ADS-B TSO of 978 MGhz-

If there is any argument about the certification of 978 frequency being certified for aviation use, read this.

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Aircraft Certification Service

Washington, D.C.
TSO-C154
Effective

Date: 11/18/02
Technical Standard Order
Subject:

TSO-C154, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic
Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating
on the Frequency of 978 MHz
1. PURPOSE. This Technical Standard Order (TSO) tells persons seeking a TSO authorization or
letter of design approval what minimum performance standards (MPS) their Universal Access
Transceiver ADS-B equipment must first meet in order to obtain approval and be identified with the
applicable TSO marking.



2. APPLICABILITY. This TSO is effective for new applications submitted after the effective date
of this TSO. Major design changes to UAT equipment approved under this TSO requires a new
authorization under this TSO, per Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.611(b).



3. REQUIREMENTS. New models of UAT equipment that are to be so identified and that are
manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS set forth in Section 2.

of RTCA Document No. (RTCA/DO)-282, “Minimum Operational Performance Standards for
Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)”,
dated August 27, 2002. UAT equipment classes applicable to this TSO are defined

in Section 2.1.11 of RTCA/DO-282.



 a. Functionality. The standards of this TSO apply to equipment intended to broadcast, from
both aircraft and approved surface vehicles/obstacles, ADS-B messages containing own-platform
position (latitude/longitude), velocity, time, integrity, and other parameters, for shared use amongst
similarly equipped operators, as well as ground-based facilities such as air traffic services. These
ADS-B message parameters form the basis for various ADS-B reports as defined in RTCA/DO-
242A, “Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards for Automatic Dependent Surveillance
Broadcast (ADS-B)”, dated June 25, 2002. Two major classes of UAT equipment are supported by
this TSO; Class A( ) equipment which incorporates both a broadcast and receive subsystem, and
Class B( ) equipment which supports broadcast only. Messages received by Class A( ) equipment
are further processed into ADS-B reports to support cockpit applications such as the display of
aircraft traffic, airborne conflict management, flight path deconfliction, airport surface movement,
etc. Class A( ) equipment also supports the reception of the Flight Information Services –
Broadcast (FIS-B) during the Ground Uplink segment of the UAT message frame. Data formats for
FIS-B uplink services are defined in RTCA/DO-267, “Minimum Aviation System Performance
Standards (MASPS) for Flight Information Service Broadcast (FIS-B)”, dated March 27, 2001.




 b. Use of ADS-B Reports in Airborne Applications. This TSO addresses only the broadcast
transmission of ADS-B and Ground Uplink Messages, and the assembly of ADS-B Reports in UAT
receiver subsystems. The MPS of this TSO do not address applications that use the information
contained in ADS-B Reports. Therefore, manufacturers’ whose UAT equipment contain
functionality’s beyond that described in the MPS of this TSO, will be required to seek either design
approval via compliance to an appropriate TSO for the subject application; or, at the time of
installation approval, via the type certification process (i.e., Type Certificate, Supplemental Type
Certificate, etc.). In the latter case, UAT equipment approved under this TSO may require
installation limitations to highlight the fact that some upper-layer functionality is required to be
validated as part of the installation approval process.



NOTE: Industry recommended practices for the display of ADS-B
Report information can be found in RTCA/DO-243, “Guidance for
Initial Implementation of Cockpit Display of Traffic Information”,
dated February 19, 1998; and SAE Aerospace Recommended
Practice, “Human Interface Criteria for Cockpit Display of Traffic
Information”, ARP5365, dated January 1999.



 c. Failure Condition Classification. Failure of the function defined in paragraphs 3 and 3a of
this TSO will depend on the intended airborne application or operation that uses the ADS-B report
information. Therefore, for the least demanding applications and operations (e.g., aid to visual
acquisition of aircraft), the failure condition classifications for the different classes of UAT
equipment are as follows:



 (1) For Class A0 receiver subsystems, an unannunciated failure resulting in erroneous ADS-B
reports being provided to onboard applications is a minor failure condition (an occurrence of less
than 10-3 per flight hour).



 (2) For all other classes of UAT receiver subsystems, an unannunciated failure resulting in
erroneous ADS-B reports being provided to onboard applications is a major failure condition (an
occurrence of less than 10-5 per flight hour).



 (3) For all classes of UAT transmitter subsystems, an unannunciated failure resulting in
erroneous ADS-B message being broadcast to other aircraft is a major failure condition and an
unannunciated failure resulting in loss of function is minor.



NOTE: The above failure condition classifications are driven by
airspace considerations and are therefore independent of the aircraft
on which the equipment is to be installed.



 (4) The applicant must develop UAT equipment to at least the design assurance level
commensurate with the above failure condition classifications, as follows:



 (a) Minor failure conditions: all software that could contribute to a minor hazard
classification must be developed to RTCA/DO-178B, Level D.




 (b) Major failure conditions: all software that could contribute to a major hazard
classification must be developed to RTCA/DO-178B, Level C.



 (5) An applicant may develop equipment to a higher design assurance level in anticipation of
more demanding applications. For example, if the UAT equipment is capable of broadcasting
messages that include information about the status of own-ship Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance System (TCAS), and this information could be used by other aircraft to make decisions
about maneuvering, the failure condition classification for erroneous data of this type could be
hazardous/severe-major. In this case, the applicant should state and include in the operating
instructions and equipment limitations the hardware and software design assurance levels to which
the equipment was developed.



 (6) Any assumptions about the aircraft installation, interfacing software and hardware, or
operation required to maintain the design assurance levels must also be stated and included in the
operating instructions and equipment limitations.



 d. Functional Qualification. The required performance shall be demonstrated under the test
conditions specified in RTCA/DO-282, Section 2.4.



 e. Environmental Qualification. The equipment shall be subjected to the test conditions
specified in RTCA/DO-160D, "Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne
Equipment", dated July 29, 1997. Equipment performance verification shall be consistent with the
test procedures within RTCA/DO-282, Section 2.3.



 f. Software Qualification. If the article includes a digital computer, the software must be
developed in accordance with RTCA/DO-178B, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and
Equipment Certification", dated December 1, 1992.



 g. Deviations. The FAA has provisions for using alternative or equivalent means of compliance
to the criteria set forth in the MPS of this TSO. Applicants invoking these provisions shall
demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety is maintained and shall apply for a deviation per

14 CFR § 21.609.



4. MARKING. Under 14 CFR § 21.607(d), articles manufactured under this TSO must be marked
as follows:



 a. At least one major component must be permanently and legibly marked with all of the
information listed in 14 CFR § 21.607(d), except for the following: the option in 14 CFR

§ 21.607(d)(2), where the name, type and part number must be used in lieu of the optional model
number; and the option in 14 CFR § 21.607(d)(3), where the date of manufacture must be used in
lieu of the optional serial number.



 b. In addition to the requirements of 14 CFR § 21.607(d), each separate component that is easily
removable (without hand tools), each interchangeable element, and each separate


sub-assembly of the article that the manufacturer determines may be interchangeable must be
permanently and legibly marked with at least the name of the manufacturer, manufacturer's
subassembly part number, and the TSO number.



 c. The equipment class as defined in Section 2.1.11 of RTCA/DO-282.



 d. If the component includes a digital computer, the part number must include hardware and
software identification, or a separate part number may be utilized for hardware and software. Either
approach must include a means for showing the modification status. Note that similar software
versions, which have been approved to different software levels, must be differentiated by part
number.



 e. When applicable, identify the equipment as an incomplete system or that the appliance
accomplishes additional functions beyond that described in paragraphs 3 and 3a of this TSO.



5. DATA REQUIREMENTS.



 a. Application Data. Under 14 CFR § 21.605(a)(2), the manufacturer must furnish the
Manager, Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), responsible
for the manufacturer's facilities, one copy each of the following technical data to support the FAA
design and production approval:



 (1) Operating instructions and equipment limitations. The limitations shall be sufficient to
describe the operational capability of the equipment. In particular, operational or installation
limitations resulting from specific deviations granted must be described in detail.



 (2) Installation procedures and limitations. The limitations shall be sufficient to ensure that
the class of UAT equipment, when installed according to the installation procedures, continues to
meet the requirements of this TSO. The limitations shall identify any unique aspects of the
installation. Finally, the limitations also shall include a note with the following statement:



The conditions and tests required for TSO approval of this article are minimum

performance standards. It is the responsibility of those installing this article
either on or within a specific type or class of aircraft to determine that the aircraft
installation conditions are within the TSO standards. TSO articles must have
separate approval for installation in an aircraft. The article may be installed only
if performed under 14 CFR part 43 or the applicable airworthiness requirements.



 (3) Schematic drawings, as applicable to the installation procedures.



 (4) Wiring diagrams, as applicable to the installation procedures.



 (5) List of the components, by part number, that make up the UAT system complying with
the standards prescribed in this TSO. Manufacturers should include vendor part number cross-
references when applicable.




 (6) Instructions, in the form of a Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) containing
information on the periodic maintenance, calibration and repair, for the continued airworthiness of
the installed UAT equipment, including recommended inspection intervals and service life. Details
of deviations granted, as noted in paragraph 5a(1) of this TSO, may also be described in the CMM.



 (7) Material and process specifications list.



 (8) The quality control system description required by 14 CFR §§ 21.605(a)(3) and 21.143(a)
including functional test specifications to be used to test each production article to ensure
compliance with this TSO.



 (9) Manufacturer's TSO qualification test report.



 (10) Nameplate drawing providing the information required by paragraph 4 of this TSO.



 (11) A list of all drawings and processes, including revision level, necessary to define the
article's design. In the case of a minor change, any revisions to the drawing list need only be made
available upon request.



 (12) An environmental qualifications form as described in RTCA/DO-160D for each
component of the system.



 (13) If the article includes a digital computer: Plan for Software Aspects of Certification
(PSAC); Software Configuration Index; and Software Accomplishment Summary. The FAA
recommends that the PSAC be submitted early in the software development process. Early
submittal will allow timely resolution of issues such as partitioning and determination of software
levels.



 b. Manufacturer Data. In addition to the data to be furnished directly to the FAA, each
manufacturer must have available for review by the manager of the ACO responsible for the
manufacturer's facilities the following technical data:



 (1) The functional qualification specifications to be used to qualify each production article to
ensure compliance with this TSO.



 (2) Equipment calibration procedures.



 (3) Corrective maintenance procedures within 12 months after TSO authorization.



 (4) Schematic drawings.



 (5) Wiring diagrams.



 (6) Material and process specifications.




 (7) The results of the environmental qualification tests conducted in accordance with
RTCA/DO-160D and RTCA/DO-282, Section 2.3.



 (8) If the article includes a digital computer, the appropriate documentation as defined in
RTCA/DO-178B, including all data supporting the applicable objectives found in Annex A of
RTCA/DO-178B, “Process Objectives and Outputs by Software Level”.



 c. Furnished Data.



 (1) One copy of the technical data and information specified in paragraphs 5a(1) through (6)
of this TSO and any other data or information necessary for the proper installation, certification and
use and/or for continued airworthiness of the UAT, must accompany each article manufactured
under this TSO.



 (2) If the appliance accomplishes any additional functions beyond that described in
paragraphs 3 and 3a of this TSO, then a copy of the data and information specified in paragraphs
5a(11) through (13) must also go to each person receiving for use one or more articles
manufactured under this TSO.



6. AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.





 a. Copies of RTCA Document No’s. DO-160D, DO-178B, DO-242A, DO-243, DO-267, and
DO-282 may be purchased from RTCA Inc., 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 805, Washington, DC
20036. Copies also can be obtained through the RTCA Internet website @ www.rtca.org



 b. Copies of SAE Document ARP5365 may be purchased from SAE International, 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA, 15096-0001. Copies also can be obtained through the SAE
Internet website @ www.sae.org .



 c. You may buy copies of Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR part 21, Subpart O, from the
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325. Copies
also can be obtained from the Government Printing Office (GPO), electronic CFR Internet website
@ www.access.gpo.gov/ecfr/.



 d. Advisory Circular (AC) 20-110L (or latest revision), "Index of Aviation Technical Standard
Orders", and AC 20-36S (or latest revision), “Index of Articles (Materials, Parts, Processes, and
Appliances) Certified under the Technical Standard Order System”, may be obtained from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, Ardmore East Business Center,
3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785, telephone (301) 322-4477 or

FAX (301) 386-5394. Copies also may be obtained from the FAA Internet website @
www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/air_index.htm and select from the “Aircraft Certification Related
Information” search list.












David W. Hempe

Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division

Aircraft Certification Service

ADS-B a mistake or mis-understood?

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA--Finally the cat is out of the bag on ADS-B...the limitations of the 1090 MHz only version, how the UAT is perceived and the equipment cost to aircraft owners can be found on a blog published by AVweb by "Paying the price for ADS-B" Paul Sanchez. Read it and the comments.
Conspicuously missing are comments by Skip Nelson of ADS-B Technologies located here in Anchorage. He has the key to most of the questions posed, but obviously has a conflict of interest or he would be responding to the issues.
Nelson and members of his company have equipped aircraft and installed GBTs in China, have portable transceivers and are using transceivers and receivers both on the ground and in the air here at Merrill Field (MRI).

The haze between Mode S and UAT ADS-B

Does Surveillance and Broadcast (SBS) want you to know about the real ADS-B?

By Rob Stapleton
ANCHORAGE, AK (Sept. 27,2009) Federal Aviation Administration spokesperson Dave Bowen wrote and interesting piece and posted it in the Federal Times.com on Sept 21.

Bowen correctly informs pilots and aircraft owners of ADS-B's capabilities when used with the Universal Access Transceiver and is using both 1090 MHz and 978 MHz. There is a misconception that ALL ADS-B coverage is the same and will be the next best thing to sliced bread (for air traffic control and surveillance). Many do not realize that ADS-B will at first be a transmit only system thus only taking advantage of the radar like service only.

Bowen perspective is interesting as most of the ADS-B that will be offered in the U.S. will be similar to Mode S, and will only transmit in real time a location not allowing for additional services, such as TIS-B, FIS-B and transmit and receive information from other like equipped (UAT) aircraft. In the future both the FAA and ITT who has the multi billion contract to install the equipment nationwide have said the services like current weather, email, and other situational awareness service could be provided by subscription in the future.

Bowen states: The Federal Aviation Administration is working with U.S. airlines to get them to put ADS-B equipment in their aircraft and, in return, is enabling more straight-line routing, which results in shorter flying times and reduced fuel burn, saving millions of gallons of fuel per year. We are also developing and publishing more GPS-based airport approaches each year, and these now outnumber our published approaches based on ground-based navigation equipment.
ADS-B is already operational in Alaska, where the population depends on aviation to a far greater extent than in the continental U.S. It will soon be deployed in the Gulf of Mexico. FAA intends to deploy ADS-B over the continental U.S. in the next few years; it started in Miami, Florida last fall.
FAA’s NextGen initiative is far more than just ADS-B — it will enable digital communication, digital weather modeling and other capabilities. It will support a level of air traffic that is magnitudes more than current levels — safely, efficiently and effectively. NextGen will be less costly to operate and generate significant fuel savings for air carriers and other users of U.S. airspace. NextGen is the path that FAA will take to fly into the future.

Many airlines do not support the re-equipage of their aircraft with ADS-B UAT technology as they are equipped with Mode C and Mode S which offers similar coverage. The added expense of changing their equippage is one argument, that seems to be floating around, the other is the hazy smokescreen of misinformation about the real ADS-B as it is used in Alaska today--with UAT.
Some argue that where 'the rubber meets the road' in an argument, is that in a crowded corridor, Mode S only has so much bandwidth and can easily be choked up with multiple contacts.
This limitation only supports the use of both the 978 MHz UAT and 1090 MHz frequencies and the use of the UAT technology for its potential services.

Chinese CAA to Visit Alaska July 20-22

Touting ADS-B in their country that was developed by ADS-B Technologies LLC, an Alaska based company the Chinese are visiting Alaska this week (July 20-22) to get advice on how to proceed with allowing General Aviation in their country.

Standby for more on this later this week.

ADS-B Alive and well--despite reports

Aug. 26-Anchorage, AK--The news we have all been waiting to hear!

The ADS-B installation program in Alaska may be somewhat stalled but according to FAA officials working closely on getting an official standard on the avionics hardware and a break through is eminent.

" We are testing right now, and hope to have the first up/down link equipment working in Florida this Friday," said Vincent Capezzuto, director of the Surveillance & Broadcast Services program office in Washington, D.C.

Capezzuto said that manufacturers were talking to FAA offiicials about an equipment standard that should be announced sometime in the fall 2008.

For those who believe that there is no standard on the UAT link read this information: http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm

Why is ADS-B Off Track?

Here is a great piece from the Reason Foundation it looks like someone else is paying attention...

That same year, the FAA began its historicCapstone program in Alaska, under which hundreds of mostly general aviationplanes were equipped with the equivalent of ADS-B/In with a cockpit displayof weather and air traffic. With enthusiastic GA support, Capstone is nowbeing expanded to 4,000 Alaska planes. Overseas, IATA loves ADS-B, CANSOloves ADS-B, and aggressive ADS-B programs are under way in Canada,Australia, and Southeast Asia/Pacific.
So how come the FAA dropped the ball earlier this year, by proposing afar-off deadline of 2020 for equipping planes with just ADS-B/Out, leavingthe real benefits (ADS-B/In) for those who must pay for this equipage tosome vague future date? And even though the whole network of ADS-B groundstations will be completed by ITT by 2013? Ive been puzzling over this forseveral months now, interviewing experts and reading extensively. For theUnited States (the lower 48), this turns out to be a massive coordinationproblem, and its one that our politicized FAA is not in a good position toresolve.
First, recall that the business case for ADS-B rests on being able to retirea large fraction of the FAAs huge network of ground-based radars, which arecostly to maintain and would be very costly to replace as they wear out. Butyou cant shut down those radars until everybody in the relevant airspace isequipped with at least ADS-B/Out, so that the ATC system (at least) can seewhere they are. Because aircraft owners balk at being forced to buy andinstall new gear until they get real benefits from it (and this isespecially true of GA owners), FAA felt under strong political pressure tomake the deadline as far off as possible (hence, 2020). And since they knowthat adding a cockpit display unit (to enable ADS-B/In) will be even morecostly, they declined even to speculate on what that deadline will be. So tothe user community, the package spelled all costs but no benefits, leadingto a flood of negative comments in response to FAAs notice.
The places where there is a near-term business case are of two kinds. Mostlythey are in places where there is no radar coveragemost of Alaska, the Gulfof Mexico, northern Canada, over the North Atlantic, in the South Pacific,and over much of Australia. In those locations, ADS-B offers much betterreal-time information for ATC as to where planes are, which means todayshuge spacing requirements can be reduced. That produces user benefits, suchas more direct routings and optimal altitudes for reduced fuel burn, even ifonly ADS-B/Out gets implemented initially.
The other case is cargo hubs (such as Louisville and Memphis), where atnight nearly all the planes are cargo planes. With fleetwide equipage(ADS-B/In), those cargo carriers can increase landing rates enough tojustify the equipage costs.
In Alaska, the main benefit is greater safety, but for that the cockpitdisplay is an integral component. For the initial phase involving severalhundred airplanes, the FAA paid for the ADS-B boxes, and all involvedlearned a great deal from the pilot program. For the planned major expansionto 4,000 planes, FAA is trying to get the state to kick in to pay the largemajority of the equipage cost. The onboard equipment, in volume production,is estimated at $12-18K per plane, of which the owner/operator would bepaying about $2,500. Whether the state funding would be a grant or a loan isstill being debated. FAA will be paying for the bulk of the ground stationsstatewide, as it is doing in the lower 48.
The hugely negative response to the FAAs ADS-B/In equipage proposal hasresulted in the problem being thrown back to the Aviation RulemakingCommittee, a group of aviation stakeholders charged with advising FAA onthis issue. Whatever they come up with this fall will likely influence arevised FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which will probably bereleased early next year. And we can be sure that if some category of userdoesnt like the result, they will complain to Congress, which will try tomicromanage the result via control of the budget process.
Imagine, instead, that a balanced group of aviation stakeholders, instead ofjust being an advisory body, constituted the board of directors of aself-supporting ATO (or AirNav). It would be in the interest of all thoseboard members to resolve this coordination problem, so as to achieve thecost savings from retiring numerous radars before they need to be replacedand to gain the improved safety and capacity resulting from cockpit displaysof weather and traffic. They would therefore have powerful incentives towork out some kind of a deal to bring about rapid implementation of not onlyADS-B/Out but also ADS-B/In. This might well involve the ATO helping some GAusers pay the costs of equipage. But very large volumes of ADS-B boxes anddisplays would also mean large economies of scale in production, drivingdown unit costs, and making the whole endeavor less costly.
It will be interesting to see whether any of the commercialized ANSPs, suchas Nav Canada or Airservices Australia, comes up with such a win-winapproach to rapid implementation of ADS-B.

By Bob Pool
The Reason Foundation

ADS-B to reduce Air Traffic Control Work Loads

A study released in Oct. 2006 indicates that ADS-B cut the workload of Air Traffic Controllers alomost 20 percent.

The Capstone program introduced avionics in Alaska that included ADS-B equipment, starting in the year 2000. The program succeeded in equipping 208 aircraft in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta by the end of 2004, resulting in Capstone-equipped aircraft accounting for nearly 100% of part-135 operations by airplanes based in that region. This paper estimates the impact of the use of Capstone equipment on controller workload. It summarizes the results of a controller survey regarding the effect of Capstone equipment on controller tasks, and provides quantitative results regarding the effect of ADS-B equipment on controller workload. From the survey 57% of controllers indicated that they needed less time providing IFR separation services than without ADS-B, and 79% of the controllers felt that the overall efficiency of their operation had increased with ADS-B. An analysis of flight progress strips showed that the currently deployed Capstone equipment, when operating properly as required by ATC, would provide an 18% reduction in controller communications workload. The analysis also indicated that if all the aircraft in the Y-K Delta were properly equipped, the reduction in communications workload would be 26%