Rebate rumor

[Timbeck2]

A friend of mine told me that the FAA was possibly extending/reinstating the rebate for the ADS-B upgrade. My google foo turned up nothing. Anyone else heard this?

 

[GeorgeC]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/october/07/big-news-from-aopa-carbondale-fly-in

 

[Timbeck2]

Hmmmm

Thanks

 

[Timbeck2]

It's true. Just applied for my rebate. Now all I have to to is get the annual finished and go fly for 30 minutes.

 

[BigBadLou]

Gonna order my xpdr, install it with my mechanic and enjoy the $500.
It pays to wait for the good stuff.
Now cue in all the nay-sayers who will claim that we are milking the system ...

 

[SkyDog58]

Gonna order my xpdr, install it with my mechanic and enjoy the $500.
It pays to wait for the good stuff.
Now cue in all the nay-sayers who will claim that we are milking the system ...

I don’t necessarily agree with the existence of the program but one might as well take advantage of it if they can. If you don’t grab one of the rebates, someone else will.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi everyone.
I see no real possible, complete, solution to the 2020 mandate, other than for FAA to relax the requirements, maybe add a portable solution, there are too many acft, and not enough installers, to complete the task. I know that this is Not likely to happen without an act of Congress, too short a time for them to even think about, forget about implementing it.
AOPA should have been able to forward look and see that this was a very bad idea to support / back up, without some additional choices, other than in panel / hard install. Now they are sitting on their butts just trying to collect money from people that they buried.

 

[SkyDog58]

Hi everyone.
I see no real possible, complete, solution to the 2020 mandate, other than for FAA to relax the requirements, maybe add a portable solution, there are too many acft, and not enough installers, to complete the task. I know that this is Not likely to happen without an act of Congress, too short a time for them to even think about, forget about implementing it.
AOPA should have been able to forward look and see that this was a very bad idea to support / back up, without some additional choices, other than in panel / hard install. Now they are sitting on their butts just trying to collect money from people that they buried.

Not true. A large percentage of the fleet that will actually need it have already installed. There are plenty of complete solutions out there and more than enough techs and shop space to get it done. Of course the longer people procrastinate in hopes of something changing or having the deadline extended then the more likely there is to be a huge bottleneck but that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that will not cause the FAA to extend.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Hi everyone.
I see no real possible, complete, solution to the 2020 mandate, other than for FAA to relax the requirements, maybe add a portable solution, there are too many acft, and not enough installers, to complete the task. I know that this is Not likely to happen without an act of Congress, too short a time for them to even think about, forget about implementing it.
AOPA should have been able to forward look and see that this was a very bad idea to support / back up, without some additional choices, other than in panel / hard install. Now they are sitting on their butts just trying to collect money from people that they buried.

This is where we need a cheap, made-in-you-know-where solution. The standard should be simply "passes an in-flight test".

 

[bluesideup]

Hi SkyDog and everyone.
At the risk of doing something that I am not sure I should, extract text from another article, see the URL below, I will post some information this way you can see what is / was going on. Things did not improve by much from what I can find out. There are others with worse predictions.
If you can post something that substantiates your statement I would be glad to listen.

http://interactive.aviationtoday.com/avionicsmagazine/june-july-2016/equipping-100-000-aircraft/

>>>
In March, 70 international air carrier aircraft and 40 U.S. air carrier aircraft were equipped with ADS-B, equaling a combined 110 regularly operating U.S. and international air carrier aircraft that became ADS-B Out equipped. If airlines equip at a rate of 110 aircraft per month through Dec. 31, 2019, 4,730 total air carrier aircraft will be ADS-B Out compliant by the mandate deadline, leaving just 270 aircraft without ADS-B compliance before the mandate takes hold.

At the slower January rate of equipage, which was 38 ADS-B Out upgrades per month, over the next 43 months only 1,634 total international and U.S. air carrier aircraft will become ADS-B Out compliant by the mandate.

Assuming the average equipage rate would fall between these two ranges, a rate of 74 aircraft per month, 3,182 commercial aircraft will be ADS-B Out compliant by the mandate deadline. Leaving 1,818 commercial aircraft still requiring ADS-B Out avionics upgrades to fly in the NAS.



In March 2016, operators had equipped a total of 950 combined U.S. and international GA aircraft with ADS-B Out-compliant solutions, a combined 8.2 percent of the U.S. and international GA fleet. Assuming that trend continues, if 950 U.S. and international GA aircraft are equipped with ADS-B Out per month over the next 43 months, 40,850 GA aircraft will be ADS-B Out compliant by the mandate deadline.

This leaves 59,150 GA aircraft that operators will need to equip upgrade for ADS-B Out.
<<<

 

[Hank S]

Yep, the airlines get a pass on the deadline, GA gets the screw. The benefit is much mire to the airlines, it lets them get closer to each ither in approach. The whole traffic & weather thung was added later, as a carrot to convince GA that they are doing this "to benefit us." The FAA gets the benefit, they get to shut down radar sites and save capital and maintenance costs, and pass the financial burden to aircraft owners . . . . To say nothing of the true nature, the "S" is for "Surveillance."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hi everyone.
I see no real possible, complete, solution to the 2020 mandate, other than for FAA to relax the requirements, maybe add a portable solution, there are too many acft, and not enough installers, to complete the task. I know that this is Not likely to happen without an act of Congress, too short a time for them to even think about, forget about implementing it.
AOPA should have been able to forward look and see that this was a very bad idea to support / back up, without some additional choices, other than in panel / hard install. Now they are sitting on their butts just trying to collect money from people that they buried.

What should they have asked for? If they asked for a later deadline (and got it), we would have the same problem, just later. Pilots are cheap bastards, we'll wait and wait and wait in hopes costs will go down. Well, I'm REALLY glad we did the upgrades we did when we did, as I think we've crossed the threshold where people realize the deadline is looming, the shops are getting booked up and people are in oh-$#!+ mode.

When I booked the upgrade for the Mooney last fall, the shop was scheduled 6 weeks out. When I booked for the Archer this spring, it was 8 weeks. By Oshkosh, the wait was 6 months, and by August it was a year.

However, nobody really knows how much of the fleet is actually going to equip. There will be those that fly only at uncontrolled fields, poke holes in the sky on sunny days, go for an occasional $100 hamburger, and get a nosebleed long before they hit 10,000 feet that won't bother and have never planned on it. Hopefully, everyone else has a plan at the very least.

I think that's why, when Garmin introduced the GDL 82, they also said "This is it... All our cards are on the table. We don't have anything else coming out." They had already said, sometime in 2016 IIRC, that if every avionics tech at every shop in the country dropped everything and did nothing but ADS-B installs until 1/1/2020 that they still wouldn't be able to get the whole fleet done, but at that point people still weren't equipping very quickly. The rebate was started to accelerate things, and I can't believe it worked out as poorly as it did.

Not true. A large percentage of the fleet that will actually need it have already installed. There are plenty of complete solutions out there and more than enough techs and shop space to get it done. Of course the longer people procrastinate in hopes of something changing or having the deadline extended then the more likely there is to be a huge bottleneck but that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that will not cause the FAA to extend.

There are likely not enough techs and shop space to get it done. The unknown variable is how many people will choose not to equip their airplanes, but my local shop is pretty close to being booked all the way through the deadline, despite hiring more people.

 

[bluesideup]

What should they have asked for?

Hi.
If the AOPA or others that were involved in this mess originally, would have presented something like a portable solution, I am sure someone would have com up with something. The problem is / was that they have the money and the latest equipment to get it done, and don't care about other owners.
I think FAA should look at some of these companies that are trying to get a portable solution, if they want things done, or they will have their hands full coming 2020. I am not sure how they will be able to enforce it, many pilots will not be violating the airspace intentionally, they may just be put in a position to deviate due to WX, Planning.. to violate the airspace.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hi.
If the AOPA or others that were involved in this mess originally, would have presented something like a portable solution, I am sure someone would have com up with something.

When has the FAA ever allowed a portable solution for anything having to do with IFR aircraft separation? You can't have a portable transponder nor a portable GPS for IFR use. One of the things they're trying to do with this is to decrease aircraft separation, and that requires an accurate position be broadcast. You can't consistently get that from a portable solution.

 

[bluesideup]

When has the FAA ever allowed a portable solution for anything having to do with IFR aircraft separation?

Hi.
I agree, and I would not expect anyone in IMC or on an IFR flight to use it, but over 50% of the GA, SLSA... small acft are VFR flight only.

One of the things they're trying to do with this is to decrease aircraft separation, and that requires an accurate position be broadcast.

That is not necessarily the case, if look at some the available solutions now some could have been easily implemented as portable. In addition there are more pilots using portables for other tasks illegally, which could / can also be acceptable, under certain conditions. Some of the LSAs, while they may have an in panel factory assembled are still illegal to use for certain operations. Just because something is in the panel does not make it better or more reliable, or legal to use, but I do agree that for IFR and or Commercial operations it should be implemented in the present form.

 

[Jim_CAK]

. . . When I booked the upgrade for the Mooney last fall, the shop was scheduled 6 weeks out. When I booked for the Archer this spring, it was 8 weeks. By Oshkosh, the wait was 6 months, and by August it was a year. . .

I read that a lot and it had me worried. I have been shopping ADS-B solutions for a few months and finally committed this week. The shop is scheduling 4-5 weeks out. The other two shops I talked to were 6-8 weeks. For whatever reason - the rush has not hit Northeast Ohio. If you haven’t upgraded yet the smart thing to do is contact a few shops and see what the backlog is in your area. It may guide your decision.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hi.
I agree, and I would not expect anyone in IMC or on an IFR flight to use it, but over 50% of the GA, SLSA... small acft are VFR flight only.

... And likely don't need to equip in the first place.

That is not necessarily the case, if look at some the available solutions now some could have been easily implemented as portable.

Just because something is in the panel does not make it better or more reliable

Not true, when you're talking about a system that requires reliable reception from the antennae both to get the correct position and to transmit it to other aircraft. That's the whole reason you can't do a portable IFR GPS: Part of the reliability of the system is dependent on the antenna placement, which means that it must be placed correctly and permanently, and tested.

For ADS-B, you would need to ensure both the input (GPS) and output (Mode S) antennae, and your power source, were hooked up in a reliable, testable, and thus permanent way. Sure, you could have a portable box that had the actual transponder in it, but there would be zero advantage to it at that point.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.
I do agree with the statement below:

For ADS-B, you would need to ensure both the input (GPS) and output (Mode S) antennae, and your power source, were hooked up in a reliable, testable,..

but the rest of the statement:

and thus permanent way.

does not make the device work any better or more reliable, it just makes it more attached. As long as you have a good mount with a proper communication / connection to the antenna the rest of the device can be anywhere as long as it powered up and for that a requirement for a battery back up like your ELT for example could meet the requirement, and a warning that will show when the external power is not connected.
As it stands right now no provision is made to keep you safe/ visible, if you have an electrical failure, which I think it's going to have to be remedied if they ever decide to get away from using the radar, which I think it's one of the goals, in addition to have the ability to track you for what I am sure will come next, pay for your flying time.
I, personally, think that as it's implemented / required now there are many things that can go wrong with the device and the pilot will not be aware of in real time.
There are gaps any way you look at it, it's just that Garmin has a monopoly on that market and they got everyone convinced that this is the OOOONLY way to fly.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hi.
I do agree with the statement below:

but the rest of the statement:

does not make the device work any better or more reliable, it just makes it more attached. As long as you have a good mount with a proper communication / connection to the antenna the rest of the device can be anywhere as long as it powered up and for that a requirement for a battery back up like your ELT for example could meet the requirement, and a warning that will show when the external power is not connected.

Sure, you can have backup power and all that, but the antennae either need to be attached to the airplane, or they need to be re-tested every time they're moved. That sounds like a reg likely to be broken! And if the antennae need to be attached, there really isn't much point to a portable box any more, IMO. You mount the antennae, run the coax to the panel install jacks there instead of the box, add a power feed, and you've done most of the installation already so there really isn't any advantage to the portable unless you have multiple airplanes that nobody else uses (lucky you).

 

[James331]

Wonder what it’ll be in 2020

 

[PPC1052]

What should they have asked for? If they asked for a later deadline (and got it), we would have the same problem, just later.

I honestly think that we will see another push back of the deadline. Usually what happens with things like this is they set the deadline, very few people do anything to comply, they push it, more people comply, they push it again, and then all but a few get their act together. It's an iterative process. I am not sure that there will be enough compliance, and not enough shop capacity to get enough compliant at this point for the FAA to live with the deadline as it is. Of course, this is just my prediction, and it's worth what you paid for it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I honestly think that we will see another push back of the deadline. Usually what happens with things like this is they set the deadline, very few people do anything to comply, they push it, more people comply, they push it again, and then all but a few get their act together. It's an iterative process. I am not sure that there will be enough compliance, and not enough shop capacity to get enough compliant at this point for the FAA to live with the deadline as it is. Of course, this is just my prediction, and it's worth what you paid for it.

IIRC, the 2020 deadline is the second, it was pushed once a long time ago. But, they also said quite a long time ago that they weren't kidding and that 2020 was not going to move. I don't expect it to, either.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.

but the antennae either need to be attached to the airplane, or they need to be re-tested every time they're moved.

I am not sure I understand your logic, why would this location be different from the in panel, you just set and forget. No need to move again. You may be thinking of a unit that has the antenna mounted on the transceiver, it does not need to be so. Pilots can easily save $1-2000 just in installation, not to mention that it could actually be done with minimal time and effort, and it can easily be upgraded / replaced.
I do not think that a portable will be accepted / allowed but it's because of technical or performance reason. There is huge G involved that will actually stop everyone from trying, or accepting that type of installation.

 

[PPC1052]

IIRC, the 2020 deadline is the second, it was pushed once a long time ago. But, they also said quite a long time ago that they weren't kidding and that 2020 was not going to move. I don't expect it to, either.

And, you may well be right.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am not sure I understand your logic, why would this location be different from the in panel, you just set and forget. No need to move again.

That's exactly what I'm saying - If the antennae can move, they'll need to be tested every time they do, likely with a test flight and signoff from an avionics shop just like you have to do for a panel mount IFR GPS.

Now, if the antennae are permanently mounted, you solve that problem, but you have taken away the main advantage you had, which was the zero installation cost of a portable system.

What I'm saying is, once you permanently install the antennae and test them, and run the cables to somewhere where you can plug your "portable" solution in, you've already paid most of what the installation cost of a panel-mount system would be, and at that point you would have a klunky box with cables running around. Yuck.

You might be able to convince the FAA to certify such a thing, but the market for it would be vanishingly small. Basically, people who own two or more unequipped airplanes that'll only be flying one at a time. Do the antenna/power install in both, move the box back and forth.