pfarber
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,653
- Display Name
- pfarber
OP needs an aviation attorney to speak for him. the FAA has already initiated action... this is not a brasher warning.
ADS-B inaccuracy and certificate action
- Thread starter birdtrick
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,003
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
Since at this point there has been the initiation of formal enforcement action, the FAA has already saved it, and the odds are it's not helpful to the pilot. (I agree completely about doing your own research on LiveATC.)
What strikes me as odd about this is that, based solely on the description given, I would expect something like this to be handled under the Compliance Program. Even if it weren't, there's correspondence that normally precedes a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action from an FAA lawyer (unless its serious enough for emergency revocation rather than suspension). The proposed 1-year suspension suggests to me that there is far more to the story.
Ed Haywood
Final Approach
I assumed based on the OP that this was a formal IFR hold on a fix and course. In that case, the OP only had 2 choices. Violate the FAR minimum altitude, or refuse the instruction.
But now it's sounding more like "hang out outside of the Bravo until we are ready for you." In that case, it would totally on the pilot to select a location and altitude that complies with FAR minimum altitude regs.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Can you tell us where exactly you were and how you got there?
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,003
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
It would probably be wise at this point to shut up and consult with a professional.
They can't help themselves but to talk online about this, all over the internet, despite early advice to lawyer up.
Lindberg
Final Approach
I feel like that ship, if there was one, has sailed.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
§ 91.25 Aviation Safety Reporting Program: Prohibition against use of reports for enforcement purposes.
The Administrator of the FAA will not use reports submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program (or information derived therefrom) in any enforcement action except information concerning accidents or criminal offenses which are wholly excluded from the Program.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,003
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
Assuming the metaphor applies to this situation, it’s never too late to stop digging.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah, but a few extra shovelfuls can’t hurt, because down deep, lawyers are good people.
(I know, an oldie but moldy.)
wanttaja
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,667
- Location
- "War-Torn" Portland
- Display Name
- Ron Wanttaja
- Home Airfield
- Twin Oaks Airpark
what does the uAvionics system use for a static source? Where is it located? If it doesn't use the aircraft's static system, the altitudes certainly won't match.
Ron Wanttaja
SkyBeacon and TailBeacon have their own built-in baro sensor in addition to the built-in GPS. I don't know whether the standard PAPR has enough detail to compare them, but you can request full ADS-B details for any of your flights by emailing the FAA. I did this a few years ago when troubleshooting mine, and it was very helpful.
The email address I used: [email protected]
In the email, include your tail # and the date of your flight.
Last edited:
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 8,354
- Display Name
- Dale Andee
Do you know if the SkyBeacon and TailBeacon use only the built-in baro sensor data, or do they use both the built-in plus the Mode C altitude encoder? The FAA is telling me that the uAvionix ADS-B units "correct" the Mode C encoder data by using the built-in baro sensor. This just doesn't seem right to me.
Here's now uAvionix explained it to me when I was troubleshooting my unit. The only thing they get from the xponder is the current squawk code. They do it by sensing ripples on the power input that happen when the xponder is pinged and responds, drawing power to transmit. Any altitude data they send comes from their own internal GPS or baro sensor.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 2,261
- Display Name
- Andrew, CFI-I
How did they know who was flying the airplane? Was there a flight plan that listed your name and phone number?
I bring this up because a few months ago, I got a call from the FSDO about our club plane allegedly circling at low altitudes. I explained to him that we were flying over our home field for an engine break-in. The inspector said he already knew that, was aware of our recent engine replacement, and apologized for the call. He mentioned that someone had filed a complaint and that he was required to follow up. He never asked who was flying (it was me) or what our altitude was (we were between 3,000 and 4,000 feet AGL). My point is, people will file complaints over anything—but inspectors should use some discretion before taking it further.
I *think* the ADSB focus may be a bit of a red herring, and I expect using that data as a defense/in support of the PIC’s action(s) won’t be key to the outcome.
I would hazard to guess that even with fused smybology, the encoded altimeter reading and the ADS-B data are separate data fields/blocks since ADS-B can’t be used for separation services.
I would hazard to guess that even with fused smybology, the encoded altimeter reading and the ADS-B data are separate data fields/blocks since ADS-B can’t be used for separation services.
Llewtrah381
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,762
- Display Name
- Llewtrah
Looking at the TAC and taking these two comments together, maybe the issue wasn’t being below 1000 ft but was being in the Class B without a clearance. If you were “over Mission Bay”, it sure looks like you were within the Class B part that goes down to the surface.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
No one else has suggested it yet, so I will … review PBOR.
Do you mean can’t be used for vertical separation? Because isn’t that the whole purpose of ADS-B? To use for separation as an ( better) alternative to radar?
Last edited:
My understanding is that ATC use of ADS-B is conditional, and in this thread, I don’t think enough information exists to determine if those conditions have been met.
I probably should have more clearly stated that.
pfarber
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,653
- Display Name
- pfarber
since VFR flights are not required to talk to ATC, and by FAR, there is no required separation other than 'don't hit each other' and 'be safe'.
Also ADS-B OUT is not required UNLESS you operate in ADS-B required areas. My home field is in a non-ADS-B required area. Basically if you stay under 10000ft MSL and don't go in/over class B/C or a mode C vial you don't need it.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Based on the OP’s description of the event, I’d guess that the inspector has seen reasons to take it further.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,003
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
Depends on where Mission Bay. There is an intersection of Class B boundaries right over the VOR. To the south is the SAN surface, but to the north are 1800' and 4800' floors. And that's assuming no Class B clearance.
Besides, if, as stated, they received a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, it specified exactly which reg(s) the FAA claims was violated. and how they were violated. For illustration, this is a sample content of a simple NPCA claiming a common IFR altitude violation. (yes, from a real case). Point is, a claimed violation of the minimum altitude rules will cite the minimum altitude regs; a claimed violation of Class B will cite the regulation requiring a Class B clearance.
Lindberg
Final Approach
The only thing that's clear to me about this story is that there's more to it. On its face, the charitable interpretation of the OP's defense to a 91.119 violation is that he was actually only violating 91.123. But without knowing what happened leading up to and after the alleged violation, it's really hard to grok.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,003
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
As I mentioned back in Post #42, I don't think there's any question about that. Besides, experience tells me there is almost always more to the story.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 21,190
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- Half Fast
- Home Airfield
- KGIF
Oh, if only Paul Harvey were still alive....
It would certainly be helpful if the OP would post the letter, redacted as necessary. Otherwise, this is starting to seem rather like trolling.
Lindberg
Final Approach
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,003
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
Helpful to us, not necessarily to the OP.
Oh, if only Paul Harvey were still alive....
It would certainly be helpful if the OP would post the letter, redacted as necessary. Otherwise, this is starting to seem rather like trolling.
Eric Pauley
Pre-takeoff checklist
This you, OP?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 5,585
- Display Name
- Ari
Where and when was there an FL170 in the USA?
Not me. But unless that’s a helicopter he sure is busting. Even ADSB error can’t excuse that one. Most of my hold was over the water but I was over the land section a few times. It was at least a 10 minute hold.
That letter posted above is really enlightening. I imagine the only reason it was a proposed certificate action was because they came within close proximity of another aircraft. I would think otherwise they would have gone through the compliance program or whatever it’s called.
But he didn't know about a possible violation until he got the letter.
Things have a funny way of unfolding. I just received a quarterly newsletter email from ADSB Exchange. Probably many of you here just got the same thing. One of the topics is the new barometric altitude correction feature. I figured out how to activate the field, looked up the barometric pressure for the date/time of the flight, plugged it in (30.13), and suddenly my altitude is just over 1000' for the entire hold. Boom. How can the FAA deny that?
Am I on the right track here? Missing anything? Just made my day.. unless somebody here is going to burst it.
Am I on the right track here? Missing anything? Just made my day.. unless somebody here is going to burst it.
According to the sectional posted above the ground (the land section) is 250’. The island in Mission Bay is 320’.
Eric Pauley
Pre-takeoff checklist
Oops, guess it must have been the other photo flight aircraft that busted altitude over Mission Bay exactly a year ago, and is also owned by Troy Hartman: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?ica...owTrace=2024-05-29&leg=1×tamp=1717005871
As to why the FAA cares: if you scroll through the history you'll find 10 other altitude busts in 6 months.
The Sea World tower is 320' and over 2000' away. The 250' land section is on the other side of the freeway. On the west side it's an RV park at sea level.