None for general aviation.
Not entirely true. They apply if the aircraft cruises TAS > 250knots OR has a MTOM >5700kg. So PA-46 Turbines, TBMs etc are all affected.
Not entirely true. They apply if the aircraft cruises TAS > 250knots OR has a MTOM >5700kg. So PA-46 Turbines, TBMs etc are all affected.
You are correct on this Jason, very high end general aviation aircraft are also applicable. These however allready also had different transponder requirements (such as diversity)
It looks like the requirements for ADS-B in Europe parallel those in the US for 1090ES. RTCA DO-260B, ETSO C166B. A certified position source is required and the system needs to be configured in a similar way as in the US. A non certified position source would require the SIL to be set to zero and it would most likely be ignored by ATC. So would a NIC and NACp need to meet similar criteria in order for the position source to be trusted for Surveillance. Most non certified position sources won’t even have these data elements in their interface nor will they have other required data elements and are easy to spot as non compliant. I don’t think that GBT services such as TISB will be provided outside of the US, so it won’t be very much of a traffic system on board the aircraft.
@NCYankee Why do I need to put in my tail number? Isn’t there a 1-to-1 relationship between ICAO 24 bit code and my tail number. Since ICAO 24 bit code is programmed into the ADS-B out device upon installation, it should suffice, no?
I am considering upgrading my old mode C, a Bendix KT-76A, with Bendix ADS-B KT-74. This way I am 2020 compliant, can throw out my old mode-C, yet still can fly international. A UAT solution would not allow me to fly internationally, unless I keep my mode-C around. The KT-74 is much cheaper than the Garmin solutions. I get my whether from a portable solution, such as Stratus 2 hooked up to an iPad Mini. I prefer this, since I don’t want to depend on just one single device and LCD screen for everything.
However, what I am unclear about is the issue regarding ground determination? I.e. in the case of KT-74, with GNS 430W as an position source, ground determination via GPS input should be good enough, but I read that some add a switch hooked up to the static pitot line to determine speed, or use the landing gear ground safety switch. That seems like unnecessary, and avoidable installation cost.
Regards.
It looks like the requirements for ADS-B in Europe parallel those in the US for 1090ES. RTCA DO-260B, ETSO C166B. A certified position source is required and the system needs to be configured in a similar way as in the US.
Sure for a full compliant installation. A full compliant installation is often not an option at this time, as it requires a major change (DOA / Part 21 company) to design this. Even if it is completely in the manual (Garmin ES unit with Garmin WAAS navigator for example). There are quite some installation flying (especially under gliders) which do use a non compliant, GPS module, this was also allowed in the past, and approved as a minor change. This major change route will change to a standard change if the proposed CS-STAN gets trough. This allows ES under some condition without additional paperwork.
UK CAA also send out a bulletin that they are performing test using ES combined with an uncertified source. These test are performed with UK ATC. So it is not sure it is ignored in Europe by ATC, they are actually still performing testing.
Keep in mind the system for ATC still might be usefull that time in combination with radar and / or visual indication of airports. Marine traffic for example also still use radar, while they also use IAS (their ADS-B solution).
I don’t think that GBT services such as TISB will be provided outside of the US, so it won’t be very much of a traffic system on board the aircraft.
I don’t think so either, at least not in Europe. Traffic systems in Europe use ADS-B in (1090 MHz receiver) and display mode A, mode C, mode S and ADS-B targets. Devices like power flarm do this, and also add power flarm. It will display all ADS-B traffic, weather full compliant or not. So there are possibilities here.
ADS-B and Flarm are very similair for a user point of few. The range of Flarm signals is far more limited due to the limited power output.
What I do know is that, here in Europe, ATC do not have a general automatic means of getting the tail number from the 24-bit code. That’s why in a Mode S transponder one programs the tail number separately from the 24-bit code. Maybe ADS-B will be the same?
What I do know is that, here in Europe, ATC do not have a general automatic means of getting the tail number from the 24-bit code.
Depends on the country. Switzerland has it. Also ATC are not interested in your tail number, they are interested in your flight ID which for small GA is the same thing but does not have to be. Transponders radiate the flight ID and it some countries the unique hex code can be translated into the tail number.
Switzerland has it
I doubt it. For G-Reg you need a CAA database query to find it (there’s no algorithmic relationship between the tail number and the ICAO 24 bit code), and for D-Reg you probably need to convince a court to turn over the information
Only N-reg tail numbers are algorithmically encoded in the 24-bit code; all others need a database lookup.
So this German privacy reg makes one wonder whether all the other database-based avionics compliance scenarios – those which are not immediately verifiable via aircraft emissions like ADS-B or Mode S are – and with PRNAV/RNAV1 being the most obvious one, will ever be enforceable at the ATC interface level.
Doesn’t FR24 have all the databases anyway?
I recall flying in a Cessna 400 (the SEP) a few years ago and the gear (Avidyne, not G1000 IIRC) was showing tail numbers, but only N-reg ones apparently. I have spoken to Avidyne and the tail number display is possible only with an RS232 connection from the TCAS box (not ARINC429). They could not explain why only N-regs were showing, but obviously if a target is not Mode S (where the tail number can be configured directly) then it cannot display any non-N-reg tail number unless it has the whole database…
Too many damn double negatives in this post 
Only N-reg tail numbers are algorithmically encoded in the 24-bit code; all others need a database lookup
That is not true, as Achimha says, it depends on the country, some such as the Netherlands and Norway issued 24-bits codes on request, so the first to request has the lowest code. There are others suchs as Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden that I know off, and maybe others as well that ALL use an algorithm.
