EAA Staff Question - ADS-B and the EAA

[Marty Santic]

Can someone on the EAA Staff give all of us an update on what the EAA is doing with respect to installation of ADS-B OUT equipment in E-AB and E-LSA aircraft. A recent article indicates a builder CANNOT install and be legal after 2020.

[PaulDow]

Here's their press release on that topic.
http://t.co/LbE696QuIg
It doesn't say much. Reading between the lines it seems to me that they're asking the FAA bureaucrats to fix their mistakes.

I certainly wouldn't be spending a penny on ADS-B equipment for any aircraft at this time, even certified ones, until they figure out what they're doing.

[Marty Santic]

Was hoping for more than the formal press release.

[Tom Charpentier]

We’re working with the FAA to get this resolved ASAP. It is clear this wasn't intentional on their part, and they appear to be as committed as we are to fixing the problematic language and making sure experimental-category aircraft can meet the letter of the mandate. As soon as we have more updates we will follow up on the story.

[Mike M]

We’re working with the FAA to get this resolved ASAP. It is clear this wasn't intentional on their part, and they appear to be as committed as we are to fixing the problematic language and making sure experimental-category aircraft can meet the letter of the mandate. As soon as we have more updates we will follow up on the story.

Please be careful. As is, without an electrical system don't need ADSB or transponder. Don't foul that up, OK?

[Marc Zeitlin]

We’re working with the FAA to get this resolved ASAP. It is clear this wasn't intentional on their part, and they appear to be as committed as we are to fixing the problematic language and making sure experimental-category aircraft can meet the letter of the mandate.

Can you please point out the "problematic language", and what document it's in? It's not clear to me exactly what regulatory document is prohibiting E/AB aircraft from having approved ADSB equipment - as far as I've been able to tell, installing ADSB equipment is no different than installing any other required instrumentation in an E/AB aircraft.

What am I missing?

[Kyle Boatright]

Can you please point out the "problematic language", and what document it's in? It's not clear to me exactly what regulatory document is prohibiting E/AB aircraft from having approved ADSB equipment - as far as I've been able to tell, installing ADSB equipment is no different than installing any other required instrumentation in an E/AB aircraft.

What am I missing?

I think it is a fig newton of someone's imagination. If I was more cynical, I'd say someone is trying to fabricate a crisis to solve.

[PaulDow]

Can you please point out the "problematic language", and what document it's in?...

I probably don't have all the background on this, but I think the hornet's nest got stirred up by a post by J. Mac McClellan's at http://macsblog.com/2014/12/can-you-...now-maybe-not/
I'm glad he found the potential problem, and brought it up now. Imagine if this was brought up in December, 2019!

As I understand it, the ADS-B regulation requires TSO or type certificate for the equipment to be operated. Experimentals don't have type certificates, and the equipment can't qualify for a TSO since the manufacturer would have to qualify it for each particular aircraft built since they're all different.
LSA's also have this problem since there is no TC for them.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I probably don't have all the background on this, but I think the hornet's nest got stirred up by a post by J. Mac McClellan's at http://macsblog.com/2014/12/can-you-...now-maybe-not/

Yeah, I read the article. There was nothing pointing to REGULATORY documents that stated where the prohibition was. AC's are not regulatory, as we all should know.

I'm glad he found the potential problem, and brought it up now. Imagine if this was brought up in December, 2019!

My questions would be exactly the same - where's the regulation that prohibits ADS-B installations in E/AB aircraft?

As I understand it, the ADS-B regulation requires TSO or type certificate for the equipment to be operated. Experimentals don't have type certificates, and the equipment can't qualify for a TSO since the manufacturer would have to qualify it for each particular aircraft built since they're all different. LSA's also have this problem since there is no TC for them.

And how is this different from requiring a transponder in an E/AB aircraft? Transponders ALSO need to meet TSO requirements, and many homebuilts use TSO'd instruments on a regular basis - radios, navigational equipment, etc. None are prohibited in E/AB aircraft.

Assume that the ADS-B equipment I want to use in my COZY MKIV E/AB aircraft has TSO approval - what prevents me from legally installing and using this equipment in the same way as my AI, DG, VOR, Radio or Transponder? Many E/AB aircraft have legally installed and use Garmin SL30 radios, for example - they're TSO'd - what's the difference?

I'm kind of with Kyle on this one, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt if someone can at least point to a REGULATION, not an AC, that states a prohibition or the inverse - only allows installation in certificated aircraft. Mr. McClellan nowhere points to ANY regulation in that blog posting - he merely states "the rules require....". Hardly sufficient for a QED.

So I await a pointer to the regulatory language that's being interpreted as a preventative to installing approved, TSO's ADS-B equipment in E/AB aircraft.

[Marc Zeitlin]

My questions would be exactly the same - where's the regulation that prohibits ADS-B installations in E/AB aircraft?

So I found this:

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/ga/media/...stallation.pdf

Not a regulation, but an FAA document. It does have an "installation guidance" section 3. Read it carefully - NOWHERE does it state, explicitly or implicitly, that you cannot install TSO'd (approved) equipment in E/AB aircraft.

In multiple places, it says "If X, then Y", but that is not an implication that "IF NOT-X, then NOT-Y". Someone seems to be misunderstanding the language. I would interpret this as the logical fallacy of "Denying the Antecedent".

Here are some instances:

1. ADS-B Out avionics must be approved by the FAA with a TSO (technical standard order) when installed on an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate.
   
   This says nothing about what is OK or not on E/AB aircraft. Since 91.225 and 91.227 require TSO'd equipment to be legal, one would have to install TSO'd and approved equipment in an E/AB aircraft also.
2. Installation of approved ADS-B avionics on an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate must be through a supplemental type certificate, approved model list associated with an STC, or field approval under certain conditions.
   
   This only addresses what standard AWC aircraft must do to install an ADS-B system - it says nothing about what E/AB can or cannot do. One presumes, without a prohibition to the contrary, that they don't need any approval at all, as long as approved and TSO'd equipment is installed. There is no such thing as a field approval or STC for E/AB aircraft.
3. Non-TSO ADS-B Out avionics may be installed on amateur-built and light sport aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates.
   
   This states that non-approved equipment can be installed on E/AB and LSA aircraft, but it says nothing about installing or prohibiting TSO'd and approved equipment.

So, again I ask, where's the regulation that states what's being claimed?