lolachampcar
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2011
- Messages
- 249
Thank you for the information on displaying transponders and ADSB position source errors you provided in this thread-
http://dynonavionics.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1411587613
The response on barometric pressure sensors brings up interesting questions.
The FAA leaves a lot of latitude for the operation of experimental aircraft. They seem to take the approach that you can take yourself out while trying to limit damage on the ground by keeping you away from densely populated areas. When it comes to being a target in the air that needs to be managed, they require the same TSO’d transponder equipment as that installed in certified aircraft.
Reading through AC 20-165A shows the FAA taking a different approach with the performance of ADSB-Out systems. Like today, the transponder needs to be certified. In addition, related equipment needs to either be certified (like the GPS receiver) or meet TSO requirements. Lastly, the system as a whole must be approved either by STC or a field approval based on an existing STC where the equipment configuration has been proven.
All the above begs the question of exactly how the FAA are going to treat experimental aircraft. Are they going to be completely hands off and simply require the transponder and gps be certified or are they going to require that the system installed in experimental aircraft meet the performance standards of that installed in certified aircraft. It would be nice to stick my head in the sand and just assume for convenience that the more lenient position will prevail. That is probably not wise.
This brings me back to the barometric pressure input. You (Dynon) have posted that
“On the altitude encoder portion, the requirements are that a device MEET the requirements of the TSO, not BE TSO'd. We've been doing that for over a decade with our altitude encoders.”.
Being Dynon offers credibility to that response. Being a manufacturer selling the equipment can open the door for the FAA to question your opinion. Having documented in house testing elevates the response to an educated opinion; outside testing makes it independently verified while involving the FAA makes it Approved Data upon which we may all rely.
The above is but one of many questions that should probably be examined before it must be examined. Sure, 2020 is a long way away but I think it would be wise to get clarity on these issues now and not float along under the assumption that hooking a certified WAAS receiver up to the Dynon transponder will make the Skyview system 2020 compliant (although I am hopeful this will indeed fly).
Starting with the Pitot/Static system, does Dynon have any supporting documentation for their opinion? If so, I would like to include it in my request to the local FSDO for a Field Approval.
Thanks,
Bill
http://dynonavionics.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1411587613
The response on barometric pressure sensors brings up interesting questions.
The FAA leaves a lot of latitude for the operation of experimental aircraft. They seem to take the approach that you can take yourself out while trying to limit damage on the ground by keeping you away from densely populated areas. When it comes to being a target in the air that needs to be managed, they require the same TSO’d transponder equipment as that installed in certified aircraft.
Reading through AC 20-165A shows the FAA taking a different approach with the performance of ADSB-Out systems. Like today, the transponder needs to be certified. In addition, related equipment needs to either be certified (like the GPS receiver) or meet TSO requirements. Lastly, the system as a whole must be approved either by STC or a field approval based on an existing STC where the equipment configuration has been proven.
All the above begs the question of exactly how the FAA are going to treat experimental aircraft. Are they going to be completely hands off and simply require the transponder and gps be certified or are they going to require that the system installed in experimental aircraft meet the performance standards of that installed in certified aircraft. It would be nice to stick my head in the sand and just assume for convenience that the more lenient position will prevail. That is probably not wise.
This brings me back to the barometric pressure input. You (Dynon) have posted that
“On the altitude encoder portion, the requirements are that a device MEET the requirements of the TSO, not BE TSO'd. We've been doing that for over a decade with our altitude encoders.”.
Being Dynon offers credibility to that response. Being a manufacturer selling the equipment can open the door for the FAA to question your opinion. Having documented in house testing elevates the response to an educated opinion; outside testing makes it independently verified while involving the FAA makes it Approved Data upon which we may all rely.
The above is but one of many questions that should probably be examined before it must be examined. Sure, 2020 is a long way away but I think it would be wise to get clarity on these issues now and not float along under the assumption that hooking a certified WAAS receiver up to the Dynon transponder will make the Skyview system 2020 compliant (although I am hopeful this will indeed fly).
Starting with the Pitot/Static system, does Dynon have any supporting documentation for their opinion? If so, I would like to include it in my request to the local FSDO for a Field Approval.
Thanks,
Bill