New $500 FAA ADS-B Rebate ... some motorgliders/sustainers qualify

.... And Darryl was very helpful to me in getting my TT22/TN70 system up
and running in my Stemme.

I would add that the Peregrine STC material does not address gliders
and, indeed no glider is listed in their AML (Approved Model List). I
spoke with Peregrine tech support and their position was that gliders
are pretty much on their own but, using the installation data provided
in the STC kit, it was a simple matter for me to install (under
supervision) and for my IA to endorse and sign off my log book and
prepare and send an Informational FAA Form 337 to the feds and one for
my aircraft records.Â* The flight test was simple - just go fly in rule
airspace for 30 minutes and do some maneuvering, then fill out the test
report request on line.Â* The report comes back in a matter of minutes.

As I have said before, there are (at least) two different links to
follow for the test report.Â* The link you'll likely find with a google
search will take you to the report request page but, if you're working
on the rebate, you'll need to go to a different link which is provided
with your rebate reservation.

On 1/13/2019 12:46 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 10:47:35 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 7:16:55 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 12:20:05 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 7:37:09 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:54:53 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:49:48 PM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
Pure gliders are not eligible for the rebate
Are sustainer equipped experimental aircraft eligible?

Thanks -

Lou
Also, I believe the Tn72 is not full 2020 compliant, for that even in an experimental you must use the $1900 Tn70, as far as Trig made products.
I wish this whole topic was simpler, or at least as Simple as I am!!
Bull****. That is absolutely not true. The TN72 jn an experimental aircraft meets all requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. Absolutely clear in Trig documentation, and I've described this many times here. But don't let that stop you just saying it's not with no proof....
Jeez Darryl, such vitriol, Twice in my post I alluded to my Relative ignorance, "I believe" and "Simple as I"
The virtiol is because r.a.s. is full of so much misinformation on stuff including ADS-B and FLARM. And you seeming made no effort to check stuff, or saying why you believe it. And this misinformation circulates around and around again.

You could have Googled for the TN72 installation documentation. That's where vendors typically clarify the compliance specs for "meets requirements" for experimental aircraft.

In this case the manual is super clear....

11.2 FAA 91.227 Compliance
When installed in accordance with this manual and used with the Trig TT22
and Trig TT31 transponders the TN72 meets the technical requirements of FAR
91.227 and the performance requirements of the applicable TSOs.

... that's pretty classic "meets" (but not actual TSO approved) type language to look for.

---

Why did you believe this? Is there wrong information somewhere saying this? The TN72 had a slightly confusing launch with folks (including me) confused about what their exact early claims were. And they might be confusing things with the current different marketing packaging for experimental vs type certified aircraft--I had suggested to TRIG they not do that, but they may understand the reasons better than I do. They were trying to simplify stuff there, so I emphasize with that. The TN72 in the "TN72 GPS – TABS" and "TN72 GPS – X" are the exact same actual TN72 receivers. But I could imagine how for example somebody might read about the "TN72 GPS-TABS" product info and walk away believing the TN72 can't do 2020 Compliance (it can in experimental aircraft).
And I forgot. Years ago helped Max Trescott (my favorite aviation writer/podcaster) with technical content on ADS-B technology for articles in EAA Sport magazine. Helped authors on several technical articles in Soaring Magazine (Hi Andy).

--
Dan, 5J

There’s no such thing as an informational 337. A 337 is a 337. There’s several ways to get approved data. Not sure you guys understand the process.

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 5:53:17 PM UTC-8, Charles Longley wrote:
There’s no such thing as an informational 337. A 337 is a 337. There’s several ways to get approved data. Not sure you guys understand the process.

Charlie, the FAA has unfortunately chosen to use the 337 form to inform them of ADS-B installations, causing much confusion and consternation in the mechanic community. They have asked for these forms to go directly to OK City and not to the local FSDO. Please refer to AFS-360_2016-03-02

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/1fdea629cd029a7c86257f7900601653/$FILE/AFS-360_2016-03-02.pdf

Yes, Darryl Ramm is our resident ADS-B expert. He has spent many hours working on the behalf of SSA and the US gliding community helping navigate the federal maze.

Thanks,
Craig Funston

Craig sorry you don’t understand the FAA form 337 either.
Perhaps I should do a primer on here?

Charlie

As an FYI that memorandum is what I used to put the Stratus Transponder in 17Z last year.

Here’s some good reading-
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...-g-8082-19.pdf
and
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...117.b&rgn=div9

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 8:45:35 PM UTC-8, Charles Longley wrote:
Here’s some good reading-
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...-g-8082-19.pdf
and
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...117.b&rgn=div9

Not sure what you point really is. An A&P wishing to do an ADS-B Out install in a type certified glider has to just follow AFS-360. They just have to do the minimum of what is described there. As long as the installation is a minor alteration. And In almost all cases in gliders it hopefully is.

An A&P can do whatever else they believe they need to do to comply with regulations if they determine an install is a major alteration and needs further approval. But that can quickly create problems, starting with there is no STC for any install of any transponder in any glider. And the TN70 STC is also not a STC with any gliders on the AML... it's used purely for establishing the pairing of the TT22 and TN70 is approved as required by AFS-360. There are other options than a STC for approval but that should not .be required.

A recent thing I got involved with at the request of Pereguine, the STC holder for the TN70 STC, was to help an FAA DAR out with understand the paperwork/regulations for installation of a TT22+TN70, in a vintage power aircraft with no engine driven system, that FAA DAR was perfectly OK with everything I have basically represented on r.a.s., as was his FSDO. So I am pretty comfortable I have a good enough handle on this and how easy a TN70 install and it's paperwork should be in a typical type certified glider.

If you don't like the associated 337 in this process being called an "advisory 337", then hey you can call it whatever you want. But that's the language I've been using to try to make it clear the STC involved here is not being used as the basis for an installation approval.... and to try to avoid things like folks approaching a FSDO and assuming these are necessarily major alterations and the STC is going to be the the basis for that major alteration.... the poor FSDO folks can then start assuming it is because the folks talking to them are saying it is. Doing this has caused pain for some type certified glider owners trying to get 2020 Compliant ADS-B out installs happening, and I am tying to help other avoid those mistakes.

And the offer is there for anybody looking to do an TN70 install I can help talk them and/or their A&P thought this if they need to, but AFS-360 is hopefully clear enough. I was happy recently when one of the busiest glider A&P IA's I had helped understanding this stuff helped walk another glider repair shop though the process. Happy that the word is getting out here, and more ADS-B Out install are happening, which is great for safety for folks in busy airspace.

Bad choice of words, I guess.Â* The 337 simply said (paraphrasing, since
it's at the hangar, not home), "Performed the installation in accordance
with STC number xxx, Installation Manual."Â* Not much more than that.

On 1/14/2019 6:53 PM, Charles Longley wrote:
There’s no such thing as an informational 337. A 337 is a 337. There’s several ways to get approved data. Not sure you guys understand the process.

--
Dan, 5J

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
Bad choice of words, I guess.Â* The 337 simply said (paraphrasing, since
it's at the hangar, not home), "Performed the installation in accordance
with STC number xxx, Installation Manual."Â* Not much more than that.

On 1/14/2019 6:53 PM, Charles Longley wrote:
There’s no such thing as an informational 337. A 337 is a 337. There’s several ways to get approved data. Not sure you guys understand the process.

--
Dan, 5J

Yeah no problem. It just hurts my eyes when I see someone call a 337 informational or advisory...