Demystifying the Lincoln Drone Ordinance

In April of 2016, the City Council of Lincoln, Nebraska adopted an ordinance concerning unmanned aircraft systems.[1]  This ordinance was animated by fears of drone interference with an upcoming air show at the Lincoln Municipal Airport.  The ordinance incorporates provisions from Part 107[2] and FMRA § 336,[3] with a few important tweaks.  Because most of these provisions are identical, the true effect of the ordinance is simply to provide additional local enforcement authority.  Violations are subject to a progressive fine ranging from $100 for the first infraction to $500 for the third.[4]

The following table compares these provisions by subject matter.[5]

	Lincoln City Ordinance (“LCO”)[6]	Federal Regulations	Comments
Types of Unmanned Aircraft
-Model	“a small unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere and flown for hobby or recreational purposes”	FMRA § 336: “an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.”	The LCO organizes things differently, but if you consider the definitions and operational restrictions together everything in the LCO matches FMRA § 336.
-Small Unmanned Aircraft	An “unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.”	§ 107.3: “Small Unmanned Aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.”	[identical]
-Toy	“(1) a glider or hand-tossed aircraft that is not designed for and is incapable of sustained flight; or (2) an aircraft that is capable of sustained flight and that is controlled by means of a physical attachment, such as a string or wire”	[not defined]	Since they qualify as “toy” aircraft, the LCO does not regulate “tethered” drones.  This may or may not have been intentional, as some such aircraft are anything but toys.[7]  Section (1) may be a response to the FAA’s infamous “paper airplane admission” from Huerta v. Pirker.[8]
-Unmanned Aircraft	An aircraft that is “operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft and does not carry a human operator but can be remotely piloted or operated, also colloquially known as a drone.”  Does not include toy or public aircraft.	§ 107.3: “Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.”	The LCO provision excludes autonomous air taxis and carves out toy and public aircraft, but it is otherwise identical.
-Unmanned Aircraft System	An “Unmanned Aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the unmanned aircraft in the airspace.”	§ 107.3: “Small unmanned aircraft system (small UAS) means a small unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the small unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system.”	Part 107 is only concerned with small UAS (under 55 pounds), so its definition does not cover heavier unmanned aircraft and their components.  The LCO does.
UAS restrictions and jurisdiction	“It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System within the corporate limits of the City:”	The FAA has jurisdiction over the “navigable airspace” of the United States.[9]  It interprets that term to include airspace “at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.”[10]	Model aircraft are regulated at the federal level by FMRA § 336 and (arguably) the FAA’s generally applicable regulations on aircraft enacted prior to § 336.  All other UAS between .5 and 55 pounds are governed by Part 107.
-Registration	“(i) without registration and markings as required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations;”	§ 107.13 requires Part 107 operators to comply with the registration provision from Part 91 (which governs all aircraft).[11]	Whether model aircraft (operating under FMRA § 336 rather than Part 107) must be registered is being litigated in the D.C. Circuit now.[12]  The LCO smartly tied this requirement to the FAA’s own regulations.
-TFR/NOTAM	“(ii) in violation of any Temporary Flight Restriction included within a Notice to Airman issued by the Federal Aviation Administration; or”	[none]	All civilian aircraft must obey NOTAMs and TFRs.[13]  Those restrictions apply to any “aircraft” within the meaning of 14 C.F.R. § 1.1.[14]  As long as UAS and model aircraft fit within that definition, the LCO provision does no work, which is why this provision is absent from Part 107.
-Recklessness	“(iii) in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”	§ 107.23: “No person may: (a) Operate a small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”	These provisions are identical, but remember that Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft under FMRA § 336.  The FAA would argue that 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 applies because model aircraft are “aircraft” under 14 C.F.R. § 1.1.[15]
Restrictions for Model Aircraft	“In addition…Model aircraft shall not be operated:”	FMRA § 336(a): The FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—”	FMRA contains three additional criteria related to community standards, non-interference with manned aircraft, and a 55 pound weight limit.[16]  The bigger difference is that FMRA § 336 is a statutory safe harbor from the FAA’s rulemaking authority, so Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft.  By contrast, Nebraska requires the same registration, compliance with NOTAMs and TFRs, and restraint from careless or reckless behavior for model aircraft as it requires for any other UAS.
-Altitude Limit	“Model Aircraft shall not be operated: (i) at an altitude in excess of 400 feet”	[none]	While 14 C.F.R. § 107.51 proscribes a 400 foot ceiling for Part 107 operations (but not model aircraft), the LCO’s altitude limit only applies to model aircraft.  FMRA § 336 does not regulate altitude for model aircraft.
-Proximity to Airport	“Model Aircraft shall not be operated … (ii) within five miles of Lincoln Airport unless the Airport Authority of the City of Lincoln and the Lincoln Airport Control Tower have been first notified;”	FMRA § 336 (a)(5): “when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation”	FMRA § 336 adds that “model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport))”.  It is curious that the LCO is codified in the Lincoln Airport chapter of its compiled ordinances but does not address such a procedure.
-Line of Sight	“Model Aircraft shall not be operated … (iii) outside the visual line of sight of the operator”	FMRA § 336(c): “’model aircraft’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— … (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft”	The LCO uses an operational limit and FMRA a definition, but the effect is the same.

You can find the official text in Lincoln’s Municipal Code here.  If you have legal questions about your drone operations anywhere in Nebraska or South Dakota, click “Get in Touch” above for a free consultation.

---

[1] Lincoln City Ordinance 20318 § 4 (April 18, 2016).

[2] 14 C.F.R. § 107.

[3] FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (“FMRA”), PL 112-95, February 14, 2012, 126 Stat. 11.

[4] See Lincoln Municipal Code § 1.24.010.

[5] Please note that this analysis does not cover the provisions concerning public aircraft.

[6] Lincoln Municipal Code §§ 4.28.060-4.28.090.

[7] See, e.g., http://elistair.com/.

[8] See https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/pirker.aspx.

[9] 49 U.S.C. § 40103.

[10] 14 C.F.R. § 1.1.

[11] See 14 C.F.R. § 91.203.

[12] See https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2673936-Taylor-v-FAA.html .

[13] See 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.137; 91.138; 91.144.

[14] See infra n. 10.

[15] “Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.”

[16] FMRA § 336 also allows for model aircraft larger than 55 pounds if they are “otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization”.

"Holding Short, Highway 35"?

If you listened all the way to about 4:10 in the video from my first post in the "Flying Cars" series, you may have heard Richard Gersh talk about one of the challenges facing his company's first production flying car: due to the regulatory separation between cars and planes, the Transition really has to live up to its name to go from byway to skyway.  The switch from car to plane doesn't take long, but it does require the pilot (not driver) to stop the vehicle, turn off the engine, and get out to do a normal pre-flight check.  As he says in the video, you need to find an actual runway to go airborne anywhere but Montana or Alaska.  Re-read that last sentence.  The vehicle doesn't fly that much faster than it drives, but claiming it could fly its way over a traffic jam in those two states was what really perked up my legal antennae.  I wondered where Gersh had gotten that idea, and Terrafugia was kind enough to give me a few minutes to ask him about it. *4

Gersh was quick to point out that this is not an intended SOP for this bird.  The switch has to happen on an airfield, and the wings should never be down on a roadway except in an emergency.  The main uses for driving the Transition will be getting to and from the airport, dodging inclement weather, and getting bizarre looks from other drivers.  The first two are no joke: hangar fees are high and climbing, and a quarter of all weather-related accidents are fatal.  Ok, enough with the disclaimer - let's get to the fun stuff.

On the state side of things, Gersh told me the bit about Alaska and Montana was something they'd been told anecdotally and wasn't too sure about the regs.  It's entirely plausible that the bush pilot capitol of the US and the only State with (at one time) no speed limit on some of its roads would be open to that kind of thing, but I'm slowly developing a need for written rules.  I dug into this problem a bit and found that many of the state and local governments that regulate most of the roadways in this country have actually had the foresight to deal with whether they may be used as runways.  Click here for a table with the statutes I've been able to compile so far, and feel free to shoot me an email if you know about regulations I've missed or mischaracterized in your state.  They fall into roughly four categories: free use (within local rules), use by permission, local ordinances authorized, or no use at all.  The "by permission" category leads the race right now.  States have gotten pretty creative in highway/runway enforcement on a couple of occasions, like the time a Minnesota State Trooper found a pilot and landscaper's aircraft intentionally parked on a roadside, advised the pilot that he would be cited for driving an overly wide vehicle, and allowed him to take off using the highway as a runway. (*3) Regardless, even states like Montana and Alaska don't seem to have put these rules to much use yet.  Props to those states that have seen this coming - all eyes will be on them to see how they handle tomorrow when it arrives.

Shown here over a perfectly tolerable commute.

On the federal side, when it comes to the airspace necessary for highway takeoffs and landings, the FAA has been a bit vague.  In a response letter to Jeff Buckholz of Buckholz Traffic, the agency seemed to indicate (*1) that it would treat the Transition just like any other "device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air" in that takeoffs and landings would be governed by 14 C.F.R. 91.13 and 91.119.  As with any aircraft, pilots would be prohibited from operating the Transition "in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another" under § 91.13.  § 91.119 prescribes minimum safe flight altitudes, and the combination of those sections would presumably ban my hypothetical traffic dodging except in emergency landing situations. (*2) The FARs also define an Airport as "an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft," so the FAA would presumably treat a state-owned roadway sanctioned for use as a runway (and lying under uncontrolled airspace) like any other uncontrolled grass strip.  I haven't yet looked into how recreational use statutes would fit into this framework, but I'll be doing an article on those in the next month or two.  Stay tuned.

In short, this is all uncharted water and it's tough to know how it will all shake out.  A few states seem to be open to the possibility of using their roadways as runways, and the FAA has not done anything to indicate they couldn't.  This will certainly be a fun field to watch.

All that said, Terrafugia's next project, the TF-X, blows these regulatory questions out of the water.  As Gersh said in the interview, this really is a Jetson-like machine, and their aspirations for its operation are nothing short of science fiction.

---

*1 Dep't of Transp. (D.O.T.) Fed. Aviation Admin., 2011 WL 3557314 (D.O.T. Aug. 8, 2011). You'll need a subscription to access it on Westlaw.
*2 See, e.g., Administrator v. Schwandt, 7 N.T.S.B. 1375 (1991) (finding that a pilot who landed his aircraft while other people were in close proximity to the landing site operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner); Administrator v. Hart, 6 N.T.S.B. 899 (1988) (finding that the minimum-altitude-flight regulations are violated when an aircraft descends in order to land at non-suitable landing site); Administrator v. Mollis, 2 N.T.S.B. 43 (1973) (finding that a pilot violated the pertinent regulations when he made a decision to land on a highway, which ultimately resulted in his aircraft colliding with a truck).
*3 State v. Sherbrooke, 633 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
*4 It was an absolute treat to talk to Richard - many thanks to Terrafugia for setting up the interview.  I'll be using other portions of this interview throughout the rest of this series.

Demystifying the Pilot's Bill of Rights

First off, an apology: last week was a finals week for this law student, and the blog had to take a back seat.  We'll be back to the regular Thursday morning article starting this week.  Moving on...

Credit: AOPA

You may have seen some buzz recently about the second version of the Pilot's Bill of Rights being proposed by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).  As a (nearly) third year law student and recently minted pilot, I was a little surprised I'd never heard of the first version.  If you're in that boat, fear not: this week, I'll take you through the 2012 version and touch on the changes the general aviation community seems to be endorsing in version 2.0.

What?

So you're saying we actually amended the Constitution to protect pilots' rights? 'Merica!

Eh...not quite.  The Pilot's Bill of Rights isn't exactly on par with the "real" Bill of Rights in that sense, but it is a real law that really does affect the rights of pilots.  You can read the first version in its entirety here.  The rule did four distinct things:

1. Force both parties to use the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure in any proceedings under 49 C.F.R. Part 821(C, D, or F) whenever practicable.  These subsections cover reviews and appeals of Administrator actions concerning pilot certificates.
2. Except where it would threaten the integrity of the investigation, require the FAA to tell the person under investigation:
• The nature of the investigation
• That he or she doesn't need to respond to the notice
• That a response to the notice can be used as evidence against him or her
• That the administrator's report will be available to him or her
• That air traffic data will be available to him or her
3. Require the FAA to implement the "NOTAM Improvement Program" within 180 days.
4. Require the Comptroller general to evaluate the FAA's medical certification process.

There are a lot more details, particularly about the air traffic data available to the person under investigation.  This was done in response to 

You can read the full bill from Sen. Inhofe's website.  Here's my highlight summary:

1. Orders the FAA Administrator to expand the 3rd Class medical exemption to the operations and aircraft described in H.R. 3708 within 180 days.  The FAA would only be able to take enforcement action for medical violations if the FAA passes such rules in that time period.
2. Reigns in some of the Customs and Border Parol practices that have come under very sharp criticism in the law few months.  Specifically, CBP will be prohibited from stopping and searching GA aircraft unless they have an articulable, reasonable suspicion of illegal activity or probable cause to believe that illegal activity is occurring.  Flying without a flight plan, flying into or out of fringe general aviation airports, or flying a flight path that is not a straight line for specified piloting or navigation reasons do not qualify for those grounds, but these rules are out the window in the event of an accident.
3. Knocks out FAA control over appropriate usage of private built and owned hangars at airports receiving federal aid by directing the FAA Administrator to give local airport authorities that control.
4. Amends the original Pilot's Bill of Rights:

• Clarifies that appeals are not subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies.  This means pilots can appeal enforcement actions to U.S. District Court at any time.  Also clarifies that these appeals to Article III courts are to be de novo and the Administrator is to bear the burden of proof.
• Expands the Bill's protections to all certificates issued by the FAA.
• Requires the FAA to provide notification to an individual once they become subject to an FAA investigation in order to press charges.
• Limits the scope of FAA document requests of certificate holders to the pertinent issues under investigation.
• Brings back the FAA’s expungement policy which prevents the agency from retaining records of enforcement against an airmen certificate holder for 90 days if the agency does not take enforcement action or 5 years if it does.  It also prevents the FAA from publicizing pending enforcement actions against a covered certificate holder.

Why?

Is this really necessary? 

Shown here riding in to save the day
on his orange stallion.

Some of it is, but some of it is more like political positioning.

Sen. Inhofe is very anti-Washintonian in his political approach, and being the knight in shining armor to save the damsel in distress from the draconian agency suits him like a storybook.  The direct appeal to U.S. District court falls closer to this category because the FAA's enforcement actions are already subject to judicial review; the new bill gives pilots facing enforcement more options as to how they proceed, but it doesn't dramatically affect their likelihood of success.

On the other hand, there really are some significant issues that the revamp seeks to cure.  The two biggest-ticket items at the moment are 3rd Class Medical certification and the overly intrusive and unjustified stops by CBP (see the summary above).  These have both been all over the news in the U.S. aviation world - if you're unfamiliar with either, feel free to get googling.  I'll also be doing pieces on each in the near future.

Who?

Who's this Inhofe character anyway, and why does he care?

Sen. Inhofe is a CFI with over 10,000 of experience.  He has been through FAA enforcement for landing at a supposedly closed airstrip with a Cessna 340, despite the fact that there was no NOTAM. You can read about the experience here.  Whatever his faults, he is a diehard aviation advocate and this has become one of his pet issues.

So you're telling me that every alphabet soup pilot group out there supported this thing?  Sounds fishy to me.

You're not alone.  The bill did receive some considerable backlash from some general aviation journalists and advocates, but the majority seemed to favor the changes.  This revamp seems to have similar support.

How?

But Congress never gets anything done these days.  How the heck are they going to pass something like this?

Actually, Congress has a pretty decent track record of coming together when it comes to recent aviation legislation.  Check out the Small Plane Revitalization Act or FAA Modernization and Reform Act for starters.  Heck, the original Pilot's Bill of Rights was passed unanimously by the Senate, by a voice vote in the House, and immediately signed by the President in the middle of 2012, an extremely politicized and divisive election year.  This one (when it's proposed) and H.R. 3708 will be the bills to watch.

When?

So if this does happen, when will I see a change? 

Sen. Inhofe hasn't yet said when he'll drop the bill in the hopper, but we'll pick up a tracker button on the home page when he does.  If it does pass, we should see changes within 180 days from the FAA on the 3rd Class Medical and immediately on everything else.

Demystifying ADS-B

Let's face it - aviation can be a befuddling thing.  To help you wade through the mess, I'm going to start a recurring series on the blog: Demystifying General Aviation.  This series will be aimed at boiling down complex or confusing issues pilots are likely to see in the near future, and I'll follow a who, what, where, when, why, and how structure (in some order) to try and sort things out.  

To kick things off, let's talk about ADS-B.

What? Why?

If your first reaction to this title was to google "ADS," we're not talking about Advanced Drainage Systems or Astrophysics Data Systems or what looks like some kind of military equipment acquisition service (handy as that may be).  We're talking about Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, a "a cooperative surveillance technology" that lets your plane tell ATC where it is rather than vice versa.  If your first thought is "so what?", think again: you will have to install this stuff by 2020 if you want to keep flying.

"But wait, isn't that what my transponder does?  Isn't that why they randomly make me push my little IDENT button?"

Sort of, but ADS-B takes it to another level.  Your transponder works in conjunction with ATC's primary radar (the waves that actually bounce off your airplane's skin) by responding to "interrogations" from ATC's secondary radar system.  As you probably know, the IDENT button makes you light up on their tracking screen, Mode C and S transponders send them your pressure altitude, and your assigned squawk code helps them tell you apart from other aircraft.  These data give ATC a pretty good idea of who and where you are, but the controllers are still fundamentally tracking you and the system involves a lot of double- and triple-checking to make sure pilots are doing their part to keep the system running smoothly.  Aircraft equipped with ADS-B flip this around by determining their own location and sending it to ATC's NextGen or European controllers' SESAR.  Transponders improved radar; ADS-B is replacing it (but don't worry - radar is still around for backup).  All airplanes covered by the rule must also equip WAAS GPS, but that's another article in and of itself.

ADS-B is divided into two discrete components, appropriately termed ADS-B in and ADS-B out.  ADS-B out is the important one from a traffic control perspective: it reports your position, velocity and altitude to ATC (and anyone else who's listening to the signal) once per second.  ATC no longer has to compute these variables, though radar stations will still be able to do so for confirmation.  This may not seem like a huge benefit to pilots, but it should increase safety by adding a redundant tracking system, reducing ATC workload, and automating the process.  The system depends on everybody buying in (sound familiar?), so subject to a few narrow exceptions you'll probably have to fit your plane with an approved ADS-B out device.

Credit: iPad Pilot News (click for the full article).

Equipping your aircraft with ADS-B in is optional, but comes with two big benefits.  First, it lets you join the "anyone else who's listening to the signal" club.  You receive the ADS-B out signals from other planes in the area and a Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B) signal from ADS-B Ground stations, which give you real-time traffic without any radio work from ATC. *1 Second, it lets you receive Flight Information Services-Broadast (FIS-B), which broadcasts NEXRAD radar, METARs, TAFs, TFRs, AIRMETs, ground weather conditions, and other information without a paid subscription. *2

Can I just buy one of those cheap(er) portable doohickies?

Nope - at least not in the long run.  There are several portable ADS-B in receivers out there that will connect with your iPad, other tablet, or even mounted avionics to give you the benefit of ADS-B in without the high installation costs of a fixed unit. *6 But remember: the rule says you need an approved ADS-B out unit, and those have to be panel-mounted.  The FAA has hinted that they are in the early stages of potentially allowing a portable unit for gliders, but even that seems like an outside chance at this point.  You're certainly free to buy a portable in unit, but if you're going to be purchasing a panel-mounted out unit anyway you might want to think about doing an all-in-one.  The average panel-mounted in/out unit is going to run you several thousand dollars, though, so it may be worth riding the market to try and grab one soon (but not too soon).

So the FAA is just mandating that everybody gets the same equipment that lets all planes talk to each other?

Of course not - that would be too easy.  There are actually two frequencies of ADS-B (both in and out): 1090 MHz, known as ES for Extended Squitter, and 978 MHz, known as UAT for Universal Access Transceiver.  Which type you'll need depends on your airspace objectives (see chart below).  The 1090 does squit (whatever that means) further than the 978, which can be a benefit even for lower altitude pilots.  Each frequency can only talk to other units of the same frequency, so UAT Cherokees probably won't pick up descending ES Citations unless they're getting the TIS-B from a ground station. *1 As a bonus absurdity, while either frequency will pick up TIS-B, only the 978 (UAT) units will pick up FIS-B (weather).

Where?

But I avoid ATC like the plague...do I really need this?

Not necessarily.  You'll need ADS-B to fly in Class A, B, or C airspace, plus Class E airspace above 10,000 feet mean sea level (unless you're within 2,500 feet above ground level). *3 *4 The ADS-B requirement does not apply to the rest of Class E (under 10,000 MSL or within 2,500 AGL) or Class G airspace.  This means he FAA won't make you put this technology on board if you promise to only fly your Taylorcraft on clear days away from towered airports.  You can request a deviation from the rules for your non-compliant aircraft, but you have to do so at least an hour ahead of time and there's no guarantee you'll get permission. *5 If you plan on using your plane to do any serious transportation, you'd better start thinking about not if but when to make this jump.

So which one do I need?

Credit: Air Facts Journal

This basically depends on where you plan to fly.  If you're going to be up in the flight levels (> FL180) or you plan on flying internationally, you will need a 1090 (ES) out unit.  If you don't need to do either of those missions, you will be fine with a 978 (UAT) unit.

Remember, though, that ADS-B in and out are two completely separate functions that can be performed by independent devices.  This means you can have any combination of frequencies: 978 Out, 978 Out/In, 978 In, 1090 Out, 1090 Out/In, or even 1090 Out/978 In.

Do they even have this stuff out in my neck of the woods?

Probably.  Click here and go down to "ADS-B Coverage" for a current map of ground stations, or here to download a current list in spreadsheet form.  Line-of-sight range for ground stations is about 150 nautical miles, so while there are definitely still areas where pilots will be out of range they should be few and far between in medium- to long-range transit.

Who?

As laid out above, this rule will affect anyone who plans to use an aircraft to move through any kind of controlled airspace.  It does not discriminate between ratings, types of aircraft, or any similar factors.  If you don't need a Mode C transponder to fly your routes today, you may be exempt.

How?

So which one of these things should I actually get?

The rule is all about ADS-B out, so make sure you've got your bases covered there.  Once you've got that decided, figure out which ADS-B in capabilities you're willing to pay for and select a unit or combination of units to match.  Here's a decision tree to help you through the process:

Click for a larger version.  You may print or copy this graphic for personal use.  You may republish it if you reference this blog post. *Edited to correct an error and change background to solid white.

Can I just upgrade my transponder?

For the most part, no, but if you sprang for a higher-end Mode S transponder you may be in luck.  The FAA borrowed the 1090 MHz number from the current Mode A/C/S transponders so ATC could retrofit their current system to receive this new kind of transmission over an old radio band.  To oversimplify, Mode S + WAAS GPS ≈ ADS-B.  That means transponders like the Garmin GTX 330 can be converted to 1090 (ES) ADS-B out units by upgrading the software and adding a WAAS GPS unit.  I'm not going to go through a big list of which units can or can't do this, but it's worth asking your avionics techie about and could save you some cash.

When?

What is with this newfangled technology anyway?  Nobody told me!

The FAA told us this requirement was coming in a final rule back in 2010 and codified it in an FAR amendment later that year, so consider yourself officially warned.  The way the rule is worded, you'll be unable to operate an aircraft in controlled airspace after January 1st, 2020 unless you have an approved ADS-B out unit on board.

Can I put it off for awhile?

Sure - everybody's doing it.  Then again, like most mob behaviors you experienced in junior high, that doesn't necessarily make it the best course of action.

Only a few thousand of the 120,000 or so planes that will be affected by this rule have actually been fitted with ADS-B out, which means 100 or more installs will have to be completed per day from now to 1/1/20 if everybody's going to keep flying.  This isn't going to happen, of course – that would be a 25-fold increase over the current installation rate, according to Paula Derks of Aircraft Electronics Association, testifying before the House of Representatives Committee on Small Business last week.

Some of this hesitation may be warranted.  The FAA's reputation for sticking to deadlines is less than sterling, and the cost-benefit ratio is not necessarily better than the existing technology for pilots.  Speaking for AOPA, Bob Hepp reported that to equip his company’s 39 aircraft would cost about $312,000. He added that uncertainty about FAA actions makes general aviation owners reluctant to invest in new equipment, and that the benefits of ADS-B for pilots have not been made clear by the agency.  Rick Durden recently reported that pilots on the financial edge of still being able to afford to own and fly their airplanes have been telling him ADS-B compliance is just going to be too expensive, so they’ll sell their airplanes in 2019 (if they're still flying by then).  "On the surface that logic makes sense," says Durden, "However, it means that those procrastinators may pay a big price for delaying and then either complying or selling non-compliant airplanes...Now may be the right time to take care of ADS-B compliance."

I think Rick's right on track.  This regulation isn't going away anytime soon, and now is probably the cheapest time to jump on board.  At the same House Committee Hearing, Tim Taylor, President and CEO of Free Flight Systems, Inc. testified:

“…the idea that has been suggested by some that equipage is going to get cheaper as we get closer to the deadline is misleading and a major reason for delay. The prices we are offering for equipage now are artificially low. FreeFlight Systems is making high-volume purchases and we have reduced our margin expectations to get products in the market at an acceptable price point. As volumes start to go up, we will not be able to hold these low prices.”

Tim obviously has a vested interest in pilots jumping on the bandwagon, but he's not alone and he's not lying.  You're free to keep procrastinating, but it'll cost you in the end.  Start thinking about it now, and if you're going to Oshkosh, you may be able to win one of Tim's units for free anyway.

But you forgot X!  I still have questions!

Well cripes - I'm not a savant.  There is a lot out there that I didn't cover, and that's going to be another theme of these posts by necessity.  Feel free to contact me by email or leave a comment below.  There are also a lot of resources out there from manufacturers with some helpful (if a little pitchy) information. Check out Garmin's for starters.

--

*1 TIS-B is only broadcasted to your ADS-B in unit if you are also broadcasting ADS-B out.
*2 If you currently use XM weather, this will feel familiar, but keep in mind that it is based on ground stations rather than more universal satellite readings.
*3 There are a few exceptions as described in the "Who?" section.
*4 I know that sounds confusing, but so does everything else about Class E.  Fortunately, like the visibility minimums, they start to make sense if you think about them for a second.
*5 FAR 91.225(g)(2)
*6 The Stratus is a popular ADS-B in receiver - any other brand will offer the same capabilities shown in this chart.  Others include the the Garmin GDL 39 and Dual XGPS 170.

Further Reading: Thanks to the following pages for much of the information in this post.

AvWeb Article

FAA release

General Aviation News Article

Cincinnati Avionics Guide

JDprice blog post