Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:56 AM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Tim Olson)
2. 05:22 AM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Jesse Saint)
3. 06:28 AM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Kelly McMullen)
4. 09:00 AM - G3i Supercharging (Jae Chang)
5. 09:19 AM - GDL-88 (ADS-B) - On Hold?? (Phillip Perry)
6. 11:13 AM - Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Bob Turner)
7. 01:20 PM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Miller John)
8. 01:44 PM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Tim Olson)
9. 02:56 PM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Kelly McMullen)
10. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Jesse Saint)
11. 03:19 PM - Re: NavWorx ADS-B (Bob Turner)
12. 05:46 PM - Re: NavWorx ADS-B (dmaib@me.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps
the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the performance
specs of certified systems...just like so many systems today that we
can use in our panels. It could at least open the door to better prices gear
for us...just like in the cases where the box may be identical but the label
different. After all, it still reports our barometric altimeter and we still
do pitot static tests so there are some numbers the system provides that would
meet the specs identically. And then you primarily have to have a GPS engine
that just demonstrates the same accuracy. It's just a hope. If it doesn't work
then worst case installing ADS-B out is still a $2k-3k add for us. Give or
take a couple hundred. No need to spend money on prof. installations and such.
Tim
Do not archive
> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost
any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750
you're all set.
>
> Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them.
The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul,
there'd be legal trouble.
>
> The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft,
it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals,
no alteration is now minor.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436232#436232
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
Some field approvals are hard to get, but field approvals for panel upgrades are
done all the time. Not all panel mounted avionics are STC'ed. However, as an
installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation versus a field approval.
For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out a 337 form. No approval
needed from anyone. Send in the form & it's done. The STC makes it easier for
the installer as much as for the FAA.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost
any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750
you're all set.
>
> Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them.
The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul,
there'd be legal trouble.
>
> The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft,
it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals,
no alteration is now minor.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436232#436232
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
The FAA has various conflicting advisory circulars. The one for panel
mount GPS states that a simple install, such as a 430W with no
interconnect to an autopilot, or any navcom or other rack mount avionics
install, such as audio panel is a MINOR alteration and requires no more
than a logbook entry. Installing same in experimental amateur built
requires NO approval at all. Filing 337s for minor alterations just gums
up the works with certified aircraft. You have stupidity piled upon
multiple layers, for example where one sunshade manufacturer got an STC
for something that doesn't require one. Now all others are looked at
with suspicion. In fact even the STC'd item can be installed without the
STC, because it is just a minor interior alteration that affects nothing
about the airworthiness of the aircraft.
The current AC about ADS-B in fact contradicts their own regs, in that
the transponder and GPS installs are both minor alterations, and
installing a single RS-232 between the two items does not change that.
The FAA is just requiring the STCs and 337s to gather data to prove the
install is in fact minor.
JMHO as an A&P/IA.
On 12/25/2014 6:19 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> Some field approvals are hard to get, but field approvals for panel upgrades
are done all the time. Not all panel mounted avionics are STC'ed. However, as
an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation versus a field approval.
For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out a 337 form. No approval
needed from anyone. Send in the form & it's done. The STC makes it easier
for the installer as much as for the FAA.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> GRT has a solution: $2.2K Trig transponder controlled by HX or HXr, plus almost
any ADSB-in box. You still need a position source. If you have a 4xxW or 650/750
you're all set.
>>
>> Tim, I agree the gps specs are overkill. But I cannot see the FAA relaxing them.
The manufacturers that already have gps boxes that meet them would cry foul,
there'd be legal trouble.
>>
>> The STC is a non issue, hopefully, for EAB. For normally certified aircraft,
it's the latest battleground. The FAA has practically banned field approvals,
no alteration is now minor.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436232#436232
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | G3i Supercharging |
http://www.g3ignition.com/Supercharging.html
All i wanted from santa was this supercharging kit but instead i got an
ugly sweater. :(
Lately, i was bemoaning that i had never heard of a supercharging or
turbo kit. I just now googled for it, and lo and behold there it is. I
had never heard of this option before. It sure sounds pretty great. In
fact, it sounds too good to be true. It's actually designed for a stock
540, which we all have. I just cant believe i had never heard of this
before. Anybody have it?!
Jae
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | GDL-88 (ADS-B) - On Hold?? |
Merry Christmas Everyone....
All the ADS-B conversation led me to ask a question I've been meaning to
ask....
Does anyone know what the reasoning is for Garmin to put the GDL-88 on an
engineering hold? I've heard they are currently not shipping them and I'm
not sure of their reason.
Anyone know anything? My panel is pre-wired for a GDL-88 to be plugged
in. I called to order on the other day and found out that it was
impossible. Not sure when they plan on lifting the engineering hold or
what caused it.
Just looking for answers if anyone has them....
Phil
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
Tim Olson wrote:
> Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps
the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the
performance specs of certified systems...
> Tim
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
[/quote]
Actually that is true now. You do not have to use TSO'd boxes, you have to use
boxes that meet the TSO specs. Unfortunately some of the specs are so arcane or
complicated that it is virtually impossible for anyone (e.g., an owner) other
than the manufacturer to say with certainty that they meet all of them.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436263#436263
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
As I recall, there is a way for the experimental pilot to certify that the equipment
meets the IFR requirements, like the way you are supposed to certify that
your plane meets the requirements for IFR in the system.
For ADS-B, you could confirm your location and altitude with a controller who is
reading out your ADS-B info on his screen, document that in your logbook, and
meet their requirements (assuming that you are using a WAAS gps).
grumpy
> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>> Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that perhaps
the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the
performance specs of certified systems...
>> Tim
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
> [/quote]
>
> Actually that is true now. You do not have to use TSO'd boxes, you have to use
boxes that meet the TSO specs. Unfortunately some of the specs are so arcane
or complicated that it is virtually impossible for anyone (e.g., an owner) other
than the manufacturer to say with certainty that they meet all of them.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436263#436263
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
There is one tiny stickler of an issue though. The box itself sends as part of
the messages to the system, a code of either a 1 or 0 saying that it's using
a certified GPS source. Without one, you would not be able to transmit that,
and ATC would have the option to treat you differently based on that. Not that
this would make it useless, but just saying that there is that bit of info in
the data that would have to be overcome.
Tim
> On Dec 25, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> As I recall, there is a way for the experimental pilot to certify that the equipment
meets the IFR requirements, like the way you are supposed to certify that
your plane meets the requirements for IFR in the system.
>
> For ADS-B, you could confirm your location and altitude with a controller who
is reading out your ADS-B info on his screen, document that in your logbook,
and meet their requirements (assuming that you are using a WAAS gps).
>
> grumpy
>
>> On Dec 25, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>> Yeah, the only real hope for real changes that I was hoping to see is that
perhaps the experimental side could have non-certified boxes that still meet the
performance specs of certified systems...
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>> [/quote]
>>
>> Actually that is true now. You do not have to use TSO'd boxes, you have to use
boxes that meet the TSO specs. Unfortunately some of the specs are so arcane
or complicated that it is virtually impossible for anyone (e.g., an owner) other
than the manufacturer to say with certainty that they meet all of them.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436263#436263
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
Unless the installer holds Inspection Authorization or Repair Station
license, the 337 must be approved by an IA confirming the install was done
per the STC requirements. But that is only on type certificated aircraft.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
> However, as an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation
> versus a field approval. For an STC I just install per the plans and fill
> out a 337 form. No approval needed from anyone. Send
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
Exactly.
Jesse Saint A&P/IA
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 25, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unless the installer holds Inspection Authorization or Repair Station lice
nse, the 337 must be approved by an IA confirming the install was done per t
he STC requirements. But that is only on type certificated aircraft.
>
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wr
ote:
>>
>> However, as an installer, it is much easier to do an STC installation v
ersus a field approval. For an STC I just install per the plans and fill out
a 337 form. No approval needed from anyone. Send
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
"For ADS-B, you could confirm your location and altitude with a controller who
is reading out your ADS-B info on his screen, document that in your logbook, and
meet their requirements (assuming that you are using a WAAS gps)."
If only it was this easy. One of the requirements on the position source is not
only that it is accurate, but thru some complicated calculation it will nearly
always be accurate, even with weird atmospherics or bad satellites. The "nearly
always" is defined as an error less than once per very large number(I forget
- ten million hours??).
OTOH, if you did use "certified" equipment, this could confirm that it was installed
correctly and working properly. In fact, there is an FAA web site or email
address that you can send an inquiry to, and it will tell you if your ADSB-out
signal agreed with radar and was otherwise all okay. Apparently there are
a number of planes out there right now thinking they're all set, but they are
sending out a non-comp0liance code due to some set up error.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436277#436277
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx ADS-B |
Bob Turner wrote:
> " In fact, there is an FAA web site or email address that you can send an inquiry
to, and it will tell you if your ADSB-out signal agreed with radar and was
otherwise all okay. Apparently there are a number of planes out there right
now thinking they're all set, but they are sending out a non-compliance code due
to some set up error.
This is the email address to have the FAA check your ADS-B "out" integrity.
9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov
Send an email with your tail number and ask for a performance check. They will
send you a report. It took me a few tries to get it working properly. I had the
right equipment, but needed a software update on my 430W and had to change a
couple of settings in the 430W and the 330ES. Gets a perfect report now.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436281#436281
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|