Certified ADS-B IN and OUT options (also collision avoidance, privacy, etc)

EASA (and also FAA) require aircraft certification by an STC to ensure the data output meets the position and reliability accuracy for the data to be used by ATC for separation purposes.

@wigglyamp do you have a reference for this STC requirement? It seems clear that very few people, and very few avionics installers, are aware of it.

Peter wrote:

and very few avionics installers, are aware of it.

Most installations are SIL-0 installations

wigglyamp wrote:

With a non-WAAS GPS sending a SIL-0, air traffic control and TSO-approved ADS-B IN devices (such as Garmin’s new GTX345) will ignore the transmission, so the benefit of a non-certified installation is limited except to devices such as PilotAware or Flarm with can see all transmissions regardless of the SIL setting.

All these device are low cost, and used much more than other systems. More advanced systems aircraft often have TAS systems, which are very good for high end. For low end this SIL-0 installations are excellent.

Most installations are SIL-0 installations

Could someone explain the meaning of all this, in the European context? I know we have had various ADS-B discussions here already but this one seems to involve very specific regulatory requirements.

IMHO, AIUI -

1. ADS-B (of any type) will never be mandatory for VFR OCAS in most of Europe (like TXP)
2. ADS-B (of any type) will never be mandatory for VFR in CAS in most of Europe (due to the ability to get airborne ATC exemptions – like TXP)
3. ADS-B may become mandatory for IFR in CAS… which type would that be?
4. ADS-B (of any type) will never be visible to airliner TCAS systems

If say I get my Avidyne TAS605 modded (a few k in cost) to pick up ADS-B, which types of ADS-B will it pick up? If it picks up only the sort which meets the top-end regulatory requirements, that will be pointless since almost everybody will go for the minimum compliance only

Generally speaking almost nobody will do anything unless there is a benefit to them. Today, in the Shoreham circuit, none of several planes were transponding, and two of them were invisible at critical moments, with separation being achieved only by me being cleared to 1600ft (circuit + 500ft). Both could have had Mode C. Neither was short of money… but prob99 neither can see the point in being visible to people flying faster stuff. So, we are still where we were about 20 years ago. And everybody with a modern plane can see this for themselves. Today, crossing France, how many planes on TCAS (my FL090 plus and minus 3000ft)? Zero. And I don’t really believe they are radiating ADS-B instead

It would be useful to know what all this really means.

I am not interested in spending money on something which is as useful as say FLARM which is used by practically nobody unless you happen to be flying in just the right area.

I have a GTX330 and one day will have a 2×IFD540 or GTN650+750.

wigglyamp wrote:

Jesse, as an avionics shop, do you think there would be much take-up if an EASA Part 23 AML STC was available for the GTX330ES with GTN or GNS-W? Would it make a significant difference if the STC was free or just a marginal cost such as Gama’s done with the Part 23 LPV approval for the GNS-W? (The difference may hinge on who funds an STC).

I think the major difference is on pricing, so if it can be done for a reasonable price suchs as the LPV approval, or free like Garmin funded GAMA approvals that for sure would make a big difference. Noboday is willing to spend money on paperwork, especially in cases where paperwork is more expensive than the work involved, which I can understand.

Peter wrote:

I am not interested in spending money on something which is as useful as say FLARM which is used by practically nobody unless you happen to be flying in just the right area.

wigglyamp wrote:

To my mind, the biggest improvement in collision safety would be to just get existing transponder owners to switch them on! That would help the likes of you and I with TAS systems installed, and also ATC who will then be able to give better advice and reduce infringements.

For some reason switching of transponders seem, from your forum post to be a typical UK problem, which should be addressed there, starting at flying school etc. Those issues are in the Netherlands as well, though very rare, mostly only on very historical aircraft which don’t have an electrical system at all. I think it is important to let these people know that they endanger themselfs and others. It is really a safety mind set, similair to people who don’t tend to use GPS at all. While I would say it is worthwhile to be able to navigate old style, one should use the maximum out of modern technology. NATS and LNVL even funded some software from the EasyVFR guys to stop infringements.

When mode S was introduced into general aviation, I was amazed that it didn’t include ADS-B as well. This would make a huge diffence in safety, I think we will also learn this in the future from their ADS-B mandate.

The problem with Flarm / Pilot Aware and other similair systems, is that their is no system thats hold anywhere near lets say 90% of the market, which is needed for a system to be fully usefull. The downside with Flarm is also the small range due to the nature of the design using a freely available frequency.

It is also a pitty that certified equipment will not allow you to see the majority of ADS-B broadcasting GA. In Netherlands and Germany I see quite some ADS-B installations. Any position source is better then nothing at all, and it would be easy to verify the position. Typically it would be far more accurate that the radar resolved reply.

That’s a very useful post, wigglyamp. I bet not many people knew that bit!

So with the IFD boxes there is no SIL-3 solution, or is it just the GTX330 that is incompatible with them?

To my mind, the biggest improvement in collision safety would be to just get existing transponder owners to switch them on! That would help the likes of you and I with TAS systems installed, and also ATC who will then be able to give better advice and reduce infringements.

I agree 100%.

For some reason switching of transponders seem, from your forum post to be a typical UK problem

I don’t think so, Jesse. How many transponders did I see across quite an aviation-popular bit of France yesterday? Zero. I was at FL090 so would have picked up everything “within what Avidyne call 15nm” between 6000ft and 12000ft. So, either there is no GA in that band, or they are invisible, and for sure 99% flying in that band will have a transponder. But it’s the same when flying low level VFR in France. 2 years ago I did a long VFR leg in the south; also zero targets IIRC. Also one is low level during terminal operations, obviously. Also, while Mode S usage is probably not a great predictor of Mode C usage (though I would expect a 100% correlation among populations who specifically don’t want to be seen – these will not even be Mode A) but from the FR24 app it’s obvious that huge sections of the VFR community there are indeed invisible (the FR24 website filters out most VFR GA). Germany I am not sure of because I have never IIRC flown there low level VFR.

Any position source is better then nothing at all, and it would be easy to verify the position. Typically it would be far more accurate that the radar resolved reply.

Sure, but almost nobody will install a “partial fix” unless it is virtually free and takes up no room.

wigglyamp wrote:

see CS-SC002a section 3.

I did… What does “authorised according to ETSO C166b” mean?