Online Community of Zenith Builders and Flyers
That will go quickly to those who intended to equip anyway. Conflict of interest? Government support of industry? Government support of equipment manufacturers? Largesse to the largest? Corporate welfare?
As I understand it, it only applies to TSO-certified aircraft ADSB installations (why not experimental?) and if one has already installed ADSB, you're out of luck - no rebate. Looks to me they're rewarding the stragglers and not the early adopters! <sigh> My tax dollars at work! ha!
What equipment did you install, John?
I already had an iFly 740 moving map GPS to display traffic along with weather and a Sandia 165R digital transponder. For ADSB in-and-out, I installed a NavWorx ADS600-EXP, which meets the FAA's ADSB 2020 mandate. It's easy to install (communicates with the iFly 740 via WiFi - no wires!) and works great. I bought it through Adventure Pilot (iFly vendor) and received great technical support both from Adventure Pilot and NavWorx.
Knowing the perversity of lawyers and the gummint, will they, then, grant the $500 to experimentals?
The present $500 rebate only applies to aircraft that have TSO-certified ADSB equipment installed, which is usually much more expensive than DIY, non-TSO'd experimental installations.
I don't know if an experimental can even have a "certified" installation with TSO'd equipment? Anybody know? It's a moot point, anyway, because the cost of using TSO'd equipment installed by a FAA -certified avionics shop vs a DIY experimental installation would nearly always be far more than $500!
Just for clarification of "legal:"
In an experimental, you may install non-TSO'd ADSB equpment and have a perfectly "legal" installation. By "legal," I mean that the installation is accepted by the FAA as in-compliance with the 2020 ADSB-out mandate. For example, here's what NavWorx says about their ADS600-EXP:
The ADS600-EXP meets the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225 (b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B OUT in the NAS with devices that meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c
Notice it says "meets the performance requirements" rather than the equipment actually having to be TSO'd. As far as the GPS source, the ADS600-EXP has its own "internal ADSB compliant WAAS GPS."
When I finished my installation and flew it, I sent an email with my tail number and date of flight to the FAA at: "9-AWA-AFS-300-. <ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov " and they check their computer data and send you a compliance report of 20+ parameters of ADSB performance and thankfully, they have a comment box where an actual human sends you a message such as "everything looks OK!" :>)
John is correct in what he is saying. Read this first paragraph listed on the FAA site, questions and answers about ADS-B.
... and the third paragraph makes it very clear:
For experimental category aircraft there is no FAA approval required for the ADS-B Out system installation. Owners of these aircraft may elect to install equipment authorized under a TSO, in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the manufacturer. Alternatively, owners of these aircraft may elect to purchase uncertified equipment. For uncertified equipment, the owner should obtain a statement of compliance from the supplier, along with installation instructions, that identifies that the ADS-B equipment complies with section 3 requirements of the applicableTSO and that, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions, complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR91.227. The FAA expects manufacturers to perform appropriate engineering efforts to ensure the equipment complies with all requirements of Section 3 of the TSO before issuing their statement of compliance, and expects installers to consider the guidance in the current version of AC 20-165B when performing the installation.
(NavWorx states it meets 14 CFR 91.225, which within that reg, requires compliance with 91.227)