ADS-B FOR LSA

[lolachampcar]

Yes, I know they have.  I asked for this documentation so that it might be included in my field approval request.  There was no documentation available.

I'll read though the references you provided.

It is interesting that your quote included-
".... These algorithms should be tested and validated during the installation approval".
This indicates there is an approval process and thus must be referencing Certified aircraft given that we are saying the Experimental aircraft require no approval.




Ok, I glanced though the two links and I have seen both before.  They speak to the steps necessary to deal with 2020 compliant ADSB-Out systems for Certified aircraft.  I was putting together the field approval using information in the first link.  The air/ground information I was looking for was required as the Trig/Dynon approach differs from that of the STC I was basing my installation on.

We have gone full circle.  The FAA has stringent requirements in place to insure ADSB-Out systems are functional as installed.  They do this by controlling the equipment being used in addition to insisting the exact installation performs as designed and intended (through TC, STC or Field Approval based on an existing STC).  This is what I meant by "antenna to antenna" verification/certification/whatever word you want to use to indicate that the FAA accepts what has been done.

Common sense tells me that (1) accuracy of these systems is important for any aircraft employing them be they Certified or Experimental and (2) the FAA will not leave us Experimental types to install equipment without additional constraints even if all elements are TSO'd. Part of me hopes I am wrong as I would love to be left alone to operate my Experimental aircraft but part of me really wants NextGen to work and for all aircraft to have the best possible chance of transmitting useful information.

 

[GalinHdz]

Yes, I know they have.  I asked for this documentation so that it might be included in my field approval request.  There was no documentation available.

I'll read though the references you provided.

It is interesting that your quote included-
".... These algorithms should be tested and validated during the installation approval".
This indicates there is an approval process and thus must be referencing Certified aircraft given that we are saying the Experimental aircraft require no approval.

Don't confuse needing an STC, with the certification of a particular device. Two different animals.

An STC modifies a specific type certificate of an aircraft and has nothing to do with configuration or certification of a particular device. In this case, an STC covers the installation of a particular module in a type certified aircraft and may NOT address how that particular module even performs or how it was certified.

An ADS-B OUT device must be certified if you want to use it after 1 Jan 2020 in any aircraft, certified or EAB. A device can be certified for operation after 1 Jan 2020 yet have no STC for it to be installed in a type certified aircraft. An example of this is the Skyview transponder. It is certified for operation even after 1 Jan 2020 but no STC to install it in a type certified aircraft exists that I know of.

Common sense tells me that (1) accuracy of these systems is important for any aircraft employing them be they Certified or Experimental and (2) the FAA will not leave us Experimental types to install equipment without additional constraints even if all elements are TSO'd.

Page 29 of the second referenced document specifically covers your concern. It sates: "Aircraft with a TSO'd GPS connected directly to a TSO'd ADS-B may set the SDA=2 (sic certified) without further analysis." There is no mention of STC, field approval or any other additional requirement in this situation because, unless your aircraft has a type certificate which must be modified (not applicable to EAB), it doesn't exist anywhere.

https://www.aea.net/Training/courses/ADSBForum/pdf/AEA ADS-B Installation Guidance.pdf

Once your ADS-B installation is complete, have your avionics shop do the normal transponder check, go fly in an area with ADS-B coverage and send a compliance report request to:

9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov 


The FAA will respond with a document indicating how your ADS-B installation is performing, antenna to antenna. It doesn't matter if it is a "certified" or "experimental" aircraft since you are either compliant or not. Case closed.

 

[swatson999]

Common sense tells me that (1) accuracy of these systems is important for any aircraft employing them be they Certified or Experimental and (2) the FAA will not leave us Experimental types to install equipment without additional constraints even if all elements are TSO'd.

And this is the point you keep missing. The FAA *is* leaving Experimentals to install equipment without "additional constraints", as long as the pieces meet the appropriate TSOs (and pass the usual static/XPDR check, plus perhaps verify performance using the report generated on request post-flight).

It's not different than how they treat Experimentals for transponder installations, or for those who want to fly under IFR and shoot approaches...for transponders, you install a TSO'd transponder (or one that meets the TSO...I'll just call that "TSO'd" for brevity from here on), and verify the installation every 24 months in accordance with the FARs. You don't need any other paperwork. Period. For IFR GPS navigators, like a 430W/530W/650/750/what have you, same deal. Buy a TSO'd GPS navigator, install it, verify its performance (there's a post-installation checklist in the installation manual), and you're good to go. No STC, to Field Approval, no additional paperwork, nothing.

ADS-B is *exactly* analogous. Buy a TSO'd XPDR (or, if you have the gumption, design and build your own!), install it, verify it, connect it per the manufacturer's instructions to a TSO'd WAAS-enabled GPS which also meets the appropriate TSOs, verify the installation, and you're done.

How hard is this to understand? Do you WANT the FAA to force you through a bunch of extra, unneeded hoops? They're TELLING YOU that you don't need to do anything more. What do you want, a handwritten letter from the Administrator telling you that a Garmin 430W connected to a SV 261 XPDR is okay?

 

[lolachampcar]

It doesn't matter if it is a "certified" or "experimental" aircraft since you are either compliant or not. Case closed.

Galin,
This would be ideal and I do hope you are correct here. I have spent my business life identifying issues before they become fires and my better judgement tells me it may not be this easy. If it were, the very same standard would apply to Certified aircraft. NextGen does not care about the nature of the aircraft, only that the target can be located accurately. My take from that would be that the FAA has the same interest in the performance of ADSB-Out for Certified and Experimental.

Perhaps this will run the same path as other FAA interventions. The rules are published, an interpretation results in an issue and the FAA clarifies. I think this will all come down to the capability of the FAA's in flight verification capability.

Steve,
As for you, I really do not know what to say. Every now and then you make a valid point but those are overshadowed and ultimately lost by your caustic nature. You could take a lesson from Galin who consistently makes good well reasoned points which demand consideration.

 

[GalinHdz]

If it were, the very same standard would apply to Certified aircraft.

Here is where you are getting confused. You are applying the rules required for Apples to your Oranges. Certified aircraft and EABs follow different equipment installation rules which have nothing to do with equipment performance rules.

Equipment Installation rules:
You cannot change anything on a certified aircraft without modifying the type certificate. An EAB does not require or even have a type certificate so there is nothing to modify. To install ADS-B in a certified aircraft you require an STC which does not apply to EAB.  If you don't require an STC, then you can use TSO'd equipment or jump through the hoops and certify your own. This is specifically addressed in multiple FAA documents. Nothing different or new with this procedure. Completely separate from the installation requirements are the performance requirements. Again, Apples and Oranges.

Equipment Performance rules:
Once the installation issue is resolved the ADS-B equipment, as every other similar device, must perform to a specific standard. This is the same standard for all aircraft. Compliance with the performance standard can be documented with the FAA report from the e-Mail address specifically set up for this. No other hoop needs to be jumped through.

The FAA is under a lot of pressure to get ADS-B fully operational within the time constraints. They do not want to make it harder on themselves by changing procedures or requirements that have been working for decades. Sometimes we as humans tend to overcomplicate things that are actually cut-n-dry. ADS-B for EAB aircraft is one of these things.  It is actually extremely cut-n-dry. Install a Skyview transponder, connect it directly to an approved position source, have the transponder checked by an avionics shop, fly in an area with ADS-B coverage, get your FAA ADS-B report showing you are compliant and enjoy flying.

 

[swatson999]

GalinHdz...he's never going to understand this. How many times have people, including Dynon, told him that?

I admire you for your patience, though.

 

[GalinHdz]

GalinHdz...he's never going to understand this.  How many times have people, including Dynon, told him that?

I admire you for your patience, though.

  :

 

[swatson999]

Steve,
As for you, I really do not know what to say.  Every now and then you make a valid point but those are overshadowed and ultimately lost by your caustic nature.  You could take a lesson from Galin who consistently makes good well reasoned points which demand consideration.

LOL! He's saying *exactly the same thing* that I and others have been saying! You just refuse to listen.

 

[dynonsupport]

DYNON'S UNDERSTANDING

ADS-B is complicated, and magazine articles, blogs, and forums are making it worse by spreading a lot of bad, misleading, and misinterpreted comments. And this is not helped by some articles which don't make the distinction that experimental and LSA are different from Type Certificated aircraft. We work closely with the FAA and we think we understand their intent.

In fact, a current FAA memo no longer states that STC's are required. The oft quoted memo (AIR-100-12-10-10) now states that STC's are not required for installation, only that data be provided to show that each combination of ADS-B equipment and GPS source meet the performance requirements in the FARs.

While technically an aircraft builder could install any combination of equipment, it would be difficult for an individual builder to demonstrate meeting the performance requirements of the FARs. The FAA has reassured us that our solutions will meet their approval, although they will ask us to produce a data pack showing that each Dynon supported certified GPS source works correctly with our certified Transponder. They would then produce documentation that these combinations meet the ADS-B mandate, giving the builder the necessary data to show that their installation is compliant.

If you are curious, these are the FAA memos; the older superseded 2010 edition (which caused some concern), and the newer 2012 edition (which alleviated the concern).

From the AOPA Website:

Obsolete 2010 Memo: http://adsbforgeneralaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Approval-for-ADS-B-Out-Systems.pdf

Current 2012 Memo: download.aopa.org/aircraft/121105faa-ads-b.pdf

-Dynon Support

 

[lolachampcar]

"While technically an aircraft builder could install any combination of equipment, it would be difficult for an individual builder to demonstrate meeting the performance requirements of the FARs. The FAA has reassured us that our solutions will meet their approval, although they will ask us to produce a data pack showing that each Dynon supported certified GPS source works correctly with our certified Transponder. They would then produce documentation that these combinations meet the ADS-B mandate, giving the builder the necessary data to show that their installation is compliant. "

and this is exactly what I asked Dynon and Trig for.  It was not available.  Specifically, I needed documentation supporting-
(1) the Dynon part number of the remote head transponder was sufficiently similar to the Trig retail unit that any differences did not impact ADSB-Out performance,
(2) that the Dynon supplied air data information and communication mechanism for this data meets the FAA's requirement for air/ground determination (as the Trig algorithm has been proven in an existing STC) and
(3) that the integrated system that is Skyview meets the FAA's requirements for displaying relevant system performance data to the pilot (this would also form the basis for any pilot documentation the FAA might require of me).

You guys can say I am crazy and do not listen.  I simply asked for the data to back up the claims and was unable to get it.  Sure, I was working on a certified application and you can blow all this off because I used the C word if you like.  You may also be absolutely on point that the FAA simply will not apply the same strict verification process to Experimental aircraft all of which make this a no problem problem.  Time will tell.

What is clear to me is that I walked the path, asked for the data and could not get anything that resembled supporting documentation for the claims.  I simply can not make it any clearer than that.

For reference, I tried to do exactly what was spelled out in the second memo Dynon pointed to in the post below and was not able to do so for lack of supporting data.

I do hope you guys are all correct.  Until I have something other than a vendor's word, I'm sticking with Skyview and the Dynon puck and am not spending a dime on anything related to 2020 compliance.

 

[swatson999]

Sure, I was working on a certified application ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the SkyView Installation Manual, on page 1, specifically state that it's not to be installed on TC'd aircraft?

You guys can say I am crazy and do not listen.

Nobody said you're crazy.

 

[GalinHdz]

Sure, I was working on a certified application...

And therein lies the problem. You are attempting to tackle the performance hurdle (Step #2) without clearing the installation hurdle (Step #1). You have to get past step #1 before you can do step #2.

The FAA has always been very clear on installation criteria. You can not use experimental installation criteria (apples) on certified aircraft installation (oranges). So if you can't install the equipment (step #1) then you can't verify it's performance (step #2). In your case step #1 requires a TC, ATC or STC. Currently no way around it.

You may also be absolutely on point that the FAA simply will not apply the same strict verification process to Experimental aircraft all of which make this a no problem problem.

Verification = Performance and has absolutely nothing to do with the installation. Step #1 always comes before step #2. Verification/Performance requirements are the same for all aircraft. Installation requirements are different. So again, if you can't install the equipment in your aircraft (step #1) then you can't verify it's performance (step #2).

 

[lolachampcar]

I find it fascinating when relatively intelligent people miss on communication.  Working through it usually results in tuning up my communication skills so, if you do not mind, I'll spend a little more time on the issue.

Dynon says their stuff meets spec.

FAA says you can do an Out installation on C aircraft via field approval if based on an STC.

I try to follow this path using proof of Dynon specific elements (supporting documentation for the very minor issues listed in a post below).

No proof was available.

What you gals and guys need to take away from this is not the C part but the no proof available part because E is relying on the proof part to be 2020 compliant. 

Please take your eyes off the C part and concentrate on the proof part.  The C was the reason I asked for supporting documentation and it is that supporting documentation that we are relying on when we do E installations that are meant to be 2020 compliant.

There was a perfectly logical path that allowed me to use Skyview in a C application but explaining all that here will simply pull people's focus off the issue at hand.  To be clear, I have no issue with not being able to use Skyview in a C application per se so, please, let's not divert the conversation with comments about installing Dynon equipment in C applications. Let's focus on Skyview and 2020 compliance in your and my E applications.

 

[GalinHdz]

FAA says you can do an Out installation on C aircraft via field approval if based on an STC.

Ok, my last post on this issue. There is no STC for the DYNON transponder so what STC are you basing your field approval on? Before you say it is similar to the STC'd TRIG unit, there is no such thing as "similar to an STC unit" for the FAA. Either an STC exists for that particular piece of equipment or it doesn't. In this case it doesn't.

To do what you are trying you will have to use the STC from the TRIG unit not the DYNON unit in your request. But then the TRIG unit has an STC so you don't have to re-invent the wheel by getting a field approval.

Let's focus on Skyview and 2020 compliance in your and my E applications.

Request a compliance report from the FAA and it will answer your concern. I did 2 requests, one with the DYNON GPS puck feeding the transponder and one with my updated GARMIN 430W feeding the transponder. The FAA report with the DYNON GPS puck showed non-compliant while the report with the G430W came back as being 100% 2020 compliant. Try it, you might like it.

I wish you luck on this.

 

 

[swatson999]

See, Galin...you just confused him more...I didn't think that would be possible.

 

[lolachampcar]

Wow, I suggest you not focus your energy on the C part and yet you spend most of your post on the C part.  I'll give up on that; you are now free to think I am spending all this time talking about certified aircraft.

WRT an equipment functionality test that simply checks the completeness of the messages being transmitted, I consider this a pass/fail for the transmitter and the data path to the transponder and nothing more.  It does not speak to the accuracy of the data being transmitted nor the latency in the system.  Put differently, this test would not have spotted the issues with helicopters in the gulf that originally drove the FAA to tighten up requirements.  And before you say the accuracy of the position source is ensured by the source's TSO, those gulf helis were using TSO GPS'.

The above statement is based on my understanding of the FAA's functional test.  If you have specific information regarding the combination of highly accurate radar data being combined with the received ADSB-Out data to confirm the complete system being tested's integrity then please feel free to post it.  I'm not even sure if there is commercial radar with accuracy approaching that required by ADSB-Out position sources.  I would think that, if the functionality test was that robust, there would be no need for anything but that functionality test for ANY ADSB-Out installation.  Come to think of it, I would be surprised if the FAA's functionality test even compared transmitted position to radar position.

I suspect I could write a NEMA message emulator, plug it into your Skyview/Trig transponder and get you those same "pass" results you received with your Garmin GPS

and Steve, your posts continue to be so helpful.

 

[dynonsupport]

There are still a lot of unknowns with ADS-B for sure, and it seems there are a few more with a non-type-certificated aircraft in the mix. I'll do my best to cover Dynon's understanding on these issues.

As has been discussed, the only thing an experimental needs to meet is the FARs, specifically 91.225 and 91.227. We've discussed this with the FAA and they agree.

91.227 is the real issue, and it's the thing the AC-20-165 was written for. 91.227 requires you to meet specific performance requirements. These are not simple requirements- they fall into the integrity of the ADS-B system in the aircraft as a whole, including the position sensor (GPS), the ADS-B out device, and all the software and wiring between them.

The use of a TSO'd GPS and the use of TSO'd ADS-B out does not guarantee compliance.  A TSO'd GPS can send data out in a proprietary, undocumented way (ahem, Garmin, with their ADS-B data format) that is initially reported to meet the requirements of ADS-B and then turns out not to (ADS-B format to ADS-B+ format). When a ADS-B OUT device wants to use this data from this GPS, it must be proven that it interprets it correctly, which has also been gotten wrong before in a TSO'd ADS-B OUT device.

So, the FAA very reasonably wants to know that BOTH devices have been tested TOGETHER, and that TOGETHER they really do meet the requirements of 91.227 in the real world, not just the bits you transmit to say you are compliant. If you want to use two untested devices, that's on your shoulders to prove that it works, and that it meets the 1-in-100,000 flight hour failure requirements. Good luck with that. Just because it passes the FAA's "compliance test" does not mean the installation is acceptable. It means that an acceptable installation is still functioning properly in most cases.

So, in this area, we think Bill (lolachampcar) is generally right in his opinion that experimentals have a higher bar to pass than just installing TSO'd equipment. Of course, Dynon is fully involved in making that as simple as possible for our customers.

What we tried to get across in our last statement was that we ARE going to be doing this, but note that we say ARE, not HAVE. In this case Bill is also correct that we do no CURRENTLY have the data required to prove all of this. So we couldn't give it to him, regardless of which aircraft it was going into. That's very different than having no data or no plan for it, and in those fronts, Dynon is well on the way. Bill, we apologize if we did not make this all clear to you when you requested the data for compliance. We answered your question simply when you asked in the past without giving you the larger picture of our path to compliance.

The reason we don't have compliance data today is simple: we aren't 100% compliant with our current software. As mentioned above, Garmin released the ADS-B data format in their certified navigators (GTN and GNS) and stated it was compliant. We then wrote a parser for this, which is currently in the software. However, there were issues with that ADS-B data format, and so Garmin wrote a new one, called ADS-B+. The Dynon transponder does not currently understand this format, but firmware has been written to do so, and is in the TSO approval stage right now.

Once we have that firmware, we will be able to demonstrate and prove to the FAA that our transponder meets the requirements of 91.227 when connected to specific GPS units. These units will be any Garmin GNS or GTN running firmware that has the ADS-B+ output option, and the Freeflight standalone GPS modules. Technically, the Freeflight modules are fully compliant today, we just haven't submitted any paperwork.

We have discussed with the FAA how we will demonstrate compliance, and they are happy with our method and everyone is 99% confident that we will have zero issues demonstrating compliance. We will then be able to generate a document to our users stating that the SkyView transponder, when connected to a supported GPS, has been proven to meet the requirements of 91.227 when installed per the installation manual. Even better, we expect this documentation will carry the FAA's signature. The FAA is very happy that Dynon will be following this path rather than expecting each of our customers to somehow demonstrate that their install is compliant, so we have been getting nothing but their full support.

To make it clear, the only change we need is a free, in-aircraft firmware update, which is being worked on right now. There are no additional wires to be run or hardware upgrades, assuming you already have one of the certified GPS units in your plane.

We think all of this falls squarely within the promise that Dynon has made which is that the transponder we sell will meet the requirements of 91.225 and 91.227 when connected to specified GPS position sensors. Neither 91.225 nor 91.227 require compliance before Jan 1, 2020, so given that Dynon is right on the edge of having this approval, we think being demonstrably compliant in 2015, 4+ years before the deadline demonstrates or commitment to our customers.

I know there can be some distrust with the FAA as well, but do know that the FAA and Dynon have a very open discussion on ADS-B in non-certified aircraft, and everyone is working hard to implement a solution that is low friction for our customers. Dynon has been invited to and attended ADS-B meetings hosted by the FAA, and we're on a first name basis with the various individuals at the FAA responsible for the ADS-B roll-out. We've even yelled at one another once or twice, so you know this relationship is way past the honeymoon phase We generally get answers to policy questions within hours of asking. So Dynon is not basing any of the above on any kind of blind faith, nor do we have our heads in the sand. We're excited to be the leaders in ADS-B OUT in experimental aircraft, and the FAA is being a great partner in helping us. We're also doing our very best to push back on the FAA when there is a discussion that we think is over-reaching or a bad fit for our customers, and we do believe the FAA listens when we express our opinion.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear, and we're happy to keep having a discussion.

--Ian Jordan
  Dynon Avionics

 

[DonFromTX]

Thanks so much Dynon, for making this more understandable for us.  Somehow in all this discussion, it seems to me that what you are saying that we will have to buy an acceptable GPS receiver, and that you are not going to offer one or upgrade yours?

There are still a lot of unknowns with ADS-B for sure, and it seems there are a few more with a non-type-certificated aircraft in the mix. I'll do my best to cover Dynon's understanding on these issues.

As has been discussed, the only thing an experimental needs to meet is the FARs, specifically 91.225 and 91.227. We've discussed this with the FAA and they agree.

91.227 is the real issue, and it's the thing the AC-20-165 was written for. 91.227 requires you to meet specific performance requirements. These are not simple requirements- they fall into the integrity of the ADS-B system in the aircraft as a whole, including the position sensor (GPS), the ADS-B out device, and all the software and wiring between them.

The use of a TSO'd GPS and the use of TSO'd ADS-B out does not guarantee compliance.  A TSO'd GPS can send data out in a proprietary, undocumented way (ahem, Garmin, with their ADS-B data format) that is initially reported to meet the requirements of ADS-B and then turns out not to (ADS-B format to ADS-B+ format). When a ADS-B OUT device wants to use this data from this GPS, it must be proven that it interprets it correctly, which has also been gotten wrong before in a TSO'd ADS-B OUT device.

So, the FAA very reasonably wants to know that BOTH devices have been tested TOGETHER, and that TOGETHER they really do meet the requirements of 91.227 in the real world, not just the bits you transmit to say you are compliant. If you want to use two untested devices, that's on your shoulders to prove that it works, and that it meets the 1-in-100,000 flight hour failure requirements. Good luck with that. Just because it passes the FAA's "compliance test" does not mean the installation is acceptable. It means that an acceptable installation is still functioning properly in most cases.

So, in this area, we think Bill (lolachampcar) is generally right in his opinion that experimentals have a higher bar to pass than just installing TSO'd equipment. Of course, Dynon is fully involved in making that as simple as possible for our customers.

What we tried to get across in our last statement was that we ARE going to be doing this, but note that we say ARE, not HAVE. In this case Bill is also correct that we do no CURRENTLY have the data required to prove all of this. So we couldn't give it to him, regardless of which aircraft it was going into. That's very different than having no data or no plan for it, and in those fronts, Dynon is well on the way. Bill, we apologize if we did not make this all clear to you when you requested the data for compliance. We answered your question simply when you asked in the past without giving you the larger picture of our path to compliance.

The reason we don't have compliance data today is simple: we aren't 100% compliant with our current software. As mentioned above, Garmin released the ADS-B data format in their certified navigators (GTN and GNS) and stated it was compliant. We then wrote a parser for this, which is currently in the software. However, there were issues with that ADS-B data format, and so Garmin wrote a new one, called ADS-B+. The Dynon transponder does not currently understand this format, but firmware has been written to do so, and is in the TSO approval stage right now.

Once we have that firmware, we will be able to demonstrate and prove to the FAA that our transponder meets the requirements of 91.227 when connected to specific GPS units. These units will be any Garmin GNS or GTN running firmware that has the ADS-B+ output option, and the Freeflight standalone GPS modules. Technically, the Freeflight modules are fully compliant today, we just haven't submitted any paperwork.

We have discussed with the FAA how we will demonstrate compliance, and they are happy with our method and everyone is 99% confident that we will have zero issues demonstrating compliance. We will then be able to generate a document to our users stating that the SkyView transponder, when connected to a supported GPS, has been proven to meet the requirements of 91.227 when installed per the installation manual. Even better, we expect this documentation will carry the FAA's signature. The FAA is very happy that Dynon will be following this path rather than expecting each of our customers to somehow demonstrate that their install is compliant, so we have been getting nothing but their full support.

To make it clear, the only change we need is a free, in-aircraft firmware update, which is being worked on right now. There are no additional wires to be run or hardware upgrades, assuming you already have one of the certified GPS units in your plane.

We think all of this falls squarely within the promise that Dynon has made which is that the transponder we sell will meet the requirements of 91.225 and 91.227 when connected to specified GPS position sensors. Neither 91.225 nor 91.227 require compliance before Jan 1, 2020, so given that Dynon is right on the edge of having this approval, we think being demonstrably compliant in 2015, 4+ years before the deadline demonstrates or commitment to our customers.

I know there can be some distrust with the FAA as well, but do know that the FAA and Dynon have a very open discussion on ADS-B in non-certified aircraft, and everyone is working hard to implement a solution that is low friction for our customers. Dynon has been invited to and attended ADS-B meetings hosted by the FAA, and we're on a first name basis with the various individuals at the FAA responsible for the ADS-B roll-out. We've even yelled at one another once or twice, so you know this relationship is way past the honeymoon phase We generally get answers to policy questions within hours of asking. So Dynon is not basing any of the above on any kind of blind faith, nor do we have our heads in the sand. We're excited to be the leaders in ADS-B OUT in experimental aircraft, and the FAA is being a great partner in helping us. We're also doing our very best to push back on the FAA when there is a discussion that we think is over-reaching or a bad fit for our customers, and we do believe the FAA listens when we express our opinion.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear, and we're happy to keep having a discussion.

--Ian Jordan
  Dynon Avionics

 

[dynonsupport]

Don,
We have never stated that the current SV-GPS-250 will be 2020 compliant. It is not and cannot be. Proving the "reliability" of the position solution is not possible in the way the FAA requires.

Our next step is to make sure we are 100% compliant with GPS modules on the market today, which are the Freeflight modules and the Garmin GPS navigators. This isn't a statement that we are or aren't working on our own compliant GPS. If we do work on our own, we'll need to do this same thing to prove it's compliant, and we'll need to do the same thing if a non-Dynon GPS sensor shows up that we want to support.

The reason supporting the Garmin GPS devices is top of the list right now is that it's what people have. You don't need a compliant GPS until 2020, so it appears most people becoming compliant today are doing so because it's "free" since they have the GPS navigator for IFR flight. If you don't have a compliant GPS in the plane for other reasons, Dynon still suggests you wait a few years, as selection will increase for sure over the next 1,800 days.

 

[lolachampcar]

and this is EXACTLY why I buy, and will continue to buy, Dynon equipment.  It is a first rate company with first rate product produced by first class engineers.

Thank you for a fully definitive and accurate statement of where we stand today.  This is why I will continue to use the Dynon GPS puck as my position source while all the dust settles.  When  Dynon has determined the best TSO'd position source and verified it in an antenna to antenna fashion, I will simply follow their instructions and have the highest confidence that I will be 2020 compliant.

Fair warning..... I will also revisit a field approval for my glider using Skyview and the compliance documentation Dynon generates together with an existing STC as supporting documentation.  The glider is that rare exception of a certified airframe where the equipment list allows for non-certified equipment like Skyview.

Thank You!
Bill