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
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
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
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
Sunday, June 8, 2008
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%
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%
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
ADS-B in Alaska does have a TSO!
Anchorage, AK-(June, 3-2008) Well low and behold there is a standard for ADS-B in Alaska and it has been around for a few years. The question here is what is taking the manufacturers so long to catch up to this?
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Aircraft Certification Service
Washington, D.C.
TSO-C154
Effective
Date: 11/18/02
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
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Aircraft Certification Service
Washington, D.C.
TSO-C154
Effective
Date: 11/18/02
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
Saturday, May 17, 2008
China has almost as many GBTs working as Alaska!
How many GBTs are working in Alaska today (May16, 2008)? The FAA can't tell me!
My friend Skip Nelson sent this out from China:
ADS-B Technologies is proud to announce the commissioning of its 7th Ground Broadcast Transceiver (GBT) site in China at the Badaling Great Wall Airport (40 22 34N / 115 56 27E).
Badaling GW Airport airport is located within site of the Great Wall of China and only 35 miles from downtown Beijing. It is the first privately owned General Aviation airport in China. The airport is owned and operated by the Jinggong Corporation.
ADS-B Technologies, LLC
www.ads-b.com
My friend Skip Nelson sent this out from China:
ADS-B Technologies is proud to announce the commissioning of its 7th Ground Broadcast Transceiver (GBT) site in China at the Badaling Great Wall Airport (40 22 34N / 115 56 27E).
Badaling GW Airport airport is located within site of the Great Wall of China and only 35 miles from downtown Beijing. It is the first privately owned General Aviation airport in China. The airport is owned and operated by the Jinggong Corporation.
ADS-B Technologies, LLC
www.ads-b.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
AOPA responds to the question of when and if the FAA will approve a standard for ADS-B
Andy Cebula asked me to respond to your query on ADS-B avionics standards. As you know the FAA has established an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC), comprised of both FAA and industry representatives who will recommend responses to the comments received to the ADS-B Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM). As you are likely aware, the NPRM included specific performance requirements and standards for the avionics.
However, the FAA's ADS-B ARC could quite possibly recommend changes to several aspects of their original FAA proposal, including the performance requirements for the ADS-B data link. There are many questions to be answered and the ARC is discussing many of them. Exactly what the recommendations will be and the extent to which the FAA will accept/act on the ARC recommendations is still TBD. As a result, the proposed avionics for the ADS-B mandate may change depending on how the FAA responds to the comments and the ARC recommendations. It is with perspective that AOPA believes it is premature to say the standards are set for the ADS-B mandate. Naturally, changes to the mandated avionics may also result in changes to the avionics to be used in Alaska.
I hope this helps.
Randy Kenagy
Chief of Staff
Government Affairs
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
However, the FAA's ADS-B ARC could quite possibly recommend changes to several aspects of their original FAA proposal, including the performance requirements for the ADS-B data link. There are many questions to be answered and the ARC is discussing many of them. Exactly what the recommendations will be and the extent to which the FAA will accept/act on the ARC recommendations is still TBD. As a result, the proposed avionics for the ADS-B mandate may change depending on how the FAA responds to the comments and the ARC recommendations. It is with perspective that AOPA believes it is premature to say the standards are set for the ADS-B mandate. Naturally, changes to the mandated avionics may also result in changes to the avionics to be used in Alaska.
I hope this helps.
Randy Kenagy
Chief of Staff
Government Affairs
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
What AOPA has to say about ADS-B
AOPA meets with Alaska pilots about ADS-B implementation
By AOPA ePublishing staff
The plan to implement aviation improvements in Alaska offers more to the state than the FAA’s ADS-B proposal, AOPA told pilots and industry leaders during a recent visit to the state.
“We need the FAA’s ADS-B implementation to be more than aircraft surveillance,” said AOPA Executive Vice President of Government Affairs Andy Cebula, who spoke May 3 at the Alaska Airmen’s trade show in Anchorage. “Unfortunately, the FAA’s plan to implement ADS-B helps ATC track aircraft without doing much of anything for general aviation pilots—all at a high cost to us. That’s why AOPA has been pushing back on the FAA notice of proposed rulemaking.”
Experience from the work done in Alaska over the past decade has shown that a good implementation plan would bring weather and traffic information into the cockpit, eliminate the need for a Mode C transponder, use affordable equipment, and give pilots an incentive to equip long before any mandate takes effect, Cebula explained. That’s not what the FAA has proposed thus far.
However, the plan being developed by the Alaska aviation community is different and designed make real safety improvements for pilots flying in the harsh weather conditions and rugged terrain of the vast state.
“The Alaska initiative represents a much-needed modernization of the whole infrastructure,” said Tom George, AOPA’s regional representative for Alaska. “It will bring instrument approaches and weather reporting to airports that have never had them, increase the number of remote communications outlets, improve search and rescue operations, and give pilots the weather and traffic information they need to make good decisions.”
By AOPA ePublishing staff
The plan to implement aviation improvements in Alaska offers more to the state than the FAA’s ADS-B proposal, AOPA told pilots and industry leaders during a recent visit to the state.
“We need the FAA’s ADS-B implementation to be more than aircraft surveillance,” said AOPA Executive Vice President of Government Affairs Andy Cebula, who spoke May 3 at the Alaska Airmen’s trade show in Anchorage. “Unfortunately, the FAA’s plan to implement ADS-B helps ATC track aircraft without doing much of anything for general aviation pilots—all at a high cost to us. That’s why AOPA has been pushing back on the FAA notice of proposed rulemaking.”
Experience from the work done in Alaska over the past decade has shown that a good implementation plan would bring weather and traffic information into the cockpit, eliminate the need for a Mode C transponder, use affordable equipment, and give pilots an incentive to equip long before any mandate takes effect, Cebula explained. That’s not what the FAA has proposed thus far.
However, the plan being developed by the Alaska aviation community is different and designed make real safety improvements for pilots flying in the harsh weather conditions and rugged terrain of the vast state.
“The Alaska initiative represents a much-needed modernization of the whole infrastructure,” said Tom George, AOPA’s regional representative for Alaska. “It will bring instrument approaches and weather reporting to airports that have never had them, increase the number of remote communications outlets, improve search and rescue operations, and give pilots the weather and traffic information they need to make good decisions.”
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Podcast interview points to ADS-B Problems
http://www.aero-news.net/fb/index.cfm?do=podcasts.viewEpisode&episodesid=2149
Listen to the above podcast on Aero-News.net about the complexities and problems with ADS-B as positioned by the FAA in the recent NPRM.
Listen to the above podcast on Aero-News.net about the complexities and problems with ADS-B as positioned by the FAA in the recent NPRM.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Questions for the FAA and the Alaska Aviation Industry
What is the viability of the equipage program for the VFR general aviation fleet in Alaska? Will the AIC agreement w/FAA really result in equipping 4000 aircraft in Alaska?
First of all the FAA intends to have the Capstone datalink available for most of the state’s IFR system without any equipage requirement.
What is at risk if we do not equip in the VFR coverage areas where radar isn’t available?
Most of Alaska's 4000 aircraft are VFR single engine general aviation aircraft flown by private individuals. Alaska’s VFR structure is the most hazardous aviation environment in the nation. At least the current data from NIOSH the FAA report this to be the case. The industries lobbing effort produced a loan program that suggests that the GA VFR aircraft owner will fork over $12,000 to equip with the Capstone two-way data-link. The FAA’s own pilot survey indicates that these airmen will not equip at that price.
How serious about the Capstone two-way data-link can the FAA be?
The AIC agreement with the FAA seems to require that 90% of all flight hours within a specified flyway must be by aircraft already equipped with the Capstone data-link capability. This is like a cell phone company requiring 90% of cell phone users by phones before they put up a tower. Just how serious is the FAA about deploying this service.
The FAA’s NPRM recommended that the Capstone two-way data-link not be considered for deployment until after 2020! Why?
The FAA’s NPRM did not address developing a comprehensive standard for NAS deployment of the Capstone developed two way data-link. Meaning that when such a standard is developed all previous equipment may not be able to play with the ground/satellite equipment.
Additionally, industry insiders indicate that “some standards” required by the NPRM would definitely not work with the current 400 aircraft already equipped by Capstone.
Why didn’t the Palin Administration recommend a General Aviation Grant Program?
Industry insiders have indicated that the grant program is seen as a give away program to an elite group of rich folks with airplanes. No legislator will risk the possible public scrutiny of such a program. There is no reason to believe that this situation will change.
Is FAA going to request financial incentive for operators to purchase the Capstone two-way data-link? If so will it be grants, loans, tax credits? Can we get to Nextgen without them?
Further complicating the equipage issue is the AOPA and the ATA’s response to the ADS-B NPRM. Both indicate that the real benefits of ADS-B cannot be realized without the two-way data-link developed/deployed by the Capstone program.
Also they indicate that deployment of ground/satellite equipment and the installation of the airborne equipment can not be realized any time soon (meaning within two decades) without some corresponding financial incentive for carriers and aircraft owner to equip.
The FAA has a long history of maintaining legacy infrastructures’ long after many people have stopped using them. The financial burden of maintaining the legacy infrastructure was studied by the Alaska Capstone office. The result was a big savings by FAA if the transition was financially facilitated by the government.
So why should the State of Alaska change their stance on the GA grant program until FAA answers the comment from ATA and AOPA?
AOPA says that the FAA will not address a standard for ADS-B, how can the cost of the equipment be reduced without a standard?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Comment on Alaska Aviation Revolving Loan Program: One Day's Notice
The State of Alaska and the Alaska Airmen's Association only gave one-day's notice to review the Capstone Revolving Loan Program!
Here is the loan regulation:
3 AAC 75 is amended by adding a new chapter to Part 10 to read:
Chapter 75. Alaska Capstone Avionics Revolving Loan Fund
Section
10. Application process
15. Examination
20. Loan committee
25. Eligibility of aircraft and equipment
30. Financial and credit record
35. Ability to repay
40. Collateral
45. Lending practices
50. Disbursement of loan money
55. Costs
60. Assumptions
65. Modifications
70. Reconsideration of loan request
75. Confidentiality of loan information
900. Definitions
3 AAC 75.010. Application process. (a) To apply for a loan the applicant shall file with the department
(1) a completed application for a Capstone avionics loan, on a form provided by the department;
(2) documentation to verify that the aircraft receiving the Capstone avionics improvements meets the eligibility requirements contained in AS 44.33.665(a) and 3 AAC 75.025;
(3) a letter of intent stating the amount requested and the intended use of the proposed loan money on a form provided by the department;
(4) a schedule of acceptable collateral, including a copy of the aircraft title and Capstone avionics equipment to be acquired with the loan proceeds, on a form provided by the department;
(5) an individual financial statement consisting of a current balance sheet and a profit and loss statement, on a form provided by the department;
(6) a signed credit authorization, on a form provided by the department;
(7) copies of the applicant's federal income tax return for the preceding year, and for additional years if requested by the department;
(8) consent to release information, on a form provided by the department;
(9) copies of the purchase agreement, cost estimates, invoice or other documentation to verify the cost of equipment being purchased and installed with loan proceeds;
(10) a $50 nonrefundable application fee; and
(11) any other information that might be helpful to the applicant in demonstrating eligibility for a loan, as requested by the department.
(b) An applicant who submits a false sworn or unsworn statement on or in support of a loan application is subject to AS 11.56.200 - 11.56.210 and will, in the department's discretion, be denied any future loans.
(c) The department will, in its discretion, process loan requests without the information described in (a) of this section in cases where it determines that the information is not necessary in order for the department to make the lending decision. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.015. Examination. (a) The materials described in 3 AAC 75.010 will be processed and evaluated by a loan officer. The loan officer will evaluate the applicant's eligibility, financial and credit history, financial statement, ability to repay, and proposed collateral.
(b) On the basis of the evaluation, the loan officer will either
(1) inactivate the application
i) due to lack of information required under 3 AAC 75.010;
ii) ineligibility of the applicant; or
iii) failure by the aircraft to meet the eligibility requirements under 3 AAC 75.025; or
(2) recommend proposed action on the loan request to the appropriate loan committee. However, the recommendation of a loan officer is not binding on a loan committee. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.020. Loan committee. (a) A loan committee consists of one or more persons appointed by the director to act on a loan request.
(b) A loan committee may approve, deny, or modify and approve a loan request, or may table a loan request subject to obtaining additional information.
(c) A loan committee may impose reasonable conditions on the approval of a loan, including
(1) additional collateral to secure the loan;
(2) additional guarantors; and
(3) adding the department as loss payee on an existing aircraft insurance policy.
(d) A loan committee shall consider the applicant's eligibility for a loan, financial and credit record, ability to repay, operating plan, and the adequacy of collateral offered to secure the loan. A loan committee may also consider the recommendations of the loan officer assigned to process the application and any other relevant information.
(e) A loan committee may fix, within the limitations set by AS 44.33.670, the term of a loan and repayment schedule.
(f) If a loan request is denied or significantly modified by a loan committee, the loan committee shall provide the applicant with a statement of the reasons for the action and the information relied upon.
(g) A material misstatement or omission of fact made by an applicant constitutes grounds for denial of a loan request. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665 AS 44.33.670
3 AAC 75.025. Eligibility of aircraft and equipment. (a) For an aircraft to be eligible for a loan under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690, the applicant must document that the aircraft has logged a substantial percentage of flight hours in the state. For purposes of this section, “substantial flight hours” means at least 90% of the aircraft’s flight hours were logged in Alaska over the preceding twelve months.
(b) Capstone avionic equipment eligible for a loan includes
(1) Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) Data Link;
(2) GPS/WAAS navigation equipment;
(3) a moving map multifunction display (MFD); or
(4) other equipment as determined by the department in consultation with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.030. Financial and credit record. (a) The department will, in its discretion, consider the following factors in evaluating an applicant's financial and credit record
(1) existing and prior debts;
(2) credit reports obtained from creditors and private credit reporting services;
(3) prior loan history with the department;
(4) timeliness in making payments on loans and other debts;
(5) bankruptcies;
(6) existence of tax liens;
(7) judgments and foreclosures; and
(8) financial and credit reputation.
(b) Information establishing unacceptable credit will be more heavily weighed by the department if it has occurred in recent years. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.035. Ability to repay. (a) The department will, in its discretion, consider the following factors in evaluating an applicant's ability to repay
(1) income history, including present income;
(2) prospects for future income;
(3) assets and their liquidity;
(4) liabilities;
(5) reasonableness of projected profit and loss statement; and
(6) other relevant experience. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.040. Collateral. (a) A loan must be secured by collateral acceptable to the department, which may include a lien on the equipment being financed and the aircraft receiving the improvements.
(b) The aircraft being upgraded must have airworthiness certification. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.045. Lending practices. (a) A loan will not be approved for refinancing of debt of an existing loan, the proceeds of which were used to purchase or install avionic equipment similar to that described in 3 AAC 75.025.
(b) Loan proceeds may not be used to reimburse an applicant for Capstone avionics equipment similar to that described in 3 AAC 75.025 which was purchased more than six months before receipt of the application by the department.
(c) The interest rate for the loan program will be 4%.
(d) A loan for the purchase of Capstone avionics equipment will be made only if the aircraft is in the name of the applicant and the equipment to be purchased is offered as security for the loan. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.050. Disbursement of loan money. (a) Loan funds will be disbursed when
(1) requirements of the loan committee have been met; and
(2) the borrower is in compliance with all other provisions of the loan documents and this chapter. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665 AS 44.33.670
3 AAC 75.055. Costs. (a) All expenses incurred by the department in processing an application must be paid by the applicant.
(b) A late fee not to exceed five percent of the payment amount will, in the department's discretion, be charged to a borrower for each loan payment that is more than 15 days past due.
(c) An extension fee, not to exceed $50.00, will, in the department's discretion, be charged to a borrower to process a loan extension. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.060. Assumptions. (a) A request for permission to assume the obligations and benefits of a loan made under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690 and this chapter will be processed in the same manner as a loan request.
(b) A loan committee may permit an assumption if
(1) the applicant meets requirements as outlined in this chapter;
(2) is a good financial risk; and
(3) the security of the state's investment is preserved.
(c) Wraparound financing that includes a loan made under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690 and this chapter is prohibited and constitutes a default on the loan. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660
3 AAC 75.065. Modifications. (a) A request for a modification to a loan made under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690 and this chapter will be processed in the same manner as a loan application. The department will, in its discretion, require the applicant to file one or more of the items specified in 3 AAC 75.010.
(b) A loan committee may permit a loan modification only if the security of the state and its investment is preserved. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660
3 AAC 75.070. Reconsideration of loan request. (a) If a loan request is denied, inactivated or significantly modified by the department, an applicant may file a written request for reconsideration within 30 days after receipt of notice of the department's decision.
(b) The department will, in its discretion, reconsider a request upon a showing by the applicant that
(1) there has been a substantial change in the circumstances leading to the departments’ decision;
(2) additional relevant information can be provided to the department that was not initially available; or
(3) administrative errors were made by the department. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.075. Confidentiality of loan information. (a) The following information is not confidential and is available for public inspection upon request:
(1) a document that is already a public record, including a financing statement, aircraft title, or aircraft documentation;
(2) general information regarding loans, including the original loan amount, loan terms, personal guarantees, and disbursement and repayment schedules;
(3) insurance matters, including insurance policies and correspondence with insurance companies or borrowers regarding losses, accident reports, and nonpayment of premiums; and
(4) foreclosure and default proceedings.
(b) The following information is confidential and is not subject to public disclosure:
(1) personal and financial information, including income tax returns, financial statements, business income statements, profit and loss statements, credit information obtained from banks and other creditors, reports from consumer reporting agencies;
(2) loan committee memoranda and minutes containing information relating to creditworthiness of an applicant; and
(3) the payment history on a loan, unless the loan is in default.
(c) Information not described in (a) or (b) of this section may be subject to public disclosure. Requests for disclosure must be made and will be determined in accordance with 2 AAC 96.100 – 2 AAC 96.900. Upon receipt of a request for disclosure, the department will notify the loan applicant and other persons with a privacy interest in the request, to permit them to present reasons why the requested information should not be disclosed. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: Art. I, sec. 22, Ak Const. AS 40.25.120 AS 44.33.660
AS 40.25.110
3 AAC 75.900. Definitions. (a) In this chapter, unless otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires,
(1) “commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development;
(2) "default" includes a violation of any provision of this chapter, AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690, the loan documents, or failure to make the necessary payment within 15 days after it is due;
(3) "department" means the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development;
(4) "guarantor" means a person who legally assures that the loan requirements will be met if the borrower fails to pay or perform as contracted;
(5) "wraparound financing" means a contract that includes the balance due on an existing debt and any additional amount to cover the difference between the selling price and the existing debt;
(6) "director" means the director of the division of investments or its successor agency in the department. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.690
Is this good for all aircraft owners? Comment today! (May 2)
Here is the loan regulation:
3 AAC 75 is amended by adding a new chapter to Part 10 to read:
Chapter 75. Alaska Capstone Avionics Revolving Loan Fund
Section
10. Application process
15. Examination
20. Loan committee
25. Eligibility of aircraft and equipment
30. Financial and credit record
35. Ability to repay
40. Collateral
45. Lending practices
50. Disbursement of loan money
55. Costs
60. Assumptions
65. Modifications
70. Reconsideration of loan request
75. Confidentiality of loan information
900. Definitions
3 AAC 75.010. Application process. (a) To apply for a loan the applicant shall file with the department
(1) a completed application for a Capstone avionics loan, on a form provided by the department;
(2) documentation to verify that the aircraft receiving the Capstone avionics improvements meets the eligibility requirements contained in AS 44.33.665(a) and 3 AAC 75.025;
(3) a letter of intent stating the amount requested and the intended use of the proposed loan money on a form provided by the department;
(4) a schedule of acceptable collateral, including a copy of the aircraft title and Capstone avionics equipment to be acquired with the loan proceeds, on a form provided by the department;
(5) an individual financial statement consisting of a current balance sheet and a profit and loss statement, on a form provided by the department;
(6) a signed credit authorization, on a form provided by the department;
(7) copies of the applicant's federal income tax return for the preceding year, and for additional years if requested by the department;
(8) consent to release information, on a form provided by the department;
(9) copies of the purchase agreement, cost estimates, invoice or other documentation to verify the cost of equipment being purchased and installed with loan proceeds;
(10) a $50 nonrefundable application fee; and
(11) any other information that might be helpful to the applicant in demonstrating eligibility for a loan, as requested by the department.
(b) An applicant who submits a false sworn or unsworn statement on or in support of a loan application is subject to AS 11.56.200 - 11.56.210 and will, in the department's discretion, be denied any future loans.
(c) The department will, in its discretion, process loan requests without the information described in (a) of this section in cases where it determines that the information is not necessary in order for the department to make the lending decision. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.015. Examination. (a) The materials described in 3 AAC 75.010 will be processed and evaluated by a loan officer. The loan officer will evaluate the applicant's eligibility, financial and credit history, financial statement, ability to repay, and proposed collateral.
(b) On the basis of the evaluation, the loan officer will either
(1) inactivate the application
i) due to lack of information required under 3 AAC 75.010;
ii) ineligibility of the applicant; or
iii) failure by the aircraft to meet the eligibility requirements under 3 AAC 75.025; or
(2) recommend proposed action on the loan request to the appropriate loan committee. However, the recommendation of a loan officer is not binding on a loan committee. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.020. Loan committee. (a) A loan committee consists of one or more persons appointed by the director to act on a loan request.
(b) A loan committee may approve, deny, or modify and approve a loan request, or may table a loan request subject to obtaining additional information.
(c) A loan committee may impose reasonable conditions on the approval of a loan, including
(1) additional collateral to secure the loan;
(2) additional guarantors; and
(3) adding the department as loss payee on an existing aircraft insurance policy.
(d) A loan committee shall consider the applicant's eligibility for a loan, financial and credit record, ability to repay, operating plan, and the adequacy of collateral offered to secure the loan. A loan committee may also consider the recommendations of the loan officer assigned to process the application and any other relevant information.
(e) A loan committee may fix, within the limitations set by AS 44.33.670, the term of a loan and repayment schedule.
(f) If a loan request is denied or significantly modified by a loan committee, the loan committee shall provide the applicant with a statement of the reasons for the action and the information relied upon.
(g) A material misstatement or omission of fact made by an applicant constitutes grounds for denial of a loan request. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665 AS 44.33.670
3 AAC 75.025. Eligibility of aircraft and equipment. (a) For an aircraft to be eligible for a loan under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690, the applicant must document that the aircraft has logged a substantial percentage of flight hours in the state. For purposes of this section, “substantial flight hours” means at least 90% of the aircraft’s flight hours were logged in Alaska over the preceding twelve months.
(b) Capstone avionic equipment eligible for a loan includes
(1) Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) Data Link;
(2) GPS/WAAS navigation equipment;
(3) a moving map multifunction display (MFD); or
(4) other equipment as determined by the department in consultation with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.030. Financial and credit record. (a) The department will, in its discretion, consider the following factors in evaluating an applicant's financial and credit record
(1) existing and prior debts;
(2) credit reports obtained from creditors and private credit reporting services;
(3) prior loan history with the department;
(4) timeliness in making payments on loans and other debts;
(5) bankruptcies;
(6) existence of tax liens;
(7) judgments and foreclosures; and
(8) financial and credit reputation.
(b) Information establishing unacceptable credit will be more heavily weighed by the department if it has occurred in recent years. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.035. Ability to repay. (a) The department will, in its discretion, consider the following factors in evaluating an applicant's ability to repay
(1) income history, including present income;
(2) prospects for future income;
(3) assets and their liquidity;
(4) liabilities;
(5) reasonableness of projected profit and loss statement; and
(6) other relevant experience. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.040. Collateral. (a) A loan must be secured by collateral acceptable to the department, which may include a lien on the equipment being financed and the aircraft receiving the improvements.
(b) The aircraft being upgraded must have airworthiness certification. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.045. Lending practices. (a) A loan will not be approved for refinancing of debt of an existing loan, the proceeds of which were used to purchase or install avionic equipment similar to that described in 3 AAC 75.025.
(b) Loan proceeds may not be used to reimburse an applicant for Capstone avionics equipment similar to that described in 3 AAC 75.025 which was purchased more than six months before receipt of the application by the department.
(c) The interest rate for the loan program will be 4%.
(d) A loan for the purchase of Capstone avionics equipment will be made only if the aircraft is in the name of the applicant and the equipment to be purchased is offered as security for the loan. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.050. Disbursement of loan money. (a) Loan funds will be disbursed when
(1) requirements of the loan committee have been met; and
(2) the borrower is in compliance with all other provisions of the loan documents and this chapter. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665 AS 44.33.670
3 AAC 75.055. Costs. (a) All expenses incurred by the department in processing an application must be paid by the applicant.
(b) A late fee not to exceed five percent of the payment amount will, in the department's discretion, be charged to a borrower for each loan payment that is more than 15 days past due.
(c) An extension fee, not to exceed $50.00, will, in the department's discretion, be charged to a borrower to process a loan extension. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.060. Assumptions. (a) A request for permission to assume the obligations and benefits of a loan made under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690 and this chapter will be processed in the same manner as a loan request.
(b) A loan committee may permit an assumption if
(1) the applicant meets requirements as outlined in this chapter;
(2) is a good financial risk; and
(3) the security of the state's investment is preserved.
(c) Wraparound financing that includes a loan made under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690 and this chapter is prohibited and constitutes a default on the loan. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660
3 AAC 75.065. Modifications. (a) A request for a modification to a loan made under AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690 and this chapter will be processed in the same manner as a loan application. The department will, in its discretion, require the applicant to file one or more of the items specified in 3 AAC 75.010.
(b) A loan committee may permit a loan modification only if the security of the state and its investment is preserved. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660
3 AAC 75.070. Reconsideration of loan request. (a) If a loan request is denied, inactivated or significantly modified by the department, an applicant may file a written request for reconsideration within 30 days after receipt of notice of the department's decision.
(b) The department will, in its discretion, reconsider a request upon a showing by the applicant that
(1) there has been a substantial change in the circumstances leading to the departments’ decision;
(2) additional relevant information can be provided to the department that was not initially available; or
(3) administrative errors were made by the department. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.665
3 AAC 75.075. Confidentiality of loan information. (a) The following information is not confidential and is available for public inspection upon request:
(1) a document that is already a public record, including a financing statement, aircraft title, or aircraft documentation;
(2) general information regarding loans, including the original loan amount, loan terms, personal guarantees, and disbursement and repayment schedules;
(3) insurance matters, including insurance policies and correspondence with insurance companies or borrowers regarding losses, accident reports, and nonpayment of premiums; and
(4) foreclosure and default proceedings.
(b) The following information is confidential and is not subject to public disclosure:
(1) personal and financial information, including income tax returns, financial statements, business income statements, profit and loss statements, credit information obtained from banks and other creditors, reports from consumer reporting agencies;
(2) loan committee memoranda and minutes containing information relating to creditworthiness of an applicant; and
(3) the payment history on a loan, unless the loan is in default.
(c) Information not described in (a) or (b) of this section may be subject to public disclosure. Requests for disclosure must be made and will be determined in accordance with 2 AAC 96.100 – 2 AAC 96.900. Upon receipt of a request for disclosure, the department will notify the loan applicant and other persons with a privacy interest in the request, to permit them to present reasons why the requested information should not be disclosed. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: Art. I, sec. 22, Ak Const. AS 40.25.120 AS 44.33.660
AS 40.25.110
3 AAC 75.900. Definitions. (a) In this chapter, unless otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires,
(1) “commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development;
(2) "default" includes a violation of any provision of this chapter, AS 44.33.650 – 44.33.690, the loan documents, or failure to make the necessary payment within 15 days after it is due;
(3) "department" means the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development;
(4) "guarantor" means a person who legally assures that the loan requirements will be met if the borrower fails to pay or perform as contracted;
(5) "wraparound financing" means a contract that includes the balance due on an existing debt and any additional amount to cover the difference between the selling price and the existing debt;
(6) "director" means the director of the division of investments or its successor agency in the department. (Eff. _____/___/______, Register ______)
Authority: AS 44.33.660 AS 44.33.690
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The price of a lie: The cost of ADS-B in Alaska
When will the price for Capstone ADS-B equipment see a reduction now that the FAA has announced that ADS-B out is to be used in the national air space for NexGen?
Experts and FAA officials say that manufacturers will not build any Capstone style ADS-B in and out (978Mghz) equipment until there is a standard. Once a standard is in place production will proceed and prices for the equipment will drop. Provided the FAA approves the Capstone style ADS-B nationwide.
According to a response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) out performance requirements to Support air traffic control service 72 Fed. Register 56947 (proposed October, 5, 2007) Docket No. FAA-2007-29305 by the Air Transport Association, the FAA has yet to set a standard for ADS-B out and in. The ATA recommends using both (Capstone like) in the NAS, not solely ADS-B 1090 Extended Squitter out.
The Air Transport Association is made up of major airline members, and represents their interests. In their response to the NPRM the ATA voices their concern about this issue as one of the main stumbling blocks of ADS-B equipage issue, and implementation into the NAS.
“…the ATA is concerned that FAA already has signed a contract to initiate the implementation of an ADS-B ground infrastructure, but has not developed operating applications or technical standards for ADS-B In, nor reasonably assessed the substantially greater potential impact on operators of ADS-B In.
In other words the Capstone ADS-B used here in Alaska has “Out” and “In” and the FAA has yet to set a standard for both being used together.
The ADS-B out signal on 1090Mghz has an International standard adopted by the U.S. that is shared for ADS-B, TIS-B and air traffic control.
The “ Capstone ADS-B signal standards on 978 Mghz” issue is of concern here in Alaska now because Gov. Palin recently signed into law a low-interest revolving loan to equip Alaska aircraft with ADS-B.
The question here that is dying to be asked is…how could the FAA ask the State of Alaska to kick in money to equip aircraft if there is no “standard” for the equipment to be compatible, in the future?
Hank Krawkowski, chief operating officer for the Air Traffic Organization, said the FAA needs the Capstone Statewide Agreement Implementation Committee to obtain the funds under a memorandum of agreement for the state to receive $187 million in services from the FAA. This figure is included in proposed budgeting for Alaska of $493 million for future aviation infrastructure improvements.
I’ll bet Sarah Palin did not know that when she penned the bill to create the loan, another interesting detail is whether the Alaska Implementation Committee who signed an agreement with the FAA is aware of the limitations in front of them?
Experts and FAA officials say that manufacturers will not build any Capstone style ADS-B in and out (978Mghz) equipment until there is a standard. Once a standard is in place production will proceed and prices for the equipment will drop. Provided the FAA approves the Capstone style ADS-B nationwide.
According to a response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) out performance requirements to Support air traffic control service 72 Fed. Register 56947 (proposed October, 5, 2007) Docket No. FAA-2007-29305 by the Air Transport Association, the FAA has yet to set a standard for ADS-B out and in. The ATA recommends using both (Capstone like) in the NAS, not solely ADS-B 1090 Extended Squitter out.
The Air Transport Association is made up of major airline members, and represents their interests. In their response to the NPRM the ATA voices their concern about this issue as one of the main stumbling blocks of ADS-B equipage issue, and implementation into the NAS.
“…the ATA is concerned that FAA already has signed a contract to initiate the implementation of an ADS-B ground infrastructure, but has not developed operating applications or technical standards for ADS-B In, nor reasonably assessed the substantially greater potential impact on operators of ADS-B In.
In other words the Capstone ADS-B used here in Alaska has “Out” and “In” and the FAA has yet to set a standard for both being used together.
The ADS-B out signal on 1090Mghz has an International standard adopted by the U.S. that is shared for ADS-B, TIS-B and air traffic control.
The “ Capstone ADS-B signal standards on 978 Mghz” issue is of concern here in Alaska now because Gov. Palin recently signed into law a low-interest revolving loan to equip Alaska aircraft with ADS-B.
The question here that is dying to be asked is…how could the FAA ask the State of Alaska to kick in money to equip aircraft if there is no “standard” for the equipment to be compatible, in the future?
Hank Krawkowski, chief operating officer for the Air Traffic Organization, said the FAA needs the Capstone Statewide Agreement Implementation Committee to obtain the funds under a memorandum of agreement for the state to receive $187 million in services from the FAA. This figure is included in proposed budgeting for Alaska of $493 million for future aviation infrastructure improvements.
I’ll bet Sarah Palin did not know that when she penned the bill to create the loan, another interesting detail is whether the Alaska Implementation Committee who signed an agreement with the FAA is aware of the limitations in front of them?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Equipage Bill Signed...but where is the money for General Aviation aircraft?
Governor Palin offered this bill on Jan. 25, 2008 with $4.8 million, she did her job. Now, it is up to industry to come up with $34 million more to equip 95 percent of Alaska's aircraft by an FAA deadline, can they do it?
A bill to offer a low-interest loan program to aircraft owners who install a new digital link technology in their aircraft was signed by Gov. Sarah Palin on April 9 in Juneau.
Senate Bill 249, which Palin sponsored and introduced Jan. 25, provides Alaskan airplane owners the opportunity to use a new low-interest revolving loan program to purchase Capstone-like avionics equipment for their aircraft.
The technology, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, was tested in Alaska and was formally called the Capstone Safety Project.
ADS-B is a data link that uses ultra-high frequency radio to send and receive information about other aircraft that uses the technology. Along with multi-function screens and air traffic displays, the equipment also gives pilots graphical weather information, terrain maps and flight information, including temporary flight restrictions and notices to airmen. ADS-B is nearly 10 times more accurate than radar and operates in real time.
The $4.8 million loan program for installation is offered through the state Department of Community, Commerce and Economic Development.
The program is also a key component to the Federal Aviation Administration's plans to adopt ADS-B throughout the state, according to the governor.
Statewide aviation officials, working in the Capstone Statewide Agreement Implementation Committee, last year signed a memorandum of agreement with the FAA to obtain $34 million and equip 95 percent of the most frequently flown aircraft. If this is accomplished, the FAA has said that it will invest $493 million in services and infrastructure improvements across Alaska.
Industry officials tried lobbying legislators for additional funding, but came up empty handed. That forced the idea of offering a 4 percent loan to commercial aviation operators, according to industry officials.
“This legislation is a crucial step to improving aviation safety,” Palin said in a written release. “Studies have shown very significant improvements in aviation safety in the areas around Bethel and Southeast where the FAA has built ground stations and planes have been outfitted with the new equipment. We are hoping for similar results over a much larger area of Alaska.”
Alaska has the highest number of pilots per capita of any state - about one in 78 Alaskans is a pilot. Alaska also has the highest aviation accident rates in the nation, three to four times higher than the national average for commercial aviation.
The FAA plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ground stations that transmit the ADS-B signal, but it will be up to aircraft owners to outfit their planes.
FAA officials said nearly 4,000 aircraft statewide would need to install and use the equipment to justify spending nearly $500 million now in the future.
The FAA recently announced it intends to have NexGen ADS-B installed at most high aviation traffic areas in U.S. and in Alaska by 2013, and will have the technology deployed nationwide by 2020.
NexGen is the FAA's official term for the next generation of aircraft control systems, also known as ADS-B.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1350207/governor_signs_bill_approving_loans_for_aircraft_safety_equipment/
http://www.alaskajournal.com/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/capstone/?CFID=32230658&CFTOKEN=da7e758f27c879cc-71C2099C-1372-4138-C96EF28CB07377E6&jsessionid=1230bc5481fa252c3131
http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/default.htm
A bill to offer a low-interest loan program to aircraft owners who install a new digital link technology in their aircraft was signed by Gov. Sarah Palin on April 9 in Juneau.
Senate Bill 249, which Palin sponsored and introduced Jan. 25, provides Alaskan airplane owners the opportunity to use a new low-interest revolving loan program to purchase Capstone-like avionics equipment for their aircraft.
The technology, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, was tested in Alaska and was formally called the Capstone Safety Project.
ADS-B is a data link that uses ultra-high frequency radio to send and receive information about other aircraft that uses the technology. Along with multi-function screens and air traffic displays, the equipment also gives pilots graphical weather information, terrain maps and flight information, including temporary flight restrictions and notices to airmen. ADS-B is nearly 10 times more accurate than radar and operates in real time.
The $4.8 million loan program for installation is offered through the state Department of Community, Commerce and Economic Development.
The program is also a key component to the Federal Aviation Administration's plans to adopt ADS-B throughout the state, according to the governor.
Statewide aviation officials, working in the Capstone Statewide Agreement Implementation Committee, last year signed a memorandum of agreement with the FAA to obtain $34 million and equip 95 percent of the most frequently flown aircraft. If this is accomplished, the FAA has said that it will invest $493 million in services and infrastructure improvements across Alaska.
Industry officials tried lobbying legislators for additional funding, but came up empty handed. That forced the idea of offering a 4 percent loan to commercial aviation operators, according to industry officials.
“This legislation is a crucial step to improving aviation safety,” Palin said in a written release. “Studies have shown very significant improvements in aviation safety in the areas around Bethel and Southeast where the FAA has built ground stations and planes have been outfitted with the new equipment. We are hoping for similar results over a much larger area of Alaska.”
Alaska has the highest number of pilots per capita of any state - about one in 78 Alaskans is a pilot. Alaska also has the highest aviation accident rates in the nation, three to four times higher than the national average for commercial aviation.
The FAA plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ground stations that transmit the ADS-B signal, but it will be up to aircraft owners to outfit their planes.
FAA officials said nearly 4,000 aircraft statewide would need to install and use the equipment to justify spending nearly $500 million now in the future.
The FAA recently announced it intends to have NexGen ADS-B installed at most high aviation traffic areas in U.S. and in Alaska by 2013, and will have the technology deployed nationwide by 2020.
NexGen is the FAA's official term for the next generation of aircraft control systems, also known as ADS-B.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1350207/governor_signs_bill_approving_loans_for_aircraft_safety_equipment/
http://www.alaskajournal.com/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/capstone/?CFID=32230658&CFTOKEN=da7e758f27c879cc-71C2099C-1372-4138-C96EF28CB07377E6&jsessionid=1230bc5481fa252c3131
http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/default.htm
Monday, April 14, 2008
Is Chelton really working with UAA?
This just out from a Chelton press release:
Chelton Product Support is working in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the University of Alaska Anchorage to update software on and provide operator training for nearly 90 Part 23 aircraft during the months of March and April. Software version 6.0B was TSO’d in December, 2007 and is DO-178B Level-A certified. Among its 40 new end-user benefits is the ability to integrate with and display Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) on Chelton’s Synthetic Vision EFIS displays, greatly enhancing pilot awareness and flight safety.
ADS-B works differently than conventional radar, which bounces radio waves from terrestrial antennas off of airborne targets and then interprets the reflected signals. Typically, ADS-B-capable aircraft will use an ordinary GPS navigation receiver to determine its position, and then combine that position with several aircraft parameters, such as flight number, heading, speed, and altitude. This data is simultaneously broadcast to other ADS-B-equipped aircraft and to ASD-B ground stations, or to satellite communications transceivers which relay the aircraft information to Air Traffic Control centers.
Installation of 6.0B and pilot training is part of Chelton Flight Systems’ contract under the Capstone Program, a joint industry and FAA Alaskan Region initiative to improve aviation safety in that state.
As part of that program, Chelton fielded Synthetic Vision systems with Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS), eliminating the incidence of CFIT accidents among equipped Part 23 aircraft. The addition of an ADS-B datalink capability to Synthetic Vision-equipped aircraft will result in even greater situational awareness, improved safety in poor visual conditions, and a reduced the risk of runway incursions in addition to providing weather products (including METAR and TAF information).
Chelton Flight Systems, part of the Cobham Avionics & Surveillance Division, is the manufacturer of the world’s first FAA-certified synthetic vision EFIS, which is now STC’d on over 740 airplane and helicopter models.
Chelton Product Support is working in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the University of Alaska Anchorage to update software on and provide operator training for nearly 90 Part 23 aircraft during the months of March and April. Software version 6.0B was TSO’d in December, 2007 and is DO-178B Level-A certified. Among its 40 new end-user benefits is the ability to integrate with and display Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) on Chelton’s Synthetic Vision EFIS displays, greatly enhancing pilot awareness and flight safety.
ADS-B works differently than conventional radar, which bounces radio waves from terrestrial antennas off of airborne targets and then interprets the reflected signals. Typically, ADS-B-capable aircraft will use an ordinary GPS navigation receiver to determine its position, and then combine that position with several aircraft parameters, such as flight number, heading, speed, and altitude. This data is simultaneously broadcast to other ADS-B-equipped aircraft and to ASD-B ground stations, or to satellite communications transceivers which relay the aircraft information to Air Traffic Control centers.
Installation of 6.0B and pilot training is part of Chelton Flight Systems’ contract under the Capstone Program, a joint industry and FAA Alaskan Region initiative to improve aviation safety in that state.
As part of that program, Chelton fielded Synthetic Vision systems with Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS), eliminating the incidence of CFIT accidents among equipped Part 23 aircraft. The addition of an ADS-B datalink capability to Synthetic Vision-equipped aircraft will result in even greater situational awareness, improved safety in poor visual conditions, and a reduced the risk of runway incursions in addition to providing weather products (including METAR and TAF information).
Chelton Flight Systems, part of the Cobham Avionics & Surveillance Division, is the manufacturer of the world’s first FAA-certified synthetic vision EFIS, which is now STC’d on over 740 airplane and helicopter models.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Will future ADS-B in Alaska be the real deal?
Feds: At play in the fields of the Lord!
Anchorage, AK-(April 13, 2008)-- It has come to my attention that some within the Federal Aviation Administration are not being completely forthcoming about the information that it is giving in regards to the implementation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast technology here in Alaska. For that matter how ADS-B will work in the National Airspace System may be skewed as well.
The purpose of this blog is to start a dialog with those in Alaska (or anyone anywhere) who believes that the Universal Access Transceiver version of ADS-B tested here in Alaska is the 'Right' way to go with future installations.
What am I saying...? I am asking for information about whether Alaska is going to get tricked into getting the 1090 MHz extended squitter, or are we going to get the two-way UAT ADS-B technology responsible for creating a 40+ percent safer flying environment in South West Alaska, and which won the 2007 Collier Trophy (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/ads-b-program-wins-collier-trophy/?no_cache=1) .
I hope to ask some tough question here, so lets define why this is important.
Well--the hope is that individuals who believe in the hard won Capstone Program that proved how technology could benefit pilots and passenger safety by adding additional two-way situational awareness into the cockpit of Rural flying aircraft can use this vehicle to inform me ( a media person) with real facts.
These facts are not available to me by asking Federal Aviation Administration officials for story related information. Either by email, phone conversation, or by the Freedom of Information Act.
In fact, many of the FOIA's that I have submitted in the past year about ADS-B here in Alaska come back as "No known information on this topic is available."
That's odd because many of you who will read this have given me the names of documents, programs, contracts and meetings that are real, but according to the FAA have never happened, thus are not available via FOIA.
Strange?
It is my quest, and my job to inform industry and business about anything and everything that affects change to the economics of aviation in Alaska. Remember I am not the enemy media, but a messenger.
Without the raw-pure-facts, how can anyone hope to report an accurate story?
Please respond and help me by posting your knowledge of ADS-B UAT or the fake 1090 ES version as my plea for facts, and the truth. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Consider me the messenger for the Alaska aviation industry, and your inside knowledge as help for a pilots need to know about the goings on around the politics of ADS-B technology.
This a last chance to keep the Capstone Safety Program's legacy on track here in Alaska, use it.
Please respond!
RS-
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060510ads-b.html
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/101506/tra_20061015010.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
