I really wish people would stop messing with our GPS.
First LightSquared proposed (and the FCC conditionally accepted) a network for terrestrial broadband Internet that would have destroyed GPS navigation throughout the United States. In defense of LightSquared, however, it did say that in order to head off most interference issues, it would be happy to let pilots install elaborate filters in their GPS devices — at the pilots' expense, of course — to overcome the interference the LightSquared network would cause. That is very thoughtful of LightSquared.
Now, it's the FAA's turn to be the bad guy. This time the outrage comes in the form of a draft advisory circular entitled “Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of Electronic Flight Bags EFB” floated by the FAA that is either a call to eliminate portable navigators and chart readers as we know them or a blunder of epic proportions that took the form of a report so badly written it included in its scope a quarter million airplanes it hadn't intended to. Those are the light airplanes that aviators like you and me fly for personal and business reasons.
The draft advisory circular, which is intended to help FAA personnel know how they are supposed to approve portable equipment in certificated airplanes, has three main problems.
One, it seems to include Part 91 in with the rest of aviation. Charter providers, airliners and even fractional providers, those who in essence hold themselves out to provide public transportation, are rightly held to a higher standard with all things, from maintenance to equipment approvals. Electronic flight bags (EFBs) are already regulated. Including Cherokee 140s and Beech Barons in an AC intended to cover airline ops is silly, but that's what this document seems to do. And when you leave any advisory language up to the personal interpretation of FAA inspectors, many of them are going to interpret that language in the most conservative and expensive way possible.
The second problem with the draft AC is that it strongly suggests that own-ship position (showing the little airplane on the moving map or chart) is an illegal function. Like many of you, I've been using handheld navigators for the past 20 years. They greatly improve situational awareness at a cost that just about any pilot can afford. We already know that these devices with ownship position are for advisory use only. Eliminating them entirely from the cockpit will do positive harm. It's a crazy and useless proposition.
The last offense in this disastrous document is that in it the FAA seems to be calling for individual approval of every portable device that goes in the cockpit, something that would cost individual operators thousands of dollars apiece. Not that the FAA has the manpower to support these requests for approval if they were to come to pass.
The bottom line, if you haven't connected all these dots yet, is that the draft AC if approved as written would end portable navigators and chart readers as we know them.
AOPA and GAMA, in their joint letter to the FAA's Jessica Mills-McLaughlin said that "In cases where a pilot wishes to have a handheld GPS device for situational awareness purposes, no such device qualification should be required. This has been a general principal that the FAA has embraced over the past decade and this guidance should include this concept as well."
We at Flying strongly agree.
We can only hope that this is a case of ineptitude and not draconian regulation. If bad writing and thinking were to blame, it would be slim consolation that the FAA puts so little time and effort into its regulations that it can accidentally come up with supposed guidance so inaccurate and irresponsible that it would cripple a major safety utility in a large segment of the fleet. The draft was so badly written in fact that it took GAMA and AOPA nearly a dozen pages of dissection to point out every problem with the supposed guidance.
In the end, what matters is safety, and there's no doubt whatsoever that GPS navigators and chart readers greatly enhance safety. I for one don't want to go back to the bad old days of wondering if that railroad track I was following in marginal VFR conditions was the right one or if I was instead going up some blind valley that would end in who knows what kind of sudden stop. Both figuatively and literally, it's this kind of outcome you'd think the FAA would be committed to preventing instead of ensuring.
Read more of Robert's recent blog posts.
Comments (19)
Post a comment
All Comments
Submitted by Thomas Boyle on August 03, 2011.
While I have no doubt that some FAA personnel are committed to improving the safety and utility of small aircraft, the organization as a whole follows the rule of all organizations: survive, and grow.
Behavior that threatens survival and growth will be discontinued, and behavior that improves either will expand.
Interfering in private aviation has historically provided support for the FAA's budget and headcount. It has advanced its survival and growth.
If we want it to stop (and I suggest we do), we need to ensure that actions of this kind get highlighted in a manner that threatens the FAA's budget. When the FAA goes to Congress for funding, we need Congressmen to ask "why do you need more money, when you already spend money on stupid activities like writing this rule? In fact, why are you micromanaging personal aircraft, instead of paying attention to airline safety? Please deregulate personal aircraft where no threats to public safety are in evidence, and focus on things that matter to the public."
Enough questions like that about micromanaging personal aviation, and the organization will likely develop new avenues of growth, and discontinue this one.
Submitted by brubey on August 04, 2011.
Mr. Boyle's comment is right on the mark. This is another example of a government agency attempting to overstep its bounds in an attempt to gain more power and funding.
There are certain things that need regulating and this is not one of them. In fact, one could make a very good case for redefining the FAA's role to exclude a lot of involvement in G.A. They spend money like a drunken sailor and only add to the confusion.
Submitted by pilotkjl on August 04, 2011.
An excellent, if disturbing blog.
FAA power issues aside, this AC threatens aviation safety, plain and simple. If you intentionally force thousands of pilots to substantially reduce their situational awareness, then the resulting accident increase, measured primarily in lives lost, is on your head. There is no plausible justification for going backwards on safety.
This sort of potential move also hurts our collective effort to grow the pilot population, which will primarily come from the younger generations. They will absolutely expect to use such technologies and tools as they learn and then fly as licensed pilots, and rightly so. If we are asking people to fly (at great cost) as if it's the 1970s, then many simply won't bother.
Submitted by robert goyer on August 04, 2011.
Excellent point. The idea one would hope would be to make safety affordable, not prohibitively expensive and onerously complicated to access.
Submitted by tmcdonough19 on August 04, 2011.
If it is not installed on the airplane and certified under 14 CFR Part 23 then the FAA should butt out. It is the responsibility of the PIC to maintain situational awareness and that means using all available information, regardless of whether that information comes from installed certified equipment or hand written sticky notes and everything between.
In case of conflicting information between installed certified equipment and non-certified sources the obvious correct decision is to disregard the non-certified source and rely on the certified source.
I use an iPad in both VFR and IFR but I always carry current paper sectionals, NACO TERPs, and low altitude charts in my flight bag just in case.
Submitted by magnetoz on August 04, 2011.
After reading the Draft, I will agree that it is poorly written and over-reaching. Fortunately, I will say that the saving grace comes from a couple of areas.
First, from my understanding, an Advisory Circular is intended to be advisory in nature, not regulatory. I realize there are grey areas that are up for interpretation, but we shouldn't fear jail time for not complying with "advice." In fact, I believe the FAA is prohibited from establishing requirements in guidance material.
Last, the second sentence of the AC states "This guidance material applies to operators of large and turbine-powered multiengine and fractional ownership aircraft operating under part 91 subpart F and part 91 subpart K. Other part 91 operations do not require any specific authorization for EFB operations..." I believe trying to regulate any area of part 91 in this manner is over-reaching, but at the same time it relieves a large portion of the General Aviation population from participating in the AC.
Submitted by Bobfly on August 04, 2011.
Foreflight has to be eating Jepp's lunch (in GA segment). Is this an attempt to have the big boys control this market? Follow the money.
Submitted by jweir43 on August 04, 2011.
I do hope that this was a typo in translation and not what we really sent to the FAA:
"This has been a general principal that the FAA has embraced"
If we are so ignorant as to not understand the difference between "principal" and "principle" then we deserve not to be taken seriously.
Jim
Submitted by ChampPilot44 on August 04, 2011.
Nothing and I mean nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the stupidity and callousness of our government.
I get higher degree of competence when I go through a fast food drive through window. 3rd graders have a better grasp of reality and a pack of stray dogs has more compassion for each others' well-being.
Submitted by brojer on August 04, 2011.
This all springs from corruption in our government. We all need to participate at the grassroots level to put forward honest and committed candidates with integrity, and knowledge of the subject. You cannot just sit by and let these things happen or you will get politicians who are just looking for a job with lifetime benefits after serving only a term or two.
Submitted by zuluflyer on August 04, 2011.
I'm a foreign pilot flying in the USA and I have been astounded at the ineptitude of some of the FAA personnel that I have had to interact with. It seems that they are primarily there to protect their jobs and substantial pensions - one of the few guaranteed pensions.
All in all, I don't think the issue is big government (although it is seriously bloated). And I don't think this is only about politicians (although they have a lot to answer for). I think the issue is incompetent and corrupt career bureaucrats. Keep the good ones and you won't have a need to employ more - government will get smaller - and probably listen to the people that they are there to serve - us - rather than the corporations that can pay them to do their bidding (which may be what is happening here). So the "big boys" that have a stake in this market should stand up and be counted - lets hear them argue against the rule - Jeppesen, Garmin, et al .... silence???
Submitted by Thomas Boyle on August 04, 2011.
Zuluflyer,
To quote Milton Friedman, "who are these angels?"
The idea that government should regulate this, that and the other is usually based in the idea that it's possible to find "good regulators," (and, implicitly, that it's not possible to find "good market participants").
But who are these angels, who will rule us? And how do we ensure that the angels stay in power, and not the devils? How do we ensure that they serve us, and not vice versa?
Friedman's answer, of course, is that we can't. This is why big government is bad: not because of some pure anti-government ideology, but because government is a violent monopoly, and violent monopolies are less likely to attract angels - and more likely to attract devils - than other kinds of human activity.
It's not to say that there aren't some angels in the FAA. There are: I've met some of them.
But the FAA gets into all sorts of places where it isn't needed. It needs to get out.
P.S. I imagine that the "big boys" might actually like to see iPads thrown out of the cockpit by the FAA. That, if it happened at their bidding, would be an example of "regulatory capture," a process whereby the devils in government enable the devils in business to do things the market would never let them do. That said, I don't believe Jeppesen, or Garmin, actually had anything to do with this.
Submitted by flyboymikeh on August 04, 2011.
Under the current climate ( to be more clear, this current administration) why should any be surprised by more restrictive regulations and fewer freedoms to decide what we believe is the best course? Seeing what the Obama administration has so far, gotten away with, across the board, it is not inconceivable that any government agency wouldn't be emboldened to attempt whatever objective was sought. The point is not "iPads" in the cockpit but the larger, and more disturbing incremental control over every aspect of our lives! The ever-increasing size of this government needs to be reversed.
Submitted by iused2fly on August 05, 2011.
How can we tell this is a Government operation? Wonder who the career FAA screw-up was who wrote this piece of trash. I suggest the light aircraft GA community innundate the new FAA director with a letter-writing campaign, both on this issue and the Lightspeed problem. Maybe they'll rescind this poorly thought out, inappropriate draft advisory circular.
Sadly, here in Canada our Transport Department seldom seems any better, most regulations designedin a "one size fits all" manner, with little apparent thought given to the added cost of their decisions.
This is not unique to light aircraft owners. Back in 2002-03 Transport Canada issued sweeping changes for minimum fire response infrastructure at small- to medium-sized airports, only months after 9-11 wiped out several years of profitability and put most airports into red ink.
IMO the regulators at head office are the prime cause of questionable new regulations at inopportune time. Their minions around the country, who take all the flak for poor head office decisions, must enforce these changes but often privately admit that they are either ill-timed, inappropraite or both.
If you ask me, the answer to many instances of bureaucratic incompetence is to simply take all the computers, fax machines and phones out of their offices. You can't fire them; but just don't let them do anything!
Douglas M
Surrey, British Columbia
Submitted by robert goyer on August 05, 2011.
Both GAMA and AOPA called for the FAA to go "back to the drawing board" on this one. Amen!
I emailed the FAA employee who wrote the AC draft for clarification a week ago. I am still awaiting a reply.
Submitted by R.Woodcock on August 06, 2011.
This doesn't sound right.
My understanding is that all these electronic devises (and charts, for that matter) are only required for large turbine multiengine and fractional ownership aircraft.
I found the draft advisory circular entitled “Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of Electronic Flight Bags EFB” shown in the blog. It's here: FAA Draft and it only applys to: "operators of large and turbine-powered multiengine and fractional ownership aircraft operating under part 91 subpart F and part 91 subpart K (part 91K), where the operating regulations require specific functionality and/or equipage." and points out that "Other part 91 operations do not require any specific authorization for EFB operations provided the EFB does not replace any system or equipment required by the regulations, but these operators must still comply with the portable electronic device (PED) regulation (part 91, § 91.21)." [portable electronic devices that might interfere with aircraft systems].
So, it sounds like when charts or an EFB is required, these requirements would apply, but it does not affect handheld units that are not required now. In other words, no change unless you currently must use a certified EFB, and perhaps not even then.
As I understand it, Lightspeed LLC had proposed a new system that would have interfered with GPS, but it was stopped by the FAA and FCC, Lightspeed submitted a revised plan, and a rundown is here (IEEE website, last week): Is it Lights Out for Lightsquared? FAA Says: Revised Plan to Mitigate GPS Interference Not Good Enough! Exerpts:
"But LightSquared suffered a potential knock out blow this week when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said that its proposal for a high-speed wireless network would "severely impact" the nation's evolving aviation-navigation system, despite the company's revised plan to quell concerns about interference. The FAA estimated LightSquared's interference would cost the aviation community an estimated $70 billion over the next 10 years, in part because of the loss of existing GPS safety and efficiency benefits, and the need to retrofit aircraft.
"Billions of dollars in existing FAA and GPS user investments would be lost," the agency said in the report. The agency report was examining questions about the LightSquared proposal presented by the national coordination office director for the Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Executive Committee, which is part of the Executive Office of The President.
[. . .]
"The seven-page FAA assessment said LightSquared's plan could also hurt U.S. leadership in international aviation by eroding confidence in the U.S.-owned global positioning system. That would be despite "presidential commitments" to the International Civil Aviation Organization about the continued safety and availability of GPS technology, the FAA said."
I think things are alright, but please let me know if you find out differently. Hope this helps.
Submitted by R.Woodcock on August 06, 2011.
Sorry, the links didn't copy:
FAA Draft: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/AC-120-76B_Coord_Copy.pdf
Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers:
http://community.comsoc.org/blogs/ajwdct/it-lights-out-lightsquared-faa-...
Submitted by RHalstead on August 12, 2011.
Well...First, NEVER Give LightSpeed credit. They intentionally purchased a "cheap" piece of satellite down link spectrum with the intention of converting it to a high powered, ground based system. 40,000 45KW stations in an area reserved for stations receiving microwatts, but an occasional ground base amplification transmitter could be used. They purchased relatively inexpensive satellite spectrum because the price of the spectrum for their system was out of their reach.
With the ever expanding rolls of the regulating agencies under and with the blessings of the present administration, I'm inclined to believe this was not a mistake, but written in such a manner that they could backtrack. Lets hope they can be forced to do so.
Submitted by RHalstead on August 12, 2011.
Note to R Woodcock: No, The FAA and FCC did not stop LightSquared, it was literally thousands of complaints, plus valid studies presented to the FAA and FCC that forced the FAA to backtrack. Without the *Public* and open input to the FCC they undoubtedly would not have changed their minds. After all they put LightSquared in charge of the official input.
Remember too that LightSquared was working on one of the administrations pet projects, "Broadband for Everyone" and had a LOT of push from above.
I truly believe had not industry, GA, and even the Department of Defense come together we would not have won, and as it stands we are "never out of the woods"
Top Rated
Your Comment
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
