Low cost ADS-B for VFR
Thread Starter
Looks like this baby has just been approved or will be from the 16th.
https://www.uavionix.com.au/skyecho2/
Great news !
https://www.uavionix.com.au/skyecho2/
Great news !
So, despite Dynon (and Garmin, IIRC) publishing statements of compliance for their GNSS position sources (SV-GPS-2020/GPS-20A) in their installation manuals that state they comply with the standards set by the TSO's & CFR's if not the TSO's themselves, now they need to produce a stand-alone and Australian-specific statement that they also comply with CAO20.18? Have I read that right? Why couldn't CAsA just say "If you have a Dynon SV-GPS-2020 or Garmin GPS-20A you can now use it for your ADS-B position source! Congratulations."
Originally Posted by Dynon's Compliance Statement
Use of Dynon Avionics SV-GPS-2020 as a GPS Position Source for US ADS-B Out
A SkyView system equipped with an SV-GPS-2020 as a position source and an SV-XPNDR261 as the ADS-B transmitter meets the minimum performance requirements in 14 CFR 91.227 for operation in the airspaces as defined by 14 CFR 91.225 when installed and configured per the instructions in this document
A SkyView system equipped with an SV-GPS-2020 as a position source and an SV-XPNDR261 as the ADS-B transmitter meets the minimum performance requirements in 14 CFR 91.227 for operation in the airspaces as defined by 14 CFR 91.225 when installed and configured per the instructions in this document
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm waiting for this ADS-B unit to be approved.
It replaces the tail beacon, has an inbuilt GPS and altitude encoder Apparently it's a very minimal install that uses the old transponder and adds ADS-B support.
https://uavionix.com/products/tailbeacon/
It replaces the tail beacon, has an inbuilt GPS and altitude encoder Apparently it's a very minimal install that uses the old transponder and adds ADS-B support.
https://uavionix.com/products/tailbeacon/
Not convinced. As far as I can see, adsb out is just an automatic infringement reporter and a way of providing 24/7 surveillance by the regulator as another tool to harass pilots. Safety purposes are just a smokescreen.. Ask the poor blokes at Mangalore.
Remember “random” breath testing? There is nothing random about it now. Now we have speed cameras, red light cameras, fixed distance cameras, fixed number plate scanners and mobile number plate scanners. All being put to use “for our own good”.
It is inconceivable that ADS_B out will NOT be used for surveillance of the GA and recreational aviation community. The software task of producing a tool that automatically logs all breaches of controlled airspace for example is trivial, although loading the data masks would take time as would linking to names of operators and ATC flight plans.
Then there is the real “big brother” application - feeding the ADS-B stream to an AI.
Remember “random” breath testing? There is nothing random about it now. Now we have speed cameras, red light cameras, fixed distance cameras, fixed number plate scanners and mobile number plate scanners. All being put to use “for our own good”.
It is inconceivable that ADS_B out will NOT be used for surveillance of the GA and recreational aviation community. The software task of producing a tool that automatically logs all breaches of controlled airspace for example is trivial, although loading the data masks would take time as would linking to names of operators and ATC flight plans.
Then there is the real “big brother” application - feeding the ADS-B stream to an AI.
Last edited by Sunfish; 8th Jul 2020 at 19:43.
Furthermore, once such equipment is fitted, it is a legal requirement that it is operating at all times.
‘’This is called a “ratchet” provision. Once fitted and operational, your stuck with it.
It is also unclear how this provision applies to a portable unit.
Stick it.
‘’This is called a “ratchet” provision. Once fitted and operational, your stuck with it.
It is also unclear how this provision applies to a portable unit.
Stick it.
9B.5 If an aircraft in flight carries serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment, the equipment must be operated:
(a) for equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration set out in Appendix XI — continuously during the flight in all airspace and at all altitudes, unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC; and
(b) for equipment that complies with the approved equipment configuration set out in Appendix XII, XIII, or XIV — continuously during the flight, within the airspace and within the altitude limits specified for the flight in the applicable Appendix, unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC.
(a) for equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration set out in Appendix XI — continuously during the flight in all airspace and at all altitudes, unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC; and
(b) for equipment that complies with the approved equipment configuration set out in Appendix XII, XIII, or XIV — continuously during the flight, within the airspace and within the altitude limits specified for the flight in the applicable Appendix, unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC.
Last edited by Sunfish; 8th Jul 2020 at 19:54.
KRviator is correct, there is nothing I can see in the amendments that authorises Dynon or Garmin gear even though they are approved by the FAA. This is stupid when you consider that TABS and EC’S are covered by NAA authorisations. Good luck with getting letters from CASA.
However I note that the standard old Dynon gps250 is rated as a SIL = 1 . This is the same as an integrated TABS device under the amendment. Does this mean that the standard Dynon installation is compliant? I hope not.
This will AGAIN distort the market.
However I note that the standard old Dynon gps250 is rated as a SIL = 1 . This is the same as an integrated TABS device under the amendment. Does this mean that the standard Dynon installation is compliant? I hope not.
This will AGAIN distort the market.
Thread Starter
Nowhere in the rules is there a requirement for extra statement of compliance for the Dynon equipment. For that equipment, it's enough for the manufacturer to state as such in the installation/operating manual. See clause 9B.12 of CAO 20.18 amendment instrument 2020.
Are you able to post a link to the legislative instrument to which you refer, Vag?
Oh Sunfish and to think you would have probably said the same thing about mode C when it came out.
Ships, yachts and other vessels have AIS, you should know this. It’s for situational awareness and had both the Mangalore aircraft had the equivalent technology, they may have had a chance.
if you are into conspiracy theories maybe you’ll note the release of this document not long after the Mangalore tragedy...
Perhaps name us all ONE instance where a pilot has been automatically pinged for a CTA breach via their Mode-S?
Ships, yachts and other vessels have AIS, you should know this. It’s for situational awareness and had both the Mangalore aircraft had the equivalent technology, they may have had a chance.
if you are into conspiracy theories maybe you’ll note the release of this document not long after the Mangalore tragedy...
Perhaps name us all ONE instance where a pilot has been automatically pinged for a CTA breach via their Mode-S?
Vag, thank you for your reply. Dynon’ s 2020 GPS is tso 166b, Casa wants tso 199 (xii, B3 (a). Dynon states their Adsb setup meets the FAA mandate not the tso's but CASA doesn’t talk about transponders and GNSS meeting mandates, only for TABS and EC’S. Xii, xiii and xiv.
‘’What is needed is a statement regarding “gnss devices” similar to the ones for TABS and ECs:
a) provides the pilot, other aircraft and ATC with the same transponder and surveillance capability as would be provided if a gnss device were expressly authorised by the relevant NAA; for example FAA CFR 91.225 and
(b) the pilot has a statement of compliance (or however described) from the equipment manufacturer certifying that the equipment is so authorised as an adsb solution.’
‘’There is nothing I can see that directly states that a dynon system can be approved. So people will go off and blithely assume they are OK, only to get caught and prosecuted as criminals when some FOI decides to arc up.
For the avoidance of doubt, you still need a GNSS navigator costing $$$$ if you wish to make your garmin, Mgl or Dynon gear compliant. Furthermore if you are going to use a TABS, your transponder is now just wasted money even if it is compliant.
Again
‘’What is needed is a statement regarding “gnss devices” similar to the ones for TABS and ECs:
a) provides the pilot, other aircraft and ATC with the same transponder and surveillance capability as would be provided if a gnss device were expressly authorised by the relevant NAA; for example FAA CFR 91.225 and
(b) the pilot has a statement of compliance (or however described) from the equipment manufacturer certifying that the equipment is so authorised as an adsb solution.’
‘’There is nothing I can see that directly states that a dynon system can be approved. So people will go off and blithely assume they are OK, only to get caught and prosecuted as criminals when some FOI decides to arc up.
For the avoidance of doubt, you still need a GNSS navigator costing $$$$ if you wish to make your garmin, Mgl or Dynon gear compliant. Furthermore if you are going to use a TABS, your transponder is now just wasted money even if it is compliant.
Again
Last edited by Sunfish; 8th Jul 2020 at 23:12.
If you look at the AC for these new devices, you get:
If you go further down, to the experiemtanl section, you get:
Those last two bits are what annoys me - every manufacturer needs to include an Australian-specific clause that says their equipment complies with CAO20.18...
If you have a look at CAO20.18, if a GNSS position source was manufactured to comply with (E)TSO-C196 it is suitable. This is NOT the same as saying "certified" to TSO-C196. IF the Dynon SV-GPS-2020 or Garmin GPS-20A is manufacturerd to comply with TSO-C196 you can use it. But...From what I can see, Dynon have published that their GPS meets the standards of the US FAR91.227 and TSO-166, not 196 unfortunately, even though I suspect the performance requirements would be identical...
Of course, you could always use the permission contained within CASR 21.470....
Originally Posted by AC 91-23
EC device - declaration of capability and conformance or statement of compliance
For ADS-B transmissions to be trustworthy, it is necessary to have some assurance of adequate performance. The rules state that an EC device cannot be operated in transmitting mode in Australia unless:
− The manufacturer has made a valid declaration of capability and conformance for the device in accordance CAO 20.18.
o CASA lists on its website some EC devices whose manufacturers are considered to have made valid declarations of capability and conformance.
o The CASA website10 also details the procedures for making a declaration of capability and conformance.
− The manufacturer has provided the user a statement of compliance certifying that the device meets the requirements of CAO 20.18
− The pilot in command of an aircraft that uses an EC device carries the statement or a copy of it on board the aircraft.
For ADS-B transmissions to be trustworthy, it is necessary to have some assurance of adequate performance. The rules state that an EC device cannot be operated in transmitting mode in Australia unless:
− The manufacturer has made a valid declaration of capability and conformance for the device in accordance CAO 20.18.
o CASA lists on its website some EC devices whose manufacturers are considered to have made valid declarations of capability and conformance.
o The CASA website10 also details the procedures for making a declaration of capability and conformance.
− The manufacturer has provided the user a statement of compliance certifying that the device meets the requirements of CAO 20.18
− The pilot in command of an aircraft that uses an EC device carries the statement or a copy of it on board the aircraft.
Originally Posted by AC 91-23
For uncertified equipment, CAO 20.18 requires the owner to obtain a statement of compliance from the supplier that identifies that the ADS-B equipment complies with the applicable TSO and complies with the aircraft requirements of CAO 20.18. CASA recommends installers follow best practice guidelines when performing installations, such as provided in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-165B or a later version as in force from time to time.
Originally Posted by Sunfish
KRviator is correct, there is nothing I can see in the amendments that authorises Dynon or Garmin gear even though they are approved by the FAA. This is stupid when you consider that TABS and EC’S are covered by NAA authorisations. Good luck with getting letters from CASA.
However I note that the standard old Dynon gps250 is rated as a SIL = 1 . This is the same as an integrated TABS device under the amendment. Does this mean that the standard Dynon installation is compliant? I hope not.
This will AGAIN distort the market.
However I note that the standard old Dynon gps250 is rated as a SIL = 1 . This is the same as an integrated TABS device under the amendment. Does this mean that the standard Dynon installation is compliant? I hope not.
This will AGAIN distort the market.
Of course, you could always use the permission contained within CASR 21.470....
Originally Posted by CASR 21.470
21.470 Foreign modification/repair designs
A design for a modification of, or repair to, an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or appliance is taken to have been approved for the purpose of these Regulations if the design is:
(a) approved by the national aviation authority of a recognised country; or
(b) for a design of a modification or repair that relates to an aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller designed in a recognised country—published or issued by the foreign type certificate holder of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller under a system approved by the national aviation authority of that country; or
(c) for a design of a modification or repair that relates to an appliance designed in a recognised country—published or issued by the manufacturer of the appliance under a system approved by the national aviation authority of that country; or
(d) accepted by CASA under an agreement (however described) regarding approvals of designs for modifications and repairs between:
(i) CASA and the national aviation authority of a Contracting State; or
(ii) Australia and a Contracting State.
A design for a modification of, or repair to, an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or appliance is taken to have been approved for the purpose of these Regulations if the design is:
(a) approved by the national aviation authority of a recognised country; or
(b) for a design of a modification or repair that relates to an aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller designed in a recognised country—published or issued by the foreign type certificate holder of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller under a system approved by the national aviation authority of that country; or
(c) for a design of a modification or repair that relates to an appliance designed in a recognised country—published or issued by the manufacturer of the appliance under a system approved by the national aviation authority of that country; or
(d) accepted by CASA under an agreement (however described) regarding approvals of designs for modifications and repairs between:
(i) CASA and the national aviation authority of a Contracting State; or
(ii) Australia and a Contracting State.
The onus is on the manufacturer to state that their product complies with the requirement for TSO, period. This does not mean that it will be tested for TSO compliance.
Sounds familiar? To be compliant with the LSA requirements, a manufacturer must state their compliance.... until such time that something goes wrong or they are audited, then it's ops normal.
If in the event that CASA were to find that the non-TSO'ed ADSB devices were emitting incorrect / inaccurate information, that device will be black-listed until information is provided to prove compliance and the necessary modifications have been made. This happened last year in the USA when the FAA black-listed one of those nav-light beacon ADSB style devices mentioned above by Peterc007.
Sounds familiar? To be compliant with the LSA requirements, a manufacturer must state their compliance.... until such time that something goes wrong or they are audited, then it's ops normal.
If in the event that CASA were to find that the non-TSO'ed ADSB devices were emitting incorrect / inaccurate information, that device will be black-listed until information is provided to prove compliance and the necessary modifications have been made. This happened last year in the USA when the FAA black-listed one of those nav-light beacon ADSB style devices mentioned above by Peterc007.
So we are in agreement? TABS and EC’s are OK but neither Garmin, Dynon, MGL, etc. have an ADSB solution that does not involve an expensive GNSS navigator. What a waste of time. appendix XII, part B (3) kills the whole purpose of the project stone dead. This is despite at least Dynon having their solution accepted by the FAA, but what would they know?
Last edited by Sunfish; 9th Jul 2020 at 02:21.
So we are in agreement? TABS and EC’s are OK but neither Garmin, Dynon, MGL, etc. have an ADSB solution that does not involve an expensive GNSS navigator. What a waste of time. appendix XII, part B (3) kills the whole purpose of the project stone dead. This is despite at least Dynon having their solution accepted by the FAA, but what would they know?
Sunfish, your comments are just Inflammatory paranoia.
Firstly, your mobile phone contains lots more information, including positional info, than ADS-B along with better coverage across the country. You’re obviously not using one of these? Secondly, Why do they want to track the GA and RA community? Are you that important or is it to make sure the government destroy both GA and RA? Ridiculous.
Why not look at the positives and recognise the safety benefits that these types of technologies provide and actuality enable access to the airspace we all seek. Alerted see and avoid is a fail given many pilots operating in uncontrolled airspace either don’t use their radio or they use it incorrectly. Finally. ADS-B is an enabler for autonomous separation for RPAS and no doubt aircraft of the future which will enable growth in that industry and assure a much safer environment to us all.
Firstly, your mobile phone contains lots more information, including positional info, than ADS-B along with better coverage across the country. You’re obviously not using one of these? Secondly, Why do they want to track the GA and RA community? Are you that important or is it to make sure the government destroy both GA and RA? Ridiculous.
Why not look at the positives and recognise the safety benefits that these types of technologies provide and actuality enable access to the airspace we all seek. Alerted see and avoid is a fail given many pilots operating in uncontrolled airspace either don’t use their radio or they use it incorrectly. Finally. ADS-B is an enabler for autonomous separation for RPAS and no doubt aircraft of the future which will enable growth in that industry and assure a much safer environment to us all.
A great collection of buzzwords, Flying_higher!
According to CASA, it’s OK for RPT jets to mix it in G with aircraft that don’t have ADS-B. So if that’s ‘safe’, who’d waste their money on ADSB.
And it would be really (really) helpful if some of the CASA apologists could answer all of the questions asked in this thread. FFS, either an existing piece of off-the-shelf avionics is either OK or it isn’t so far as CASA is concerned, without yet another approval.
According to CASA, it’s OK for RPT jets to mix it in G with aircraft that don’t have ADS-B. So if that’s ‘safe’, who’d waste their money on ADSB.
And it would be really (really) helpful if some of the CASA apologists could answer all of the questions asked in this thread. FFS, either an existing piece of off-the-shelf avionics is either OK or it isn’t so far as CASA is concerned, without yet another approval.
Hang on, did I mention CASA anywhere? Just re-read what I wrote and I can’t see that. Appreciate if you can show me how this was making me a CASA apologist. And I was unaware safety was a buzz word.
I’m more than comfortable with the shackles being released a bit to enable more access to ADS-B equipment. And I for one find it refreshing to see a more lenient approach to using more consumer electronics than necessarily having to have TSO’d equipment onboard. My iPhone has more accuracy than all the Nav gear in my aircraft and we should take advantage of that Where appropriate. If this is a first step towards improving the status quo I do congratulate those involved who are pushing the boundaries with the TSO gods, even with some inconsistencies that are alleged above. And rather than whinging on here about inconsistencies why not make a call or write to CASA and seek clarification or make suggestions for improvement? This is a good step forward and shouldn’t we be happy about that?
I’m more than comfortable with the shackles being released a bit to enable more access to ADS-B equipment. And I for one find it refreshing to see a more lenient approach to using more consumer electronics than necessarily having to have TSO’d equipment onboard. My iPhone has more accuracy than all the Nav gear in my aircraft and we should take advantage of that Where appropriate. If this is a first step towards improving the status quo I do congratulate those involved who are pushing the boundaries with the TSO gods, even with some inconsistencies that are alleged above. And rather than whinging on here about inconsistencies why not make a call or write to CASA and seek clarification or make suggestions for improvement? This is a good step forward and shouldn’t we be happy about that?