change in ADS-B rule interpretation!

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-8, Bill T wrote:
I believe that the GPS reciever still needs to be WAAS compliant to provide ADSB out data. The key would be to approve portable ADSB out devices, currently available for about $1500 with WAAS GPS built in, for use in glider tow and gliders. It sure would save out club a heap of $$$ for the tow plane, we are under the class b shelf.

BillT

I thought most GPS units installed in gliders (at least in the last few years) were WAAS compliant.

Most GPS units in gliders may be WAAS compliant, but with the previous language they were not approved to provide adsb out because they do not have the TSO Certification.
BillT

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:17:50 PM UTC-8, Bill T wrote:
Most GPS units in gliders may be WAAS compliant, but with the previous language they were not approved to provide adsb out because they do not have the TSO Certification.
BillT

It appears in the new rules that it only has to meet the performance requirements. Furthermore the wording would suggest it is up to the installer to decide that it does until the FAA indicates otherwise? Which is reversed from TSO. Almost any GPS engine is WAAS compliant now. But I don't know what else is involved in meeting the 'performance requirement'. It seems like there is hope though, given that the spec was written while vacuum tubes were still in common use.

I'm sure Darryl will jump in at any moment and set me straight.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:39:47 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:17:50 PM UTC-8, Bill T wrote:
Most GPS units in gliders may be WAAS compliant, but with the previous language they were not approved to provide adsb out because they do not have the TSO Certification.
BillT

It appears in the new rules that it only has to meet the performance requirements. Furthermore the wording would suggest it is up to the installer to decide that it does until the FAA indicates otherwise? Which is reversed from TSO. Almost any GPS engine is WAAS compliant now. But I don't know what else is involved in meeting the 'performance requirement'. It seems like there is hope though, given that the spec was written while vacuum tubes were still in common use.

I'm sure Darryl will jump in at any moment and set me straight.

More on the subject this morning on the AVweb website:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...e223533-1.html

I'm also eager to see what Darryl will make of this.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 7:00:42 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:39:47 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:17:50 PM UTC-8, Bill T wrote:
Most GPS units in gliders may be WAAS compliant, but with the previous language they were not approved to provide adsb out because they do not have the TSO Certification.
BillT

It appears in the new rules that it only has to meet the performance requirements. Furthermore the wording would suggest it is up to the installer to decide that it does until the FAA indicates otherwise? Which is reversed from TSO. Almost any GPS engine is WAAS compliant now. But I don't know what else is involved in meeting the 'performance requirement'. It seems like there is hope though, given that the spec was written while vacuum tubes were still in common use.

I'm sure Darryl will jump in at any moment and set me straight.

More on the subject this morning on the AVweb website:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...e223533-1.html

I'm also eager to see what Darryl will make of this.

I think on one hand AV Web may overstates this, but on the other hand they are partially correct and mostly in the sense where this can get used as a shell game. e.g. manufacturers sometimes produce a TSO'ed device and a non-TSO'ed equivalent device and differentiate the two based on price even though they have little difference in actual manufacturing cost. And they sell the two devices to different markets, e.g. experimental vs. IFR aircraft (and where installers in some cases may erroneously believe they absolutely require to have a TSO'ed device when they may not).

In this case I don't expect this will actually significantly change any ADS-B Out costs in the USA not for some time. For example it is still a market where very few vendors can manufacturer any ADS-B Out device or GPS receiver that ... meets performance requirements of.. any TSO. Maybe not until vendors start producing an ADS-B Out devices with integrated GPS sources do I expect to see an ADS-B Out price drop. And prices will come down in general as 2020 approaches and people actually feel compelled to start installing anything (again gliders are exempt from most of the carriage requirements).. In which case I would not be surprised if manufacturers avoid formal TSOs and utilize the ...meets performance parts say at least for the internal GPS. And I would not be surprised if some vendors keep playing pricing shell games.

And just today L3 announced more details of their L3 Lynx ADS-B products,
they do apparently include non-TSOed but TSO performance meeting GPS
devices... details are very thin. MSRP is $3,200 for a display less UAT Out
and In box (there is a cheaper UAT Out only box but no pricing yet) and
$6,800 for a Mode S/1090ES Out/1090ES In/UAT In box. All include a
built-in GPS source. The transponder packaging and power consumption are
likely to be quite unsuitable for use in gliders even if somebody wanted to
spend $6,800 plus installation costs. For the GA users this is targeted at
these products may be compelling, especially for older aircraft not
equipped with an IFR/WAAS GPS and an old (high risk if needing repair)
transponder. And I expect prices to drop further as 2020 approaches.

L3 refer to the included internal GPS in these devices as a "Rule Compliant
Position Source"... in other words that GPS is not TSOed but does "meet the
performance requirements of..." (likely TSO-C145c). So you do see effects
of that all that CFR14 91 "meets performance of..." wording here, no word I
could find on the actual TSO status of the boxes themselves. If L3 do not
TSO them expect a pile of confusion/arguments out there in GA A&P land...

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:17:50 PM UTC-8, Bill T wrote:
Most GPS units in gliders may be WAAS compliant, but with the previous language they were not approved to provide adsb out because they do not have the TSO Certification.
BillT

Many consumer GPS chipset based GPS receivers in gliders may utilize WAAS/SBAS technology. But that is *very* different than what is meant by a IFW/WAAS GPS receiver like specified for example in TSO-C145 and the RTCA standards it incorporates.

I would be surprised if there is any GPS receivers installed in any glider gliders that is "WAAS Compliant" if that means TSO-C145, if not that then "compliant" to what standard?