intended for fancy manoeuvrings predictions - it is more intended to
allow different parts of the ADS-B infrastructure to project position
or velocity updated to a single time of applicability. There is space
for future expansion and as an example there is long-term work
underway to look at an ADS-B based replacement for TCAS that could
well utilize extra data transmission than that above, but think well
post 2020 for this to actually happen. My brain hurts enough thinking
about ADS-B as is.

---

BTW my suspicion is given that the FAA currently requires a STC for
any installation for ADS-B data out that it is currently not possible
to install any ADS-B data-out system in the USA in any certified
aircraft (including gliders) that only meets a subset of the 2020
mandate requirements (ie. does not include all the stuff above). Which
I expect the FAA would also require fully TSO-C154c/DO-282B (UAT) TSO-
C166b/DO-260B (1090ES) and with the corresponding TSO-C145 level GPS.
Experimental aircraft are another question since an STC cannot apply
to them. This STC restriction hopefully is short-term as its is going
to have a chilling effect on ADS-B data-out adoption in general
aviation and gliders. Besides some more complex issues you can start
to see even simple installation concerns that are probably causing
this current STC requirement, such as squat switch/or other on-ground
detection, needs to have a single squawk code and ident button across
any installed transponder(s) and ADS-B data-out devices, ability to
transmit a distress/emergency code, ability to turn off the ADS-B
transmissions if requested, etc.

Darryl

The following is not directed at any individual, it is simply an observation.

Even the old Garmin 12XL provides a lot more information in it's NMEA sentences the most of us realize. It is data output sentences are fully compliant with NMEA 0183 ver 2.0. The following link give an example of the data provided by "GPS engines" to software developer thus minimizing the amount of calculation required in display devices.http://www8.garmin.com/support/pdf/NMEA_0183.pdf

As I watch these PowerFLARM discussion it is apparent that many assume that things provided by the GPS must be created by the FLARM software.

Let us accept the fact that the PowerFLARM is just an upgrade of previous units that have been proven effective in increasing glider flight safety.

Respectfully,
Wayne

There have been several comment regarding the need for an STC to
install an ADS-B system in a certified aircraft.

This is not unlike the original situation with the installation of IFR
certified GPS systems, in the early 1990s. I was involved in several
installations and most of the concerns were about the placement of
antenna and the effect of spurious signals on navigation.

Today if you get an IFR GPS installed in an aircraft the manufacturer
has a detailed description of antenna placement, cable routing and
possible interaction. This data was collected during the earlier STC
period and as experience with more installations was gained, the FAA
changed the requirements from an STC to a 337, if installed in
compliance with the manufacturer's instructions.

I expect that the STC requirements for the ADS-B will follow the same
path over time.

Mike

Absolutely right (and antenna issues are one of the concerns with this
STC requirement as well). Its a matter of when the STC process
migrates to a 337/Field approval. Given the complexity of ADS-B I
wonder what the time frame will really be. And the FCC has stated that
clearly but the STC requirement still seems to have come as a bit of a
surprise to some developers--and maybe regulators where there are
questions if the cost of this was included in disclosures. I see no
way for now but for this to freeze a lot of adoption--but I suspect
from the FAA viewpoint it is needed. I do worry that smaller
manufacturers won't be able to develop many STCs and I am doubtful
you'll see folks willing to develop STCs for gliders. My purpose of
promoting the STC issue is just nobody seemed to be aware of it in
the glider community yet there are (a few) owners starting to look at
install of ADS-B data-out. Some of those owners have experimental
gliders and are in a better position. Those with certified gliders
need to have a discussion with vendors about STCs. In a practical
sense as well most vendors are busy finishing off their "-B" rev data-
out products (e.g. Garmin, Trig and others) and getting TSO approval
on those. And I see that as a gate to STC approval, but clearly they
could be overlapping TSO approval and STC development. And larger
companies beside having lots of STC approval experience may also be
able to leverage past ADS-B STC developed for trails, such as the
GOMEX ADS-B trials.

Darryl

I find it difficult to understand the "complexity" involved in ADS-B.
This is basically the same technology as FLARM (UAT) or Mode S
transponders (1090ES). The main difference between FLARM and UAT is the
frequency and power level of the transmitter. (Yes I know that UAT
doesn't include any of the collision detection logic of FLARM).

At some point, the FAA will figure this out or the whole ADS-B exercise
will come to a dead end.

--
Mike Schumann

ADS-B and its implementation and role in NextGen and all the different
players looking at this beast from all different angles and trying to
solve all sorts of different problems makes this is one of the most
complex undertakings ever in aviation.... and that includes everything
from the details of the data transmitted on up (e.g. the GPS chip in a
Flarm likely costs a few tens of dollars at most, a GPS box or module
for an ADS-B data-out TSO'ed product currently costs thousands of
dollars). All that extra stuff and bureaucracy that make it cost that
much really has no practical benefit for glider-glider collision
avoidance but has benefits to others.

Lets see, ADS-B data-out, ADS-B data-in, 1090ES, UAT, ADS-R, TIS-B,
FIS-B, surface surveillance, terminal surveillance, en-route
surveillance, essential services, critical services, TSO-C166b/
DO-260B, TSO-C154c/DO-282B, TSO-C145a/TSO-C146a WAAS GPS, SIL, NIC,
STCs, ... if this does not make your head ache you may not be thinking
about it hard enough. Most people just don't need to worry since this
is all years away from being interesting for them. Years away when FAA
ground services, ADS-B products, product cost, fleet adoption and
market awareness all start to line up.

And this applies to the ADS-B receiver part PowerFLARM as well -
especially its dependence on having ADS-B out for ADS-R and TIS-B to
work. There is a lot more the FAA and its providers have to do and
there is a lot more we all have to do to understand all this
technology and how best to use it moving forward - given that by 2020
a significant part of the entire USA aircraft fleet will be ADS-B data-
out equipped. But again I'm not trying to hawk ADS-B as being at all
ready for our market now, but I've very happy to see products like
PowerFLARM providing a path to include that in future.

Darryl

You are confusing ADS-B and everything else under the "Nextgen" umbrella.

ADS-B is fundamentally a very simple concept. You have a GPS in your
airplane, and once a second you transmit your position and velocity
vector data. On the receive side, you listen and receive everyone
else's position. Additional data may also be available if you are
interested (weather, Notams, etc.).

ADS-B is basically the same as FLARM, except that FLARM also includes
collision avoidance features that need to be implemented externally to
the ADS-B transceiver, if the user desires this capability. The only
fundamental differences between ADS-B and FLARM is the frequency used to
communicate between aircraft, the power level of the transmitters and
the protocol used. There is no technical reason that the US version of
FLARM data link could not have been implemented to be ADS-B compatible.
Granted, the FLARM guys would have had to invest in extra engineering
to change their protocols, and then would have had to deal with the FAA
BS involved with ADS-B, so it is totally understandable, from a business
perspective, why they did not go down this path.

The problem with ADS-B is all the regulatory crap and "integrity" BS
that the FAA dumped on the avionics manufacturers that has made it
impossible to develop hardware at an affordable price point. The
"complexity" is not in the fundamental technology, but in working thru
the FAA process to get this equipment approved.

It is a huge failure of the FAA, AOPA, the SSA, and the rest of the US
aviation community that this program has turned into such a fiasco. If
the fundamental focus had been on affordability, there is no reason that
we couldn't now have commercial ADS-B equipment at the same price points
as FLARM units.

--
Mike Schumann

On 10/29/2010 11:16 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
If the fundamental focus had been on affordability, there is no reason
that we couldn't now have commercial ADS-B equipment at the same price
points as FLARM units.

NavWorx announced on Wednesday Oct. 27 that they are currently shipping
the ADS600B transceivers.
They offer their informal solution to the FAA's STC and/or TSO mandates
can be installed on both experimental and certified aircraft when it meets “portable installation guidelines.”

On Oct 29, 9:00*am, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 11:16 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:

If the fundamental focus had been on affordability, there is no reason
that we couldn't now have commercial ADS-B equipment at the same price
points as FLARM units.

NavWorx announced on Wednesday Oct. 27 that they are currently shipping
the ADS600B transceivers.
They offer their informal solution to the FAA's STC and/or TSO mandates

can be installed on both experimental and certified aircraft when it meets “portable installation guidelines.”



I think we need to be fairly cautious parsing marketing talk.

On the page at http://www.navworx.com/myths.asp NavWorx is trying to
handle what they probably see as an wide negative view on ADS-B
adoption now from lots of commentators and organizations like AOPA,
authors in Flying Magazine, etc. Probably not what NavWorx intended
but having a read of all the links/comments they give there provides a
pretty good summary of the current negative-side view of ADS-B
adoption.

The reference above was to this statement from NavWorx...

"FAA memo mandates that all ADS-B equipment must be installed via STC
and meet TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c. NavWorx is compliant with TSO-C154c
providing both TIS-B and FIS-B. NavWorx equipment is available today
and can be installed on both experimental and certified aircraft when
it meets “portable installation guidelines.”"

Lets parse the two important bits of that statements carefully

**NavWorx [products] are compliant with TSO-C154c**

That is not saying the products are manufacted under TSO approval,
they are not. But there is often ambigious language in FARs about
whether a product needs to be manufactured under TSO approval or just
"Meets the requirements in TSO–xxx" to be installed. The later is the
case in FAR 91.225 that governs ADS-B carriage requirements. So
technically for a certified aircraft that leaves the A&P and maybe
FSDO to try to work out how to determine if something "Meets the
requirements in TSO–xxx" but is not yet TSO approved. If it gets to
the FSDO we can probably guess what their answer will be most of the
time. But with the current STC requirement policy from the FAA there
are no field approvals for installation of any ADS-B data-out
equipment on any certified aircraft (an STC cannot apply to an
experimental aircraft). And the FAA is extremely unlikely to approve
an STC that involved non actual-TSO approved ADS-B data-out equipment,
but like I've said before I really hope that work can be done in
parallel. It would be a very "brave" A&P who now tried to justify an
ADS-B data-out install as a minor modification to avoid doing even a
337.

Now the STC requirement is just an FAA approvals policy not a
regulation. (You can read it here
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/34a9674f068fb64d86257790006d038a/$FILE/Approval%20for%20ADS-B%20Out%20Systems.pdf).
The FAA could change policy tomorrow. They could let any non-IFR
aircraft use field approval, they could let any glider use field
approval. It might be reasonable for the industry to try to work with
the FAA to more aggressively shorten the time those kind of aircraft
require STC for installations.

***NavWorx equipment is available today and can be installed on both
experimental and certified aircraft when it meets “portable
installation guidelines.***

No argument on NavWorx's claim here about "experimental aircraft", I
beleive they can have Navworx equipment, both their ADS-B receive only
and ADS-B transceiver equipment installed.

You cannot install an ADS-B data-out system that required connection
to an aircraft static source and installation of transmitter antennas
and call it a "portable install". NavWorx also makes portable UAT data-
in (receive only) products and I parse their statement here as "well
if you can't install one of our UAT transceivers because of this STC
requirement in a certified aircraft then you can at least install one
of our UAT receivers and still get some ADS_B benefits". Remember they
are only saying "equipment". Misquoting what's his name: It depends on
what the meaning of "equipment" is.

As a reminder UAT data-in is only suitable receiving UAT direct
broadcasts from UAT data-out equipped aircraft and FIS-B (weather and
Notam etc. data). A UAT data-in receiver cannot receive ADS-R or FIS-B
reliably unless you have an UAT data-out transmitter in the aircraft,
or combined in a transceiver. BTW -- I would have said ADS-B data-out
in general there before which is technically correct but the FAA also
seems to be discouraging mixed UAT data-out and 1090ES data-in or visa-
versa installations, and not that they can regulate what portable
receiver devices you install if you want to but I want to know more
why the FAA believes this is important enough to caution against.

For the GA market it would be great if ADS-B vendors could talk about
the actual STCs they are working on for installation in certified
aircraft. But I expect they see that as a competitive secret. I'd like
the FAA to talk about how long they expect the STC requirement to
remain in place and/or (since picking a time my be impossible) some of
the milestones they want to see before lifting this requirement in the
hope that may help the industry work though this.

Again this stuff only applies to certified aircraft. Experimental
aircraft are free to install the NavWorx and other ADS-B data-out
devices. The caution there for GA aircraft is if that installation is
going to be used to meet the carriage mandate in
FAR 91.225 they _may_ need to do extra work (e.g. on use a fancy WAAS
GPS driving the data-out).

And remember the NavWorx transceivers are not practical for
isntallation in gliders today, they consume too much power and don't
interface to any popular glider traffic displays and other issues I've
flogged to death before here.

----

BTW to be clear as well on all these FIS-B and TIS-B services. They
currently should be available in (mopstly) east and west coast ARTCC
regions as a part of the essential services (TIS-B and FIS-B (Weather,
NOTAMS etc.) enroute rollout but integration for most TRACON/Terminal
infrastructure will not happen until through 2013. So check with your
local TRACON for when exactly they will have essential (FIS-B, TIS-B)
and critical (ADS-R and ATC surveillance) service available.
Unfortunately there seems no good FAA or ITT website that provides
schedules in a understandable format (if anybody knows one I'd love to
know). It seems some pilots are interpreting some information
available on-line as many regions have full ADS-B essential (TIS-B and
FIS-B)and critical (ATC surveillance and ADS-R) services available in
both enroute and terminal service areas.


Darryl

On Oct 29, 8:16*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/28/2010 10:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
[snip]

You are confusing ADS-B and everything else under the "Nextgen" umbrella.

No. I am pointing out lots of the complexity in ADS-B comes from its
multiple applications for multiple different users seeking multiple
different benefits. Nextgen is the raison d'être for ADS-B and Nextgen
requirements have driven development of the underlying RTCA standards
etc.

ADS-B is fundamentally a very simple concept. *You have a GPS in your
airplane, and once a second you transmit your position and velocity
vector data. *On the receive side, you listen and receive everyone
else's position. *Additional data may also be available if you are
interested (weather, Notams, etc.).

Ah now I get it I'm looking at this all wrong. I'm trying to look at
things from a practical, what works, how it works, what can be used
together viewpoint... for now and in the future. But what we should be
focusing on instead is simple concepts--even when any cogent practical
thought shows the actual use of these technologies in actual scenarios
to save actual pilots lives is not simple.

Why don't you write those simple concepts down on a sheet of paper and
tape them inside your cockpit. That will draw no power, require no
space to install, require no third party display devices, have no
false alarm issue, have no compatibility requirements with current
glider equipment and require no FAA approval. And should the small
practical things happen of you get killed in a mid-air collision we
can tape those simple concepts inside your coffin.

ADS-B is basically the same as FLARM, except that FLARM also includes
collision avoidance features that need to be implemented externally to
the ADS-B transceiver, if the user desires this...

ADS-B is basically the same as FLARM for the purposes of making silly
debating points. The focus of most of the rest of us is what can most
practically/best be done to avoid mid-air collisions.

Darryl