COZY: ADS-B Inspection
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Andrew Anunson wrote:
He is incorrect, and doesn't understand what a transponder is, or what an ADS-B transmitter/receiver is.
No. Ignore him and don't use him - he doesn't know what he's talking about. 14 CFR Part 91.413(a) says that when tested, the system must meet the requirements of 14 CFR Part 43 Appendix F. Paragraph (a) (the very first paragraph, for those folks with limited reading comprehension such as this "A&P"), says that the transponder must reply on 1090 MHz (+/- 3 MHz). Since the uAvionix Echo UAT system is a 978 MHz ADS-B system, it would immediately fail (even if it was a transponder, which it isn't). |
|
|
|
Ryszard Zadow
I call bs on that. ADSB is not a transponder ..i know of no regulatory requirement to hsve ot checked like a transponder. imho, he’s shaking you down. On Mar 8, 2023, at 20:23, Marc J. Zeitlin <marc_zeitlin@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Andrew Anunson
Appreciate the input, I agree. I won’t be using his services and I’m certainly glad he’s not doing my condition inspection.
Thanks, Andrew Anunson |
|
|
|
Guys,
If you look at UAvionix web site it does describe the TailbeaconX as a Mode S extended Squitter ADSB Transponder and aviation GPS integrated into an LED rear position light. So it is posible you might have 2 separate transponders in that instance. He might still be shaking your tree though. Rich T. |
|
|
|
Del Schier
Andrew, I recently had my new transponder checked. The shop did check both my Mode C and 978UAT transponders, yes two transponders, on his very fancy test set. He did want the make model and ser# of my ADS-B but the logbook sticker for the check only lists the Garmin GTX327 and RMI altitude encoder. Del Schier Cozy IV N197DL Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL
From: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io <canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc J. Zeitlin
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:22 PM To: Cozy Builder Google List <cozy_builders@...> Cc: Canard Aviators List <canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io> Subject: Re: [c-a] COZY: ADS-B Inspection
Andrew Anunson wrote:
He is incorrect, and doesn't understand what a transponder is, or what an ADS-B transmitter/receiver is.
No. Ignore him and don't use him - he doesn't know what he's talking about.
14 CFR Part 91.413(a) says that when tested, the system must meet the requirements of 14 CFR Part 43 Appendix F. Paragraph (a) (the very first paragraph, for those folks with limited reading comprehension such as this "A&P"), says that the transponder must reply on 1090 MHz (+/- 3 MHz). Since the uAvionix Echo UAT system is a 978 MHz ADS-B system, it would immediately fail (even if it was a transponder, which it isn't).
Use a radio shop that actually knows what they're talking about and what they're doing.
-- |
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Del Schier wrote:
While he may have performed a 91.413 check on your transponder and also tested the output of the 978 UAT (UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver - note the lack of the word "transponder" in the name), the 978 MHz ADS-B out system is NOT a transponder. If it was, you wouldn't need a freaking transponder. But it isn't. If you had a 1090 MHz transponder with Mode S and extended squitter capability, with ADS-B output, THAT would be a transponder, and you'd only need one. Being mistaken and calling it a transponder doesn't make it so, any more than calling a cat's leg a tail means that a cat has three legs and two tails. Ask your avionics guy to point you to the regulation that requires a 978 UAT ADS-B system to be checked every two years and ask him to point you to a document that defines a 978 UAT as a transponder. Since a 978 UAT system has none of the required capabilities of a transponder (no ability to set a squawk, can't ident and broadcasts on the wrong frequency), he's going to have a hard time fulfilling your request. |
|
|
|
Del Schier
Marc, Yes, my 978 UAT ADS-B is not a transponder and the avionics guy charged me $350 to do my VFR check. His $27K IFR6000 did test both devices and he made notes about the ADS-B results. We still don’t know if a 1090 ES Mode S ADS-B transponder (not transceiver) needs a test in addition to an installed 1090 Mode C. I could have flown 50 mi and had my check done for $200. I was pissed as I thought it would be cheaper if I had the guy coming to my airpark to do a dozen neighbors but it turned out he charged each and every one of us for travel time. The stupid thing was he did my Narco on a Tuesday and that Friday, flying to Rough River, ATC wasn’t getting it most of the trip. I did get the guy to do the new Garmin for free a few weeks later but I had to fly 45 min to meet him. Now I have to figure out why both my ADS-B in receivers barely work with the new Garmin. Del Schier Cozy IV N197DL Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL
From: cozy_builders@... <cozy_builders@...> On Behalf Of Marc J. Zeitlin
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 8:39 PM To: Cozy Builder Google List <cozy_builders@...> Cc: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io Subject: Re: [c-a] COZY: ADS-B Inspection
Del Schier wrote:
While he may have performed a 91.413 check on your transponder and also tested the output of the 978 UAT (UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver - note the lack of the word "transponder" in the name), the 978 MHz ADS-B out system is NOT a transponder. If it was, you wouldn't need a freaking transponder. But it isn't. If you had a 1090 MHz transponder with Mode S and extended squitter capability, with ADS-B output, THAT would be a transponder, and you'd only need one.
Being mistaken and calling it a transponder doesn't make it so, any more than calling a cat's leg a tail means that a cat has three legs and two tails.
Ask your avionics guy to point you to the regulation that requires a 978 UAT ADS-B system to be checked every two years and ask him to point you to a document that defines a 978 UAT as a transponder. Since a 978 UAT system has none of the required capabilities of a transponder (no ability to set a squawk, can't ident and broadcasts on the wrong frequency), he's going to have a hard time fulfilling your request.
-- -- |
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Del Schier wrote:
Holy crap, that's very expensive for just a 91.413 check. I generally get both 91.413 and 91.411 IFR static checks done for about $275.
I don't know why one would have two transponders in a single engine piston aircraft, but if a thing is a transponder (and a 1090ES transponder certainly is), then it definitely needs to have the 91.413 check every 2 years. There is no question about that. One check per transponder
Wow. Hardly ethical.
Still don't understand why you'd want to have two transponders in your plane... |
|
|
|
Steve Glover
I have an avionics shop and the fancy IFR6000 test set. Really expensive but needed for a repair station. You can buy upgrade modules for 1090 and 978 for creating targets for testing. For a straight 413 I agree that his quote was really high. It sounds like he was charging for a TCAS system. I have no idea why he would call the ADS-B a transponder.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
With new installations you are required to meet compliance requirements found in CFR 91.227. You can fly a predetermined sequence for an hour or have it tested and signed off by a shop. We charge $75 for a compliance check and $155-175 for a 413 check. Currently there is no recurrent inspection requirement unless it is listed in the manufacturers instructions for continued airworthiness. However, there has been rumor around the AEA that the FAA is considering mandating something due to the number of systems not installed or configured properly and throwing flags. I doubt they will do anything anytime soon. If anyone is interested in all the particulars can be found in AC20-165b and 20-172b which outlines requirements for ADS-B IN and OUT. Happy reading. Steve G. Sent from my electronic leash. On Mar 10, 2023, at 09:04, Marc J. Zeitlin <marc_zeitlin@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Andrew Anunson
Steve G. wrote: I have an avionics shop and the fancy IFR6000 test set. Where are you located? I would prefer to use an avionics shop belonging to C-A list member. Thanks, Andrew Anunson Cozy MKIV #1273 Pound, VA _._,_._,_
|
|
|
|
Andrew Anunson
Someone should bring lots of good test equipment to the Canard fly-ins. I'd be first in line. Transponder inspections Pitot/Static Tests Dynamic prop/engine balance Borescopes Compression Testing Others? I have no idea if this would be legal. Andrew Anunson Cozy MKVI #1273 Pound, VA |
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Andrew Anunson wrote:
I have all of these and could theoretically bring them to fly-ins. The only issue is with the Compression testing, as an air compressor with a tank is required, and they tend to be large and heavy, so are difficult to carry in the plane. Now, whether I'd want to spend 87.3% of my time at a fly-in doing these chores, even if I charged for them, is an open question - that's not why I go to fly-ins.
Totally legal, assuming (for the 91.413 and 91.411 tests) that one brings the right equipment and is qualified (legally) to sign off the testing. The rest, for E-AB aircraft, are unregulated. |
|
|
|
Del Schier
Marc and all, I don’t have 2 xponders but a UAT and mode C, a GTX 327 and a Skyguard. Whoever started the thread apparently has a Uavionix Mode S 1090ES ADS B and a Mode C installed, so he has two; right? I recently had a discussion with my neighbor and friend, Bill Rudik that is about finished with building an EZ after building a Defiant. He said if he gets the Uavionix with their EFIS that he can set the squawk code and ident on mode S so he only will need one. I think if you install a Uavionix without their EFIS it will get receive the code from an old mode C unit like my Skyguard does, so then your have two xponders; S and C. Confusing alphabet soup stuff 😊 My Airpark EAA chapter should get a transponder test set if someone can obtain the paperwork. We would save lots of $$ with the 100 or so airplanes here. Del
From: cozy_builders@... <cozy_builders@...> On Behalf Of Marc J. Zeitlin
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 12:04 PM To: Cozy Builder Google List <cozy_builders@...> Cc: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io Subject: Re: [c-a] COZY: ADS-B Inspection
Del Schier wrote:
Holy crap, that's very expensive for just a 91.413 check. I generally get both 91.413 and 91.411 IFR static checks done for about $275.
I don't know why one would have two transponders in a single engine piston aircraft, but if a thing is a transponder (and a 1090ES transponder certainly is), then it definitely needs to have the 91.413 check every 2 years. There is no question about that. One check per transponder
Wow. Hardly ethical.
Still don't understand why you'd want to have two transponders in your plane...
-- -- |
|
|
|
Del Schier
Yes it would be a great thing to have at Rough River! Del
From: 'Andrew Anunson' via COZY Builders Mailing List <cozy_builders@...>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 1:19 PM To: Cozy Builder Google List <cozy_builders@...>; canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io Subject: Re: [c-a] COZY: ADS-B Inspection
Someone should bring lots of good test equipment to the Canard fly-ins. I'd be first in line.
Transponder inspections Pitot/Static Tests Dynamic prop/engine balance Borescopes Compression Testing
Others? I have no idea if this would be legal.
Andrew Anunson Cozy MKVI #1273 Pound, VA -- |
|
|
|
Ryszard Zadow
I, (and I think most people), go to things like Rough River to have fun and fly. The last thing I want to do is work on my airplane while there. 😁 On Mar 10, 2023, at 16:29, Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:
|
|
|