![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Darryl, thanks for the clarification.
Bob On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT), Darryl Ramm wrote: On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote: Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the 1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm? Both non-TSO'd, $790 for a PowerFlarm Core Pure. Bob On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Ainslie wrote: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html $900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even cheaper. And saying "non-TSO'ed" is fairly confused/confusing. Non-TSO'ed here used by avionics manufacturers really means it "meets performance requirements of" some TSO, but is not actually TSO'ed. You have to look at the specs the device actually meets even though it is not built to a TSO. Garmin here are less than clear on this. They talk fuzzily about things like "meets the 2020 Carriage mandate requirements". Which in this case basically will mean TSO-C145c. In some cases a non-TSO product from vendors is identical to their other TSO products just without a TSO label and usually at a significantly lower price. PowerFLARM does not meet the requirement of any TSO of any type. To say it is "non-TSO" is true in a way, but really a meaningless statement in the normal way it is used to describe avionics. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:11:17 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Darryl, thanks for the clarification. Bob On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT), Darryl Ramm wrote: On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:02:41 PM UTC-7, Bob Gibbons wrote: Just curious, what would be the advantage of this unit over using the 1090ES out capability of the GPS source in a PowerFlarm? Both non-TSO'd, $790 for a PowerFlarm Core Pure. Bob On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Ainslie wrote: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod525504.html $900 is almost affordable to make my trig tt22 adsb compliant under the new experimental rules. Interesting to see if anyone comes out with anything even cheaper. And saying "non-TSO'ed" is fairly confused/confusing. Non-TSO'ed here used by avionics manufacturers really means it "meets performance requirements of" some TSO, but is not actually TSO'ed. You have to look at the specs the device actually meets even though it is not built to a TSO. Garmin here are less than clear on this. They talk fuzzily about things like "meets the 2020 Carriage mandate requirements". Which in this case basically will mean TSO-C145c. In some cases a non-TSO product from vendors is identical to their other TSO products just without a TSO label and usually at a significantly lower price. PowerFLARM does not meet the requirement of any TSO of any type. To say it is "non-TSO" is true in a way, but really a meaningless statement in the normal way it is used to describe avionics. No problems, all the ADS-B stuff is an unfortunate frigging mess... much more than it could have been. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flarm IGC files on non-IGC certified Flarm? | Movses | Soaring | 21 | March 16th 15 09:59 PM |
Guitar Chords/Tabs for "Ridge Runner" | [email protected] | Soaring | 3 | November 20th 08 05:00 AM |
IFR Alternate Requirement | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | May 18th 05 02:26 PM |
Mode S to become requirement? | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 6 | July 14th 04 11:25 PM |
New Castle ELT Requirement | Ed Byars | Soaring | 16 | June 19th 04 06:15 PM |