ADS-B Mandate

[lclyons]

If the plane is certified to fly above 18,000 feet, does that mean that 1090 ES is required or if I'm willing to stay below 18,000 is a 978 UAT enough to satisfy the mandate?

[Cruiser]

Second part is true. You only need it if you are there.

Don't have a 1090ES, stay below 18,000 MSL.

[carusoam]

Similar to not having/using Mode C.

Now you will have more places to avoid....

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

If the plane is certified to fly above 18,000 feet, does that mean that 1090 ES is required or if I'm willing to stay below 18,000 is a 978 UAT enough to satisfy the mandate?

If it were the certified service ceiling, I think a number of Mooneys would need to be on 1090-ES. The challenge is if you have a turbo version, most people who would be looking to buy it in the future would want it.

[DonMuncy]

As I understand it, The ES unit will cost no more later (except for ordinary rises in cost) than now. I plan on not installing the ES. If and when I get ready to sell the plane and it becomes an issue, I would make the decision to discount the price, pay the prospective purchaser, or go ahead and install it at the time of the sale.

[John Pleisse]

Yes...you'll need a ES above 18,000. 

[Bob - S50]

And remember, if you want to fly it outside the US, every other country in the world will eventually require 1090, including Canada.  We just don't know when that will happen.

 

That's a debate our group will have to cope with when we decide to install.

 

Only 978 offers an in-out in a single box at this point.  Buy one box that does it all and be restricted to the US, buy one box and not have the in, or buy two boxes to get both?

 

Good luck,

 

Bob

[Andy95W]

I wonder if Canada will get on board with UAT, since something like 90% of their population lives within 100 miles of the US border. Please correct me if my facts are wrong...

I also wonder if, like the US, you would only need ADS-B out for Class A, B, and C airspace and IFR flights. So would you then be able to fly VFR to Canada? Or Mexico?

Regarless, when it comes time I'll be going the UAT route, even though I live in Michigan and even if it will curb my Canadian flying. Most bang for the buck from what I have seen thus far.

[rbridges]

If the plane is certified to fly above 18,000 feet, does that mean that 1090 ES is required or if I'm willing to stay below 18,000 is a 978 UAT enough to satisfy the mandate?

 

Just reinforcing what everyone else said, the plane's certification has nothing to do with it.  It's more where you will want to fly it.  ES is required if your plane will be flying above 18K.

[cliffy]

As far as Canada is concerned, ADS-B is only above FL290 and in the Hudson Bay area with no plans to do more at this time. 

Mexico has no plans for GA planes at this time AS far as I can determine (please correct me if you know and can show hard data, I've looked and can't find any other conclusion). 

Europe is another story all together!

ES is only required if you actually go FL180 and above in the USA after the drop dead date.

Whether it impacts your resale is a financial question not a legality question.

I haven't gained any knowledge about Canadian registered airplanes without ADS-B coming down here after the drop dead date. 

The "gains" we will see in the "IN' side are far outweighed by the costs. Even the TSO addresses this by specifically stating so.

 

Obviously I'm not a big fan of ADS-B as it is written in the TSO (which I have read cover to cover) or its implementation by the FAA. 

The TSO was written for a "one size fits all" and if it had been done to account for differing aircraft capabilities we would have a much lower cost of entry.

The biggest issue as I see it is that the FAA now wants to have an aircraft separation system (remember, ATC is for a/c separation)

that now they don't control the "location" aspect, we do by owning the ADS-B out solution, unlike with RADAR that they owned. 

[bonal]

What I don't understand is why the FAA has such a hard on for panel / permanent installed equipment. If my mode C is not working then I would not be able to enter C or B airspace and would not be able to get flight following services. Portable garmins and I pads with flight apps have as much capacity if not more than units I have seen that are installed in systems. Seems simple enough for ATC to verify your out transmission and have a nice day. We could be compliant for under 1 AMU heck my old flip phone can track my position.

It's like they want to update to higher tech but are stuck on an approach that is now 2 or 3 generations ago. As for me I'm holding out for cheaper solutions. When the deadline comes I will get it done at least I won't be pissed that the system I installed in 2015 is now out dated and no longer supported by the manufacturer like my panel mounted Apollo GPS.

[Marauder]

What I don't understand is why the FAA has such a hard on for panel / permanent installed equipment. If my mode C is not working then I would not be able to enter C or B airspace and would not be able to get flight following services. Portable garmins and I pads with flight apps have as much capacity if not more than units I have seen that are installed in systems. Seems simple enough for ATC to verify your out transmission and have a nice day. We could be compliant for under 1 AMU heck my old flip phone can track my position.

It's like they want to update to higher tech but are stuck on an approach that is now 2 or 3 generations ago. As for me I'm holding out for cheaper solutions. When the deadline comes I will get it done at least I won't be pissed that the system I installed in 2015 is now out dated and no longer supported by the manufacturer like my panel mounted Apollo GPS.

The "hard on" comes from the regulatory nature of "government managed" versus the private sector. If I took 10 years to bring a product to market in the private sector, not only would I be out of a job, but my company would be out of business.

I get the assurances of the regulatory requirements from a reliability and accuracy perspective. What I don't understand is why it takes as long as it does.

[bonal]

Yeah that's govt for sure but I have seen "panel" systems like 430's and my little Garmin 296 gives better information ans its old I guess it gets back to the whole "certified " debate oh well still got 5 years to see what develops

[Cruiser]

the FAA has delayed implementation of the Part 23 rewrite by two years (at least) I believe the changes in policy (part 23) would have allowed more companies to certify ADS-B equipment. As it stands now, there are less than 3% commercial/airline compliant. Think about it, there is no benefit for them , they already have TCAS and are always on IFR flight plans. What extra do they get from ADS-B.

 

This is a government "one size fits all" plan that is slowly falling apart. 

 

P.S.

 

In related news....... Amazon has stated that it will take it's drone development out of the US/FAA control by moving it overseas where they can get faster response and better cooperation.

[Piloto]

The UAT utility is limited essentially to piston planes. All turbine planes have TCAS and onboard wx radar and fly above 18,000ft. So the market appeal for UAT products is on piston planes. Also the overwhelming general public fly on turbines not on pistons. I see no UAT benefits for the general public and that must be the reason why other countries are not going for it. As a leader of a country how would you justify to 200M citizens flying on turbine spending a $1B on UAT for 50,000 weekend piston flyers or $20,000 per piston plane. The government and the piston owners would be better off with a $1,000 tax deduction per plane toward the WX/XM equipment and subscription.

 

For Canada there is only 10% of the US taxpayers population to pay for UAT coverage on a territory about the size of the US. For Australia is only 7% of the US population with the same territory. Where are they going to get the money? Probably from US. After all the US gave $100B for the poor abroad and a tax deduction for the poor in the US, way to go. 

 

José 

[OR75]

The UAT utility is limited essentially to piston planes. All turbine planes have TCAS and onboard wx radar and fly above 18,000ft. So the market appeal for UAT products is on piston planes. Also the overwhelming general public fly on turbines not on pistons. I see no UAT benefits for the general public and that must be the reason why other countries are not going for it. As a leader of a country how would you justify to 200M citizens flying on turbine spending a $1B on UAT for 50,000 weekend piston flyers or $20,000 per piston plane. The government and the piston owners would be better off with a $1,000 tax deduction per plane toward the WX/XM equipment and subscription.

 

For Canada there is only 10% of the US taxpayers population to pay for UAT coverage on a territory about the size of the US. For Australia is only 7% of the US population with the same territory. Where are they going to get the money? Probably from US. After all the US gave $100B for the poor abroad and a tax deduction for the poor in the US, way to go. 

 

José

Right on. And you forgot to mention that among those 50,000 piston flyers , the great majority is going VFR and less than 1 hour flight time away . Weather does not change that fast.

[thinwing]

As I understand it, The ES unit will cost no more later (except for ordinary rises in cost) than now. I plan on not installing the ES. If and when I get ready to sell the plane and it becomes an issue, I would make the decision to discount the price, pay the prospective purchaser, or go ahead and install it at the time of the sale.

Don..I am curious as to why you ars not going the 1090 es route.Doesnt your 231 K model routinely fly above 18k.Do you currently have a WAAS gps installed??Or do you plan on selling the 231 prior to 2020??regards kpc

[DonMuncy]

The reason I'm not going the ES route is about $5000 additional cost.

I have never flown my 231 over 18,000 ft. (I have had it 14 years now.) 

I have a 430W. My avionics guru thinks there is a possibility that if he installs something less than ES, he could get in trouble by limiting the ceiling of the plane. But I have talked to several others who do not see that as a problem. I am inclined to believe the latter group.

Since I really doubt I will ever have the need to go over 18K, I would just as soon keep that extra $ in my pocket. If and when I decided to sell, I anticipate the prospective owner might want ES, which I understand. If so, I would spend that $5000 and install it (and pay myself back out of the proceeds), or offer him a $5000 discount.

[mike_elliott]

As I understand it, The ES unit will cost no more later (except for ordinary rises in cost) than now. I plan on not installing the ES. If and when I get ready to sell the plane and it becomes an issue, I would make the decision to discount the price, pay the prospective purchaser, or go ahead and install it at the time of the sale.

I would think the KT74 would be a good option for you Don, at $2700 plus about 4 hrs installation. Now you have your ES and are not limiting your plane to sub flight levels and possibly having to address the deficiency at selling time.

[DonMuncy]

Thanks Mike.

I have read a zillion articles about ADS-B, and find, that for someone of my limited intellect, it is quite confusing.

It appears that the KT 74 will slide into the tray currently occupied by my KT 76C and make me fully compliant with the ADS-B Out mandate.

But it doesn't do anything with ADS-B In. For that I need another box or continue to rely on my Stratus 1 and I-Pad.

Is that all about right?

[47U]

I am sensing just a bit of frustration from some posters with the ADS-B mandate.

My old '63 C isn't worth much. I'm contemplating going the blind WAAS option and not having any glass installed, maybe even waiting until sometime after 2020. It depends on how long the AT50 hangs in there. My question is though, how long will it be after the 2020 deadline passes before the FAA starts shutting down TRACON and center radars? How long before the VOR/DMEs are decommissioned? How long before the ILS is a thing of the past? By the FAA's way of thinking, once everyone who matters (in their mind) is WAAS/glass equipped why would they support anything other than GPS RNAV and WAAS precision / non precision GPS approaches. In my part of the country, NDB stations are already just about all decommissioned. The nearest NDB approach is clear down in Fresno, about 150nm away.

But, the best part is, once you're ADS-B compliant, their datalink knows who you are. All you'll have to do is enter your credit card number on the FAA website and they'll make it absolutely painless for you to pay your user fees. Or am I off on a conspiracy theory?

[Cruiser]

Part of the NexGen plan is to support a network of VORs that will lead to an airport that has an ILS approach. 

 

If the GPS network ever goes down by whatever reason, All the planes in the air will still be able to land.

[ArtVandelay]

Thanks Mike.

I have read a zillion articles about ADS-B, and find, that for someone of my limited intellect, it is quite confusing.

It appears that the KT 74 will slide into the tray currently occupied by my KT 76C and make me fully compliant with the ADS-B Out mandate.

But it doesn't do anything with ADS-B In. For that I need another box or continue to rely on my Stratus 1 and I-Pad.

Is that all about right?

No, if you want ADSB out, you need a new tray, if you want 76C compatibility, then you can use the old tray

[DonMuncy]

So you are saying that if I slid in the KT 74, I would have the same capability as I now have. The KT 74, a new tray and some installation costs and I am ADS-B Out compliant.

Is the rest accurate; that is, I will have no "In", but would still have to use the Stratus and IPad.

[ArtVandelay]

So you are saying that if I slid in the KT 74, I would have the same capability as I now have. The KT 74, a new tray and some installation costs and I am ADS-B Out compliant.

Is the rest accurate; that is, I will have no "In", but would still have to use the Stratus and IPad.

Yes, the install for the KT74 with a new tray was only 4 hrs, so it's not that complicated. The ADSB part is a new cable harness with GPS connections, etc, the other wiring harnesses go untouched