ADS-B Out flight check failed

[dynonsupport]

The report you receive from the FAA is whether or not you are compliant with 91.227 (what will be required as of 2020). With an SV-GPS-250, you aren't... and cannot be... compliant with 91.227 as the SV-GPS-250 is not a high integrity GPS, as required by 91.227.

See your SkyView system - SETUP MENU > TRANSPONDER SETUP > USA 91.227 COMPLIANT will say NO.

What we did for the SV-GPS-250 in v14.0.x.xxx and later is to improve the transmitted SIL/SDA to 1 (was 0). SIL/SDA=1 is the minimum required as of January, 2016 for the FAA to send your system traffic data from the ADS-B system. That change had nothing to do with the requirements of 91.227 that will be in effect as of 2020-01-01.

I failed my FAA flight test of my ADSB and GPS software yesterday.  I had recently up dated my SkyView software to the 14.0.1 software and changed the SV-GPS-250 software to transmit SDA/SDL=1.
The error message that I got from the FAA is significantly different than the others posted. See attached.

 

[RVDan]

Dynon, has this issue been resolved with the latest SW changes?

 

[dynonsupport]

Which issue, specifically, are you referring to?

Dynon, has this issue been resolved with the latest SW changes?

 

[Dynon]

The 14.1 update that went live today doesn't address this. We're still looking into the issue that is causing some of you to experience some metrics (NIC and NACp) being flagged on your FAA reports (I think this is the issue you're asking about? This is a long thread). We'll have a further software update in the coing weeks that may also contain a transponder update to fix that issue.

 

[CRW]

I have Sky View Classic, one 10" and one 7", SV261 transponder and GPS 2020.  I have made 2 attempts to pass the ADS-B performance requirements.  Both attempts have failed because of NIC.
Last results today, %Fail  0.47%
                         MAX dt   00:00:13
                         MCF        13
I have the latest software in the Sky Views and I believe the latest software in the SV 261.  SW 2.11.
I have attempted to understand what this means but that is not clear to me.
What I really want/need to know is how to resolve this issue.  I have monitored the GPS status while the test was being performed and the signal was, based upon my observation, always 3D diff.
I am located in a sparse coverage area in NE Tennessee so today I flew near the class C airspace at Knoxville.
The first attempt and second were similar in failure.
I am not sure if this failure is due to the receiving station not getting the information or of the transmitted data is suspect.
Any suggestions?

Best regards,
Chuck

 

[GalinHdz]

Try flying ABOVE the Class "C" airspace, always staying within the lateral boundaries of the airspace, for more than 30 minutes then check the report. If your SkyView system (including transponder) has the latest software updates and is configured correctly you should get a good report. Sometimes just flying "near" a particular airspace is not good enough for the FAA to get good data during your flight.

 

[kellym]

I have Sky View Classic, one 10" and one 7", SV261 transponder and GPS 2020.  I have made 2 attempts to pass the ADS-B performance requirements.  Both attempts have failed because of NIC.
Last results today, %Fail  0.47%
                         MAX dt   00:00:13
                         MCF        13
I have the latest software in the Sky Views and I believe the latest software in the SV 261.  SW 2.11.
I have attempted to understand what this means but that is not clear to me.
What I really want/need to know is how to resolve this issue.  I have monitored the GPS status while the test was being performed and the signal was, based upon my observation, always 3D diff.
I am located in a sparse coverage area in NE Tennessee so today I flew near the class C airspace at Knoxville.
The first attempt and second were similar in failure.
I am not sure if this failure is due to the receiving station not getting the information or of the transmitted data is suspect.
Any suggestions?

Best regards,
Chuck

Did you originally have the GPS2020 or the GPS250? Have you updated the serial port selection to GPS2020?
Is the transponder configured correctly for your aircraft size, speed, etc?
I recall one friend installing GPS2020 as an upgrade, but not changing from GPS 250 to 2020 on the serial port. The GPS worked fine, but because of the wrong selection it was still outputing SIL 1 rather than the proper SIL 3. Once that was corrected, all was fine. Can't comment about the airspace as I am based under Class B shelf.
Kelly

 

[CRW]

Thanks for the replies.  I have only had the GPS2020.  Never had the 250.
I believe that the transponder is configured correctly.
The GPS2020 populates most of the information on the SV.
The only parameter that it did not pass was the NIC.  Everything else is OK. with the exception of the NACv which is yellow.  While I have read the FAA PAPR Users Guide, which is very informative, I am not sure what the cure is for this issue.  Maybe I just need to fly in class C airspace for 30 minutes.
On the last test the NACv is showing in yellow.  It should have a value of 2, according to the PAPR Users Guide, and I am seeing a 3 and 4.  The PAPR Users Guide says that this is an equipment setting but I don't see a parameter for setting NACv value on the SV.
I will be contacting Dynon on Monday to see if they can help me with this issue.  I am hoping that it is not some parameter that I am not setting correctly and that it is an easy fix. Of course, both of those could be true. We will see.

Looks like the NACv is a known(by Dynon) issue.

Best regards,
Chuck

 

[CRW]

This is a follow up to my post and may provide some help for someone who is having a similar problem.
The good news is that I am now ADS-B compliant.  I believe that the main issue is that I live in an area where radar contact is sparse.  I was under the impression that I could fly within class C air space and would have good coverage.  When I flew within class C airspace I was flying below 3500 feet and apparently, based upon the FAA data, this altitude did not have adequate coverage.  Since I have limited knowledge on how this whole system works I was not able to determine exactly what my problem was, although now it seems that all of my problems were altitude related.
Steve Miller at Dynon was very helpful and very patient and was instrumental in helping me solve the problem.
The FAA was very good at providing flight data quickly.
Steve reviewed the flight data.  He had me sit in the airplane and check all of the equipment parameters while I was on the phone with him.  There did not appear to be any problem with the equipment or setup.
Steve recommended that I fly in a different area.  So, on the next flight I climbed as quickly as possible to 11500 feet.  I then performed the required maneuvers between 10500 and 11500 feet according to the direction of flight.  This flight was 1 hour and 22 minutes and the data was excellent.

This was a little frustrating for me because I was not able to determine where the problem was.  I now know a lot more than I would like to know about the ADS-B system.

 

[kellym]

This is a follow up to my post and may provide some help for someone who is having a similar problem.
The good news is that I am now ADS-B compliant.  I believe that the main issue is that I live in an area where radar contact is sparse.  I was under the impression that I could fly within class C air space and would have good coverage.  When I flew within class C airspace I was flying below 3500 feet and apparently, based upon the FAA data, this altitude did not have adequate coverage.  Since I have limited knowledge on how this whole system works I was not able to determine exactly what my problem was, although now it seems that all of my problems were altitude related.
Steve Miller at Dynon was very helpful and very patient and was instrumental in helping me solve the problem.
The FAA was very good at providing flight data quickly.
Steve reviewed the flight data.  He had me sit in the airplane and check all of the equipment parameters while I was on the phone with him.  There did not appear to be any problem with the equipment or setup.
Steve recommended that I fly in a different area.  So, on the next flight I climbed as quickly as possible to 11500 feet.  I then performed the required maneuvers between 10500 and 11500 feet according to the direction of flight.  This flight was 1 hour and 22 minutes and the data was excellent.

This was a little frustrating for me because I was not able to determine where the problem was.  I now know a lot more than I would like to know about the ADS-B system.

Most Class C only go up to around 4000 AGL, so you should not have to go to much more than 6 or 7 thousand to be above the Class C. Or just talk to the ATC facility that has the Class C and get approval to fly somewhere inside the C airspace that isn't in their way.

 

[CRW]

What you say is correct. However, the flight has to be in “Rule” airspace and the FAA is specific with regard to the definition of “Rule” airspace.

 

[kellym]

What you say is correct. However, the flight has to be in “Rule” airspace and the FAA is specific with regard to the definition of “Rule” airspace.

Not sure what you are referring to. Above and below and in Class C is all rule airspace. Everywhere Mode C is required today is "rule airspace". Yes, if no Class B or C is convenient, then you probably need to go up above 10,000 ft in Class E.

 

[GalinHdz]

Here is a depiction of "rule" airspace.

As you can see, below Class "B" is "Rule Airspace" but below Class "C" is not. However, above both Class "B" and "C" is "Rule Airspace". Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.