|
Are they or aren't they?
Well, Dick, are you saying the JCP is simply factually incorrect when listing as one of the three key benefits this (page 29):
A long term reduction in the risk of mid air collisions, especially those
involving small VFR GA aircraft, through fitment of traffic displays and using aircraft position data from the ADS-B broadcasts, which will enable aircraft-to-aircraft collision avoidance. AFAIK, what is called "ADS-B broadcasts" above is what the Garmin manual calls "ATC radar transmission". |
Plank, it's very astutely written to mislead!
If you purchase an ADSB "in" display unit you will have these features however no certified unit exists and the cost isn't factored into the subsidy anyway. |
Call me thick, Dick,..
..but with the GTX330 accepting the ADS-B broadcast data and the 400W/500W/430W/530W series accepting traffic input from the GTX330, why wouldn't I get traffic information with such a combo?
:confused: |
The following statement is completely wrong in relation to me wanting an airspace system: Quote:in which Dick Smith and his mates do not have to file a flight plan nor talk to anyone and they can do what they like while QF 747s turn to avoid them With respect Dick, you wanted Class E and your argument has focused on issues of visual separation and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Not once have I read a discussion in which you have addressed the issue of Traffic Management and the impact on the other industry participants. |
Plank, you are not thick
It doesn't work in the way you would like it to because the necessary and expensive design has not been done by Garmin-sorry! |
Dick is mostly right here guys.
You won't get traffic displayed on a G430/530 (W or not) + Mode S via TIS unless AsA transmit the data. TIS is a service provided in the US by the FAA, thus equipment exists to display it, like XM weather. We are also not getting WAAS so there won't be any GPS precision approaches out in the Boonies either. From a GA owners point of view this is looking more like a con job. |
Quokka,Qantas flies through Class E everyday into LAX and JFK without being moved 20 miles of track.
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of these airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed? In Australia we let RPT's and light aircraft get within 500' feet of each other(if your lucky) at places like Hornsby without even a transponder requirement where as in the USA there's a mandatory transponder veil and RPT's and lighties never are allowed by ATC to get within 500' of each other. |
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of thes airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed? |
Dick,
You are one of the first advocates of the amount it costs to run GA in this country...in the US small GAs are better equipped than they are here, it is very different. You advocate your E Airspace, and we know who the first person to cry foul if there is an accident in Class E will be, and of course it will not be the airspace's fault, it will probably be the controllers, who had their powers of positive control removed in this airspace. Didn't you call this Affordable Safety? |
Traffic information
This sheds light on the traffic info display issue:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...compatible.pdf Published by AirServices, Dick :} |
Why don't you arrange to sit beside an approach controller at one of thes airports to see how it's done? Or is your mind closed? Just like that huh? Should be easy to get time for that...what with all the excess staff we have around here. |
Planky, I note that the displays are "expected" to become available.
No date or price is given. Earlier in this thread you had been misled into believing that Garmin could provide the units now at a price that would be covered by the subsidy. Thousands of GA pilots are not as informed as you are now. |
Mjbow2, I instigated the system when I was Chairman of CAA and it was dumped almost immediately after I had finished my term-as were many other of my innitiatives.
Of course I would support it's re-introduction. |
OK....in my opinion this is what should be implimented.
ADSB upper level as is moving ahead. Definite benefits enroute. ADSB Lower level; - original radio sites etc asa per original proposal. - all GA from Ultralights to charter to have a minimum combination ADSB/Mode C transponder (ADSB OUT ONLY). Supplied FOC. - ADSB in is a nice option for RPT or anyone wanting to spend the $$$ to fit it. The benefits of this is ATC have vastly more coverage. Everyone is in the system, allowing IFR to have better traffic seperation / information. All the non transponder fitted a/c then have a transponder, thus providing TCAS alerts for RPT (or anyone fitted with TCAS) & protection that they do not have at so many regional aerodromes. Examples are Hervey Bay or Ballina.....and dozens more! When a B737/A320 cleans up a Piper Cub and 180 people die, these words will make more sense! VFR lighties do not need to gain anything for day to day use, however the benefits when needing help, be it weather, navigation or emergencies will be there and over a greater proportion of the country. And the diverted expenditure on En-Route Radar would allegedly pay for it. And for the negative mided folk, terminal radar will always remain. J |
Mode S
The following link to a good article explaining the various evolutions of mode S (including 1090ES ADS-B) Mode S technology The following is an interesting and pertinent article to this discussion. Note the complexities of that which is proposed in the US. Largely as a result of the mix of technologies they are interfacing such as Mode S RADAR (1090ES) with TIS display equipped aircraft, then retransmission of that traffic data on separate ground based TIS-B via ADS-R to ADS-B (UAT) aircraft. Mixing up TIS and TIS-B.(READBACK)(Letter to the editor) Industry & Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations Publication: IFR Publication Date: 01-APR-07 Delivery: Immediate Online Access Author: Grappel, Robert D. Full Article: "Life After Capstone" in the February 2007 issue of IFR has a few technical errors that need correcting. The article states that Mode S ADS-B transmissions can't contain both latitude and longitude in the same message. In fact, Mode S ADSB transmissions for aircraft in flight contain a full position report (latitude/longitude/altitude) in a singlemessage. A separate Mode S ADS-B message is used for the airborne velocity data. I was one of the engineers who worked on Mode S ADS-B. We worked hard to fit all the required ADS-B functionality into the Mode S broadcast 56-bit data payload! The article implies that Traffic Information System--Broadcast (TIS-B) is only supported via UAT. This is not so. Both Mode S and UAT support the TIS-B application. TIS-B often gets confused with "Traffic Information Service" (TIS). TIS is a part of the Mode S sensor-network of the FAA. It transmits traffic data to aircraft equipped with a Mode S transponder and the right display. (I'm one of the principal designers of TIS.) TIS-B, however, is a bridge for the transition of our airspace to ADS-B. It is not intended to be an equivalent service to TIS or TCAS. For Mode S ADS-B aircraft to see non-ADS-B aircraft, the FAA will build a network of ground transmitters (TIS-B stations) that receive surveillance (probably from existing radars). These TIS-B ground installations detect the non-ADS-B-aircraft, convert the surveillance data to ADS-B format, and transmit the ADS-B data themselves. The fact that the FAA is supporting two ADS-B links (Mode S and UAT) complicates things. A given aircraft will probably only equip with one of the two links. So, how does it find out about aircraft equipped with the alternate link? Again, the FAA must build a network of ground equipment that receives data from each link and re-transmits it (after reformatting) on the other link. This function is termed "ADS-B Rebroadcast" (ADS-R). The FAA's ground stations will combine ADS-B, TIS-B, and Flight Information Service--Broadcast (FIS-B) functionality. Mode S cannot support FIS-B efficiently using only broadcast operations because of its message length limitation (56 bits) for a single broadcast message. Mode S demonstrated "Flight Information Service" operation in the 1990s using a request-reply protocol (I was one of the designers back then). UAT has a longer message packet, so it has been chosen by the FAA to support FIS-B operations independently from ADS-B and TIS-B, which are supported by both links. Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. I read your magazine avidly, and appreciate the effort required to assimilate and describe much highly-technical material. Robert D. Grappel Concord, Mass. Thanks for your clarifications. Our information on the ADS-13 position report came from a government source who either had it wrong or we misunderstood what had to be split. The point is the same, however: The limited data capabilities of Mode-S was a driver in the UAT link decision. We stand by our comments on the problems with a two-link system, though. As you so clearly pointed out, it will require extensive ground infrastructure for everyone to see everyone else. All over the center of this country, commuter airlines are shooting approaches to airports below radar coverage. Unless the FAA intends to put a UAT at every FAR Part 139 airport in the country, there will be lots of gaps where 1090ES airplanes will not see UAT airplanes. Aircraft that fly both high and rural, such as the coming crop of light jets, will have to choose which system to adopt or pony up for both. And if the UAT doesn't relieve the Mode-C requirement, then the whole effort is likely to be derailed. Airbus team tests in-trail surveillance INTRODUCTION: Airframer links with avionics provider ACSS to provide ADS-B system allowing pilots to optimise altitudes and routes ACSS is now developing similar capabilities for Airbus as part of the T3CAS integrated surveillance and safety system that the airframer will certificate for its entire A320, A330 and A340 aircraft models in late 2009. The ADS-B information will be displayed on each pilot's navigation screen. T3CSS includes traffic alert collision avoidance, terrain awareness and a Mode S transponder with ADS-B capabilities. ACSS plans to deliver T3CAS with ADS-B "In" software applications that include in-trail procedures, vertical separation on approach a surface position and traffic awareness programme. Each software application will be activated through Airbus service bulletins, says Salazar. http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-con...ght_EN_LR1.pdf Not sure how much And another http://www.selex-comms.com/en/wp-con...ver_EN_LR1.pdf But then again, Chuck and Richard may well be right to say it’s a con …. So what to do?? - Forget about it, and stick with what we have and buy more MSSR? - WAM Lat, without subsidy and a long timeframe ADS mandate (such as the US)?? - Or go with subsidised 1090ES ADS-B? I could spend some time hypothesizing on the implications of each as far as CTA/OCTA and costs to industry, but then I am 'assured' by Richards protestations that he has all that taken care of! Irrespective of the ‘surveillance’ part of this, the GNSS vice Navaid replacement part (which is not reliant on the ADS bit) should go ahead irrespective IMHO! ‘ASTRA LA VISTA’ ….. no pun intended!! :E |
Mr Smith
I apologise if this seems contradictory but yesterday you told me ADS-B IN is an Airservices con. I googled to check what happened overseas in trials and by fluke found this unit I can purchase in Australia that plugs into a basic computer. Track Mode-S / ADS-B equipped aircraft in real time, for under $1000 (freight free to anywhere in Australia) The difficulty I'm having trying to follow all this is the conflicting advice I am reading often unsupported by any publication or paper. Mr Dog More of these links etc please - for a researcher like myself thses are a more concrete aspect of the debate, thank you. |
Theres still one big problem with ADS-B... What happens when the civy GPS signal is lost ?
|
Binghi et al
Here is some bedtime reading on Space Weather and GPS. It is focused on the scientific atmospheric aspects, but provides some good info on ‘down in the weeds’ specifics on current and future GPS constellations and DGPS systems (terminal area/landing protection) Space Weather :: Free Articles - Space Weather and the Global Positioning System As far as ‘switching off’ GPS goes :rolleyes: GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com Perhaps someone with more ‘tech’ knowledge might be able to explain the link (if there is one) between the GPS III constellation and TSO 145/6 :E |
Thanks for the links scurvy, You probably havnt read my previous posts on 'why' the GPS signal maybe turned off, I tend to remove the posts fairly quikly. They were about UA-Vehicles and the miss-use off.
The Forbes article you quote goes a little vague when it talks of terrorist miss-use of the GPS signal (good reasons I guess) suffice to say that when GPS is eventualy miss-used it will likely be the end of the civy system for a while. Also, probably not a good idea for Oz to spend money on an airnav system when we dont own or control a core component of the system. From the Forbes article - "We are not planning to degrade GPS, and there are no plans to degrade GPS," says Jason Kim, a GPS board spokesman. "The decision to turn off SA was a serious national policy decision. Obviously it could be overruled, but no one is seriously contemplating that right now." And why Oz should not rely on a system that can be switched of at the whim of others.... Forbes again - and re signal loss ... And a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. "Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns. Quotes via - GPS, The War And You - Forbes.com (I have bolded and underlined parts of the article) |
Garmin ADS-B
Here's the answer from Garmin in the states about ADS-B IN:
The GTX 330ES supports ADS-B Out capabilities. In order to support ADS-B In capabilities a 1090 MHz receiver would need to be added to the transponder. This would be a major change and would involve a new product development effort. Garmin has no plans to add a 1090-receive capability to the 330ES. It is possible to add a separate receiver box that would support ADS-B In functions. We do not have a development under way to add the 1090 receive capability at this time. We are closely monitoring the proposed ADS-B mandate in the States and the Lower Airspace Program in Australia, and will make a decision on future ADS-B product offerings when the final decisions are made. The GNS 530 will display traffic and will support ADS-B In display of traffic information. No future modifications should be required of the GNS 530 to support the display of ADS-B traffic. In the unlikely event that mods are required they would involve a field upgradeable software revision. |
Plank Bender
In a commercial world the Garmin approach is not a surprise. I read into it that they are watching what happens here in Australia as a determinant to manufacture of 1090ES ADS-B IN. The reason is surely that if the USA goes to the other ADS-B (UAT) then Garmin will make UAT ADS-B IN a higher priority as the airlines will use far more sophisticated equipment and the 1090ES ADS-B IN market will be small. Flying Binghi I have followed the UAV progress and I believe GPS is useful to UAV but not necessarily necessary to mission completion. On another related technical topic, I find the debate on WAAS of interest, particularly the arguments to use a Japanese satellite. I think the argumant you are putting forward is probably counter to WAAS also. (I think I will soon need a dictionary of aviation acronyms.) |
Binghi
Yes, troublesome ain’t it …. without the rest of the article for context that is := :E There are no export restrictions on civilian GPS technology, so potential U.S. enemies could easily buy the equipment and attempt to use it to their advantage. Still, it makes little sense for the U.S. to revert to the fuzzy civilian signal. Even under dire military emergencies, doing so would give U.S. forces no advantage. Terrorist attacks don't call for much navigation precision. The military has it own highly accurate tamper-proof encrypted signal that civilian equipment can't receive. And a signal change could make an already weak economy worse. "Collectively it could have a substantial effect on industries as diverse as aviation, agriculture and municipal transportation," says Frost & Sullivan's Stearns. And if the U.S. needs to deny GPS use to Iraqi forces, it is understood to have the ability to do so. Glen Gibbons, a GPS analyst who also edits a technical magazine on the technology, says the Air Force can send false GPS-like signals over selected areas that would prompt civilian equipment to show incorrect position data. Says Gibbons of the military: "Their plans involve doing something in the area of operations, but not to the satellites themselves." In order to support ADS-B In capabilities a 1090 MHz receiver would need to be added to the transponder. This would be a major change and would involve a new product development effort. Garmin has no plans to add a 1090-receive capability to the 330ES. It is possible to add a separate receiver box that would support ADS-B In functions. We do not have a development under way to add the 1090 receive capability at this time. OK then, lets look local http://www.microair.com.au/admin/upl...cation01R1.pdf The T2000ACS series transponders include the T2000ACS-S with serial GPS interface and the T2000ACS-A with an ARINC429 GPS interface. All T2000ACS series transponders feature mode 3A/C, mode S, and ADS-B in/out functions. A serial data interface to CDTI equipment and external altitude encoders is also standard. Microair has designed the T2000ACS to be the smallest possible package, and low weight. Installation was designed to be as simple as possible, to allow the T2000ACS to be used in a wide range of aircraft types. From the MICROAIR document also (remembering that their GPS is a separate unit form the ADS-B TXPDR) The T2000GPS is a low cost GPS sensor which is compliant to requirements of TSO C129a. The T2000GPS also features FDE and RAIM functions and outputs the Horizontal Protection Limit (HPL). The T2000GPS currently assumes SA is ON in the calculation of HPL. A planned WAAS upgrade will bring the T2000GPS into compliance with TSO C145a class beta 1 equipment. The upgrade will also configure the GPS to not assume Selective Availability (SA) ON for any navigation or integrity monitoring functions. CLR To recap Richard says If you purchase an ADSB "in" display unit you will have these features however no certified unit exists and the cost isn't factored into the subsidy anyway. Yup .. it’s a con! :rolleyes: |
I have followed the UAV progress and I believe GPS is useful to UAV but not necessarily necessary to mission completion. |
Errr... Scurvy, I was quoteing from an article you referenced.
Looks like we will have to do it your way - Terrorist attacks don't call for much navigation precision. The military has it own highly accurate tamper-proof encrypted signal that civilian equipment can't receive the Air Force can send false GPS-like signals over selected areas that would prompt civilian equipment to show incorrect position data |
Flying Binghi
I believe you summed up the UAV answer in your later reply to Mr Dog. Even the simple ones are fitted with an emergency loiter capability (I believe was used in the Kingaroy trial to stay clear of urgent aircraft traffic but no proof thereof). There is also manual over-ride facility and I believe at West Sale this can be used. In full military regalia I have no doubt the larger units would include INS equivalent and terrain recognition capability to complete mission - as they would expect GPS jamming and spoofing as likely countermeasures already. (As an aside, there were several near misses in the war zone between UAV and combat aircraft near landing sites - they could have used ADS-B IN at the time no doubt) |
The argument to reject ADSB because GPS may be turned off won't stack up in any risk analysis. The risk is low.
At the moment GPS is turned off, all aircraft being separated by ADSB will still be separated. An alternate method will have to be put in place, and procedural separation applied. There will be delays to civilian aircraft in controlled airspace, but the safety factors are minimal. If the signal is downgraded, then the risk is even less. I don't see how industry could reject ADSB because of this risk factor, especially considering the advantages of radar like coverage. |
SDD is the microair unit certified or homebuilt types only?
There is a LOT of great gear produced for the homebuilt market...REALLY good gear...autopilots/EFIS PFDs, etc but none can be installed in my Bonanza as primary because it is not certified. If CASA relaxed the rules for piston private ops (at least) the world would really open up for aircraft owners in terms of what gear they can install. All this good gear is a fraction of the cost of the certified gear, between 10 -25%. Look at the gear Jaba is putting in his RV10, in terms of primary flight instruments and autopilots, and he will be legally allowed to fly IFR. Those of us with certified aircraft are restricted to gear that is no more capable but costs 5-10 times as much. Dynon Avionics - Home CASA are so far behind the curve in this area as to simply beggar belief. Private ops should be private ops and I should not need to pay a 500% premium for gear that is self evidently better and SAFER than what was installed in 1970. I'd bet folding money this situation will not change soon. Are we to be required to match AsA's $ out of our pockets, because the C^*ts Against Safe Aviation are 30 years behind the times, for a system that does no more than my mode C transponder/big end of town's TCAS does now so the thieving Govt (who takes several thousand $/annum GST off me now for aviation activities for precisely zero return) can save more of my tax money to be wasted on sundry bonuses and handouts? FTDK has purchased a handheld TCAD unit recently that provides TA (no RA) just from the signals received from proximate transponders. ADS-B will give him more what, exactly? 'Low level ADS-B' is not going to be that low anyway without a LOT more ground stations so the SAR savings part of the cost/benefit case is a bit of spin too. MSSR around the capital city primary airports (all 8:rolleyes:) is to remain in place..not that we are welcomed there anyway...but transitioning no issue from an ATC management point of view...and if you are prepared to pay the $ you can land at them. There is no remote area IAL advantages conferred by ADS-B...more spin. In fact that is the ONE thing the Govt could do that would REALLY impact air safety immediately...WAAS based LPV approaches...and they are not doing it. The one thing that would VERY likely have broken the chain at Lockhart River and they are not doing it. But we'll get satellite based approaches at YBBN apparently:ugh: CASA/AsA have absolutely no interest in GA. That is a direct result of corporatisation. I very, VERY rarely agree with Dick on any subject but I find myself agreeing with him now...I believe you need to view anything uttered by CASA/AsA through the prism of my penultimate paragraph. |
IFR in an RV10?
Chimbu, how is IFR in a homebuilt/experimental/not fully IFR registered aeroplane legal?
|
Mr Chimbu
I'm confused about FTDK has purchased a handheld TCAD unit recently that provides TA (no RA) just from the signals received from proximate transponders Could you please check and let us know. If it only works in radar cover areas, then ADS-B is a much more efficient mitigator as it would work on direct ADS-B OUT to ADS-B IN anywhere even away from ADS-B ground stations. |
I was surprised too but an RV10 can apparently be flown IFR with non certified Dynon PFDs and certified navcom stuff. His RV10 is going to have Dynon PFDs and factory OHC G340/G530W/GTX330.
We've discussed this stuff at length, he has researched it in depth and unless I have misunderstood him the RV10 will be IFR. On a practical level I have no issue with this at all. What is better/safer, a steam driven A/H, T&B, ASI, ALT, compass, a wrist watch, a vacuum gage and an ADF (absolute minimal legal private IFR) or a Dynon D100, D10a backup, Dynon autopilot (total cost installed less than a certified mechanical slaved HSI) and a Garmin stack? My issue is why it's ok in an RV10 but not in a C172. Edit for James Michael. I don't need to check I fly Boeings with TCAS for a living...TCAS does not rely on ATC radar coverage. |
IFR in an RV10!
This calls for a new thread, I am sure lots of people would be very interested to hear how this is possible -- it could dramatically reduce the cost of flying for private IFR pilots!
|
I've got an Avidyne TAS600 in my spam can - it will pick up transponders outside radar coverage. I have heard that some of the uncertified TAS systems need the radar ping.
An alternate method will have to be put in place Pera, what do you mean by an alternate method ? |
and procedural separation applied |
Mr Chimbu
I apologise, your advice does not clarify for me. I understand TCAS is a very expensive item fitted to big aircraft. My knowledge of PCAD / TCAD is limited but I understood they were cheap unsophisticated items that did not have TCAS capability. I believe most require a radar pulse to work - ATC ground stations and active TCAS systems transmit interrogation pulses on an uplink frequency of 1030 Megahertz. Aircraft transponders reply on a downlink frequency of 1090 Megahertz. PCAS devices detect these transponder responses, then analyze and display conflict information. |
james-Michael ADS-B transmits or squits a sentence stream containing data. Rego, position in space, direction and speed. this information is available to any receiver, be it ground based or airbourne. If the airbourne device has "IN" capabilities then a target will be depicted showing position relative to your target with a velocity vector. This information is accurate and precise to allow the pilot to plot a course fully relative to that target, That is to say if a converging target is identified a pilot has sufficient information to allow a course deviation around the target without the need to climb or descend as is dictated by a TCAS. This facility is available to any equipped aircraft within range of another equipped aircraft regardless if within range of an airservices ground station. TCAS or TCAD will never have accurate azimuth information. That information is a relative bearing, position derived from a timed return pulse and accurate modeC derived altitude.
TCAS was never designed to do this. It is the last line of defence to avoid a collision. ADS-B is. ATC wouldn't like the idea of pilots self separating. Regardless, the information depicted in an ADS-B equipped visual display is every bit as accurate and real time as what is showing to the ATC on the ground. The argument is that dumb as dirt GA pilots would spend to much time inside the cockpit looking at the display rather than performing the primary function of seeing and avoiding. Heaven forbid:eek: |
James
PCAS or the unsophistcated devices that CC refers to are receivers only, so in a non radar environment, will only pick up the transponders around it if they are pinged by another TCAS equipped aircraft. You would be surprised how many pings I receive while flying outside radar coverage. All from TCAS equipment in RPT's in the flight levels. OZ....:D mate nobody in GA needs the ADSB in....even the smart ones! PlankBlender I have reproduced this article which is a plain english version of what is and is not required to be TSO'd for Experimental aircraft. Any experimental for that matter be it a RV10, Lancair or a Boeing! If it is in the Exp category this is what you are allowed to do. Some folk might recognise the author as someone who should know......I believe he worked for the regulator. This might save you starting a whole new thread!:ok: J:ok: IFR Equipment Guidelines Principle. A home built experimental aircraft does not have to meet any specified airworthiness standard. It just has to be safe, but must comply with the VFR or the IFR. IFR requirements mainly affect landing lights, pitot heat, mandatory instruments, power sources, GPS, transponder, comm radios and nav radios. Perspectives To fly IFR the pilot, the plane and the destination need to be appropriately equipped. The pilot has choice of private IFR or command instrument rating, the choice can influence the equipment you choose for your plane (ADF is a requirement to keep a command instrument rating). The airport needs runway lighting, standby power and means to turn lights on, plus a ground based navaid in weather below VFR criteria. ADF is the standard country airport navaid, which is a shame. All these operational matters influence the choice of equipment you may need to fit to your plane. IFR flying is demanding and you will need a failure tolerant design to enable any flight to be completed safely following any system failure. Following the law of physics that says "you get what you pay for" the IFR environment is no place for cheap solutions. They will let you down sometime soon. The SAAA recommends that you generally buy new equipment that conforms to TSO's. We also advise that where testing is required that you seek the services of a qualified aviation electrical, avionic or instrument technician with properly calibrated test equipment. Without properly tested altimeter, transponder and navigation systems your aircraft will represent a hazard to other airspace users and your AP will be obliged to mitigate the public risk by imposing operational restrictions. Regulations. AC 21.4(2) says that an SAAA approved person can issue a special airworthines certificate for operations with any limitations thought prudent. These can be significant limitations for the life of the aircraft such as; not allowed in controlled airspace, congested airspace, built-up areas. Expect your flight test period to be for VFR ops by day only. At the end of a successful test period your AP may assess the aircraft for VFR by day, NVFR or IFR ops according to the equipment fit. After your Special Certificate of Airworthines is issued you may fly IFR if properly equipped. The IFR requirements apply according to the type of operation (private, charter, RPT) and are the same regardless of the category of aircraft certification. Published requirements are listed in the rest of this document. Equipment Standards CAO 108.34 and CAO 108.32 detail the installation and testing standards for IFR equipment. The SAAA recommends that you consider the following: a. Your altimeter/transponder combination is critical to collision avoidance and must be tested, by properly calibrated test equipment, by a competent operator. Accordingly we strongly recommend you consider at TSO compliant altimeter and transponder and get an aviation professional to test it for you. Compulsory instrument and radio Airworthiness Directives are listed towards the end of this document. b. Your GPS must be TSO – compliant. There is no choice in the matter. c. Communication radios and radio navigation systems TSO are advisory, but reduce the risk of inadequate performance. Just about all new radios are TSO compliant and we recommend them to you. Any testing of equipment should by properly calibrated test equipment that is operated by a properly qualified test person. d. Flight instruments (except altimeter – as discussed above) do not have to meet TSO requirements but do have to work to the manufacturers specifications. e. Your equipment must not only work itself, but in combination with all other equipment. Interference/cross talk between equipment should not be evident at any stage of flight. See see references below for test requirements. Engine and Prop. ABAA aircraft had a requirement for a certified engine and prop for IFR. This does not apply to Experimental aircraft. But beware AP limitations that “radical” engines might attract. Two stroke engines and auto conversions might attract VFR limitations such as “no flight over built up areas”, as deemed prudent via a risk analysis buy the AP. Engines specifically designed for aircraft use (Jabiru, Rotax, Lycoming clones) may not attract VFR limitations provided their pedigree is well known, that is, well documented. Experimental engines cannot be later installed in certified aircraft. Compulsory Requirements Lights, see CAR 177, CAR 196, for nav lights and red (maybe white) all round beacon. Instruments CAO 20.18 dictates compulsory instruments, pitot heat, lights, ELT, and GPS installations. The requirements below are for private operations, higher requirements apply for charter and RPT, neither of which apply to home built aircraft. The paragraphs below are a summary of CAO 20.18 only, it is important that you read the CAO itself to pick up on important detail in the CAO that has been omitted here for simplicity. VFR Instruments CAO 20.18 Appdx I ASI Altimeter, with milibar scale. Compass, direct reading, or remote with standby direct reading compass, or alternate power source for the remote unit. Clock or wrist watch. Turn and slip indicator (optional for private VFR by day, required by night). OAT. IFR Instruments CAO 20.18 Appdx IV & V VFR instruments plus: Assigned Altitude indicator (above 15000 an altitude alerting system is required). Pitot heat protection for ASI. Clock indicating down to seconds. VSI AH Heading indicator (DG or equivalent). Turn & slip, or just a slip indicator if a second AH is fitted. A means of indicating the power supply to the gyros is satisfactory (eg. vacuum gauge or voltage warning). Static port, either balanced flush pair or main and alternate. Duplicated or split sources of power for AH, DG, turn and slip. Instrument lights, with an alternate source, plus dimmer. Minimum of one landing light. Map light. Passenger compartment light. External lights iaw CAR 177 & CAR196. Torch for each crew member. Note that none of these instruments need to be an approved item for private IFR. Charter and above do need some approved instruments. Hence builders are largely free to choose the instruments (including efis) that they like, however once installed they are to be maintained to AD/INST/9, amendments 5 and 6. This AD is effectively the accuracy standard for IFR compliant instruments. Note that the accuracy requirement for an IFR altimeter is stringent. Instrument Maintenance Standards. This is a short summary of maintenance standards from AD/INST/9, these are effectively the accuracy standards for IFR instruments: Read the AD for the full picture. IFR maintenance intervals – altimeters, every 2 years. Other instruments, no requirement if you so choose. See AD/INST/9 front page for the choices. Warning: While there is no legal requirement to maintain more than your altimeter, be aware that IFR is demanding and you would be very wise to stick with the manufacturers test and maintenance regimes for the flight instruments you depend on. SAAA sstrongly recomemends that you adopt the standards in AD/INST/9 Amendment 5 (not 6). Below are the requirements for test accuracy. These are most important for your first flight, and for any subsequent inspection you may choose to conduct. Altimeter – See AD/INST/9, test as stated in FAR Part 43 Appendix E. Compass – as stated in CAO 108.6 ASI, VSI, OAT, mandatory engine instruments – as stated in manufacturer published data provided tolerances in CAO 108.56 are met. The AD wording is ambiguous, presumably you test to the makers accuracy or the CAO tolerance if higher, restore performance if deficient. Fuel quantity instruments – test to manufacturers accuracy requirements provided the accuracy lower limits stated in CAO 108.56 is not exceeded. Gyro instruments – if a pilot in command sees no anomalies in flight when maintenance is due then, then only necessary maintenance only is required (implies manufacturer specified maintenance only, probably clean and lubricate). If an anomaly is identified then the item must be returned to the manufacturers specified performance level. See AD/INST/9 All other instruments – a test to ensure that it meets the manufacturers accuracy requirements. Static system – check for deterioration, conduct leak test to manufacturers requirement provided minimum of 1 inch of mercury pressure is applied for 1 minute with altitude loss of less than 101 feet. Pitot system – leak test, apply 1 inch of mercury (= 100kts), no loss of pressure for 10 seconds. Navigation Systems GPS See AIP Gen section 1.5. GPS for IFR use must comply with TSO. A GPS compliant with TSO C129a2 can be used for enroute and terminal area navigation. C129a1 can conduct non-precision approaches. However to take advantage of lower weather minima a VOR or ADF need to be onboard and at the destination. See the AIP for details of operational and weather requirements for destinations and alternate airports with and without ground aids. GPS compliant with the new TSO C146a are WAAS upgradeable and are expected to be approved for sole means of navigation for enroute navigation and also (in future) for precision approaches. CASA staff have confirmed that the US WAAS correction signal does cover Australia, and they will progressively introduce precision GPS approaches in the future. Transponder For entry into controlled airspace, and VFR aircraft transiting Class E airspace, a transponder is required. Transponder and altimeter require a system test every two years. See AD/RAD/43 and also AD/RAD/47. These two AD's are mandatory and should only be completed by a qualified aviation professional who has the necessary calibrated test equipment. Expect your AP to have a strong interest in your transponder/altimeter test results. VOR/ADF/DME CAO 108.34 lays down airborne radio system performance accuracy standards. Most ADF and VOR equipment meet TSOs. Some older equipment does not. If you can identify another aircraft carrying your chosen equipment then a refusal by the AP is unlikely. Even if you install TSO equipment conducting the flight tests in CAO 108.34 is a sensible way to gain confidence in your installation. Communications See CAO 108.34 for radio performance standards. For IFR flights you need sufficient radios to maintain continuous two way communications. Its hard to find a VHF that does not comply with TSOs. Other Australian references; AD/GEN/7 ASI and Altimeters markings AD/GEN/39 Generator warnings. AD/INST/9 Instrument test requirements/ 2 yearly altimeter test, other instruments 3 yearly maintenance. CAAP 35-1 GPS installation guidelines AD/RAD/43/47 USA Regulations CASA rules are closely modelled upon the US FAR. Australian guidance for experimental aircraft are under-developed. A useful technique is to become familiar with the clear US documents, and reverse engineer into the Australian guidance. Useful FAA references, some called up by CASA are: AC 20.27 Special Airworthiness Certificates Order 8130.2, limitations on experimentals FAR part 91.205, esp d. mandatory instruments. AC 90.94 para 3c, GPS and nav systems. FAR Part 23.1303 US IFR instruments. 23.1321 instrument layout 23.1322 ASI systems 23.1325 static pressure systems 23.1326 pitot heat indicator 23.1327 magnetic direction indicator 23.1331 instrument power sources 23.1337 engine instrument system 23.1545 airspeed indicator 23.1547 compass placard 23.1549 powerplant instrument arcs FAR 91.411 Altimeter test procedures FAR 43 Appdx E Altimeter test procedures FAR 43 Appdx D Annual Inspection AC90.89A Flight Testing Handbook TSO References TSO-C91 is for ELT transmitters TSO-C74b is for Transponders (mode a/c) TSO-C112 is for Transponders (mode S) TSO-C10b is for Encoding Altimeters TSO-C88 is for blind encoders TSO-C151 is for Terrain Avoidance equipment The above list was gleaned from a search of FARs 21,23,25 and 91 with most of them comming from FAR91. The only mention of TSO in Part 25 refers to brakes. There is no mention of TSO in Part 23. Other references to TSO documents were found with some simple searches on the 'net. VOR receivers: TSO C40c Localizer receivers: TSO C36e Glideslope receivers: TSO C34e Marker Beacon: TSO C35d GPS: TSO C129a VHF COM: TSO C37d IFR TEST MATRIX Explanations of Requirements.
Compliance Short Test Description External lights CAR 177, 196 Landing, wingtip & tail lights, plus rotating beacon/strobe. Power source warning CAO 20.18 Warning that power source to gyros is operating – vacuum pressure gauge or voltage warning. Internal lights CAO 20.18 Instrument lights, dimable, plus map and pax compartment lights. Heated pitot CAO 20.18 Gets hot. Altimeter CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9, AD/RAD/43, CAO 108.56 As required in FAR Part 43 Appendix E. Test equipment required, best done in conjunction with transponder tests. Compass CAO 20.18, CAO 108.6 Compass swing. ASI, VSI, OAT, mandatory engine instruments CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9, CAO 108.56. As stated in manufacturer published data. Fuel quantity instruments CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9, CAO 108.56 Test to manufacturers accuracy requirements provided tolerances stated in CAO 108.56 are not exceeded. Gyro instruments CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9 If a pilot in command sees no anomalies in flight when maintenance is due then, then necessary maintenance only is required. If an anomaly is identified then the item must be returned to the manufacturers specified performance level. Static system CAO 20.18, AD/INST/9 Simple leak/pressure tests iaw AD/INST/9, amdt 5. Pitot system. CAO 20.18, AN/INST/9 Simple leak/pressure tests iaw AD/INST/9, amdt 5.
Compliance Short Test Description GPS AIP 1.5, TSO C129 or TSO C146 GPS will self test on start-up. VHF Comm AIP 1.5. CAO 108.34 Ground and taxi functional test. ADF AIP 1.5, CAO 108.34, CAO 100.37 Flight test for accuracy. VOR/ILS/Marker AIP 1.5, CAO 108.34 Test equipment required. Transponder/Encoder AIP 1.5, CAO 108.34 AD/RAD/43, AD/RAD/47 Test equipment required, for integrated system tests with altimeter, iaw FAR 43, Appdx E, para b, and FAR 43, Appdx F David A Francis 28Sep06 VH-ZEE |
Mr Jabawocky and Busdiver
Thank you for confirming my limited understandings. It seems then that these portable devices are only of value to the owner where monopulse radar or TCAS monopulse emulation exists. This is still beneficial but really only value in radar airspace or against the big TCAS equiped aircraft, not for other GA or RA Aus aircraft on potential course of collision. To myself I think my read of ADS-B is meritorious in comparison as it works from/to all equipped aircraft (as long as is 1090ES, as I read there is extreme omplication in USA plans for mixed system of 1090ES and UAT). This debate is very informative to researchers. |
ATC wouldn't like the idea of pilots self separating |
my read of ADS-B is meritorious in comparison as it works from/to all equipped aircraft james michael, are you suggesting that all ADS-B equiped aircraft will be able to use the inforemation ? If you are, you are wrong. |
Flying Binghi
Please elucidate for I am uncertain of your question. I have seen photo of ADS-B IN on screen of Airbus. For GA, I believe equipment will quickly be available at reasonable cost. Market drivers will create. But, I doubt it will be value at busy airport as too much information to absorb and fly aircraft and look out window. I comprehend TCAS does not now generally show ADS-B IN. But, in technology, software fix is easier than making new equipment. TCAS equipment uses computer to show transponder information. So, logic says existing data stream can be melded with incoming ADS-B OUT information to gain equivalence on display. If you can plese advise specific, I will try and investigate. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.