Low cost ADS-B Options

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:20:22 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks Darryl,

I'll keep asking questions of Trig and I'll also ask around among our
local mechanics. Further, I'm friends with the local FSDO and I'll ask
him what it might take to get this job done locally.

Dan

On 8/5/2016 11:05 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Dan

First I'll start with a possible downer. I just realized Mike mentioned this is the TN72 GPS. Complete brain fart on my part, I wish I had spotted that before. That has actually been talked about once or twice by Trig before but as a TSO-C199 (ie. TABS) Class B (i.e. GPS part of TABS) device. There are no install and use regulations that allow use of a TSO-C199 GPS to drive ADS-B Out in any certified aircraft in the USA. The next step us is Trig might also claim that it "meets performance requirement of TSO-C145c".... which would allow/encourage it to be installed in experimental aircraft, but they would need to actually have a TSO-C145c approved device to allow you to install it in your type certified Stemme. And again saying a GPS is "WAAS" says nothing about it's actual TSO approval it has or meets performance requirements of. That's the real question to ask Trig: Is this actually a TSO-C199 Class B? TSO-C145c or a "meets performance requirement of...(which of either TSO)" device?

Mike -- did they give any clarity on that when you spoke to them?

-----

For now lets be optimistic and assume they have an actual TSO-C145c GPS source coming at lower cost. If so, you do not necessarily need an STC for a ADS-B Out install specific to your Stemme.

Originally ADS-B Out installs did required a specific STC, since they were usually AML (Approved Model List) STCs they usually covering quite a few aircraft in one STC. But I'm not aware of any vendor or third party with a glider on one of these STC. And that would have been a waste of their money given gliders have ADS-B out exemption and most glider owners were not interested in spending $10k type numbers or ADS-B Out installs back when STCs were the thing.

Originally the FAA required STC based installs of ADS-B Out equipment. This was relaxed a few year ago, you can look at AC 20-165B, or start here http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing. The main point for a current field approval is the FAA wants to see the GPS source and ADS-B out transmitter used together in a current STC, and that documentation followed for the install, even if the aircraft is not in the AML STC. That is for good reason, there are just too many interconnect things that can go wrong, too many config settings to make, etc.

I am sure if it's better to try to find an A&P/avionics shop who has done an ADS-B installs before with that same components or find a glider A&P who is willing to put the time in, work carefully with their FSDO on a first time ADS-B Out install,.. I guess it all depends on who you like to work with and the choices available.

Questions for Trig, in addition to the big one above, may be when will you be able to get their new GPS-source in your hands, what size and power consumption will it have, and when will there be an STC (not specific to a Stemme) for a TT-22 combination that your shop can base a field approval/337 install off of.

Your Stemme is certified, owners of experimental category gliders don't need to do a field approval to install, but should be using STCs and/or other documentation/advice from manufactures to install a system. And there they still at a minimum need a "complaint" aka "meets performance requirements of TSO-C145c" type GPS source for things like TIS-B to provide traffic services to their aircraft (but just not necessarily actually TSO-C145c as say would be required in a certified glider).



On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks Darryl,

I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
here when I have the answers.

Dan

On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Darryl-

What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.

http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
Hi Mark

I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.

Remember this is not actually shipping yet.

So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.

The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.

These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).

No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.

For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.

It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.

We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)

---

Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).



--
Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

How about this, complete with AHRS?
http://levil-aviation-powered-by-tuc...nt=22245128513
Jim

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
[snip]

How about this, complete with AHRS?
http://levil-aviation-powered-by-tuc...nt=22245128513
Jim

I can keep this up for a while, well until I run out of beer :-)

OK so that's a dual link UAT and 109ES ADS-B receiver with *no* ADS-B Out. It's got GPS to provide navigation data to PDA/Tablet navigation apps.

Like other sloppy marketing in this space they claim to support traffic data (and you'll see all ASD-B Out equipped traffic) but they don't state as clearly as I wish that you need a properly configured ADS-B Out to receive TIS-B.

They claim the "certified" GPS they offer is a "meets performance requirements of ...yadda yadda " and is therefore suitable for use in experimental aircraft to drive an ADS-B Out device (which this box itself is not). And that may be nice for some low-end experiential aircraft owners (but I'd personally much rather spend the $850 or so on a Garmin GPS 20A suitable for driving ADS-B output in an experimental aircraft as it and its antenna can be permanently installed and mounted firmly away behind the panel). It irks me that what they call a "certified" GPS on that web page ain't actually certified at all, just bulslhit, this continuing type of sloppy marketing in this space is just frustrating. And I'd not want to spend one dollar with companies that can't clearly and accurately explain what they are selling.

For many folks they might as well just go with market leader Stratus (the 2S has dual link receive and AHRS and battery powered just like the iLevel 3 but no GPS suitable or driving even experimental category ADS-B Out. Nice and compact for ~$900) or Garmin GDL-39 series (ditto on AHRS for the GDL-39 3D, and it has an optional battery again for ~$900 (Stratus is setting the market price here, others are following). The issue with these is what map/display devices they support. IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:58:07 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
[snip]

How about this, complete with AHRS?
http://levil-aviation-powered-by-tuc...nt=22245128513
Jim

I can keep this up for a while, well until I run out of beer :-)

OK so that's a dual link UAT and 109ES ADS-B receiver with *no* ADS-B Out.. It's got GPS to provide navigation data to PDA/Tablet navigation apps.

Like other sloppy marketing in this space they claim to support traffic data (and you'll see all ASD-B Out equipped traffic) but they don't state as clearly as I wish that you need a properly configured ADS-B Out to receive TIS-B.

They claim the "certified" GPS they offer is a "meets performance requirements of ...yadda yadda " and is therefore suitable for use in experimental aircraft to drive an ADS-B Out device (which this box itself is not). And that may be nice for some low-end experiential aircraft owners (but I'd personally much rather spend the $850 or so on a Garmin GPS 20A suitable for driving ADS-B output in an experimental aircraft as it and its antenna can be permanently installed and mounted firmly away behind the panel). It irks me that what they call a "certified" GPS on that web page ain't actually certified at all, just bulslhit, this continuing type of sloppy marketing in this space is just frustrating. And I'd not want to spend one dollar with companies that can't clearly and accurately explain what they are selling.

For many folks they might as well just go with market leader Stratus (the 2S has dual link receive and AHRS and battery powered just like the iLevel 3 but no GPS suitable or driving even experimental category ADS-B Out. Nice and compact for ~$900) or Garmin GDL-39 series (ditto on AHRS for the GDL-39 3D, and it has an optional battery again for ~$900 (Stratus is setting the market price here, others are following). The issue with these is what map/display devices they support. IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

Let's hope he doesn't run out of beer.
Hey, wait a minute... Lets hope WE don't run out of beer!
Jim

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:05:24 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Dan

First I'll start with a possible downer. I just realized Mike mentioned this is the TN72 GPS. Complete brain fart on my part, I wish I had spotted that before. That has actually been talked about once or twice by Trig before but as a TSO-C199 (ie. TABS) Class B (i.e. GPS part of TABS) device. There are no install and use regulations that allow use of a TSO-C199 GPS to drive ADS-B Out in any certified aircraft in the USA. The next step us is Trig might also claim that it "meets performance requirement of TSO-C145c"... which would allow/encourage it to be installed in experimental aircraft, but they would need to actually have a TSO-C145c approved device to allow you to install it in your type certified Stemme. And again saying a GPS is "WAAS" says nothing about it's actual TSO approval it has or meets performance requirements of. That's the real question to ask Trig: Is this actually a TSO-C199 Class B? TSO-C145c or a "meets performance requirement of...(which of either TSO)" device?

Mike -- did they give any clarity on that when you spoke to them?

-----

For now lets be optimistic and assume they have an actual TSO-C145c GPS source coming at lower cost. If so, you do not necessarily need an STC for a ADS-B Out install specific to your Stemme.

Originally ADS-B Out installs did required a specific STC, since they were usually AML (Approved Model List) STCs they usually covering quite a few aircraft in one STC. But I'm not aware of any vendor or third party with a glider on one of these STC. And that would have been a waste of their money given gliders have ADS-B out exemption and most glider owners were not interested in spending $10k type numbers or ADS-B Out installs back when STCs were the thing.

Originally the FAA required STC based installs of ADS-B Out equipment. This was relaxed a few year ago, you can look at AC 20-165B, or start here http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing. The main point for a current field approval is the FAA wants to see the GPS source and ADS-B out transmitter used together in a current STC, and that documentation followed for the install, even if the aircraft is not in the AML STC. That is for good reason, there are just too many interconnect things that can go wrong, too many config settings to make, etc.

I am sure if it's better to try to find an A&P/avionics shop who has done an ADS-B installs before with that same components or find a glider A&P who is willing to put the time in, work carefully with their FSDO on a first time ADS-B Out install,.. I guess it all depends on who you like to work with and the choices available.

Questions for Trig, in addition to the big one above, may be when will you be able to get their new GPS-source in your hands, what size and power consumption will it have, and when will there be an STC (not specific to a Stemme) for a TT-22 combination that your shop can base a field approval/337 install off of.

Your Stemme is certified, owners of experimental category gliders don't need to do a field approval to install, but should be using STCs and/or other documentation/advice from manufactures to install a system. And there they still at a minimum need a "complaint" aka "meets performance requirements of TSO-C145c" type GPS source for things like TIS-B to provide traffic services to their aircraft (but just not necessarily actually TSO-C145c as say would be required in a certified glider).



On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks Darryl,

I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
here when I have the answers.

Dan

On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Darryl-

What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.

http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
Hi Mark

I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.

Remember this is not actually shipping yet.

So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.

The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.

These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).

No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.

For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.

It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.

We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)

---

Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).




--
Dan, 5J

The TRIG guys assured me that the new TN72 GPS source would be 2020 compliant and have all the necessary approvals required for use in certified aircraft.

The FAA and a bunch of the avionics manufacturers should be paying Darryl richly for the service he's providing here - he's doing a fine job explaining and analyzing the issues related to ADS-B etc.

On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
zero.

If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.

Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
me can remember how to access.

And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.

Vaughn

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:07 AM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
zero.

If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.

Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
me can remember how to access.

And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.

Vaughn

If I was religious, I'd start praying for Darryl's health... especially his sanity.

I just heard from Peregrine Aero regarding installation of a TN70 to go
with my TT22. This part of what they told me:

The recent FAA policy on field approval installations makes it much more practical for the repair stations within the Trig dealership network to accomplish our STC on models that are not currently included on the AML. The TT22 and the TN 70 are an approved equipment pair under our STC (SA00756DE), so the repair stations within the Trig dealer network have the ability to complete this installation as an approved alteration so long as the equipment Is installed per the instructions provided by our STC and per the FAA policy on ADS-B installations.

Now to wait and see when the TN70 becomes available. I hope it's as
simple as that...


On 8/6/2016 7:46 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:07 AM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.
Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
zero.

If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.

Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
me can remember how to access.

And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.

Vaughn
If I was religious, I'd start praying for Darryl's health... especially his sanity.

--
Dan, 5J

Hi Dan

I think you might be confusing the Trig TN70 and TN72 that Mike mentioned.

The TN70 is an existing ~$3k TSO-C145c GPS source from Trig that has been available for quite a while. It's a rebranded NexNav Mini. I had suspected the TN72 will be a rebranded NexNav Micro-i. Early photos from UK TABS trials showed a TN72 in NexNav looking packaging that looked like a Micro-i. Accord (the maker of NexNav GPS) was acquired by Aspen in 2015 and it's going to be interesting what happens there long term, especially with competition with Garmin. Accord makes nice stuff but they seemed to often announce new things quite early for the OEM market. If the low-cost TN72 is TSO-C145c approved it would replace the $3k TN70... which has me a bit suspicious of Trig announcing this early at Oshkosh (regardless of what staff there told Mike). If it's based on the Micro-i, then given what Accord has said about the Micro-i in the past it likely would not be TSO-C145c approved and would be for experimental aircraft only or TABS if TABS ever happens. If could be based on something entirely different, we'll have to wait and see. Again if it is TSO-C145c approved at that price point that is a really dramatic change, but right now that price point is where competing "meets requirements of..." GPS sources like the Garmin GPS 20A are priced (and Trig has no OEM/rebadged product to match today).

What they are telling you here about a TN70 install is not really different than what I said earlier. With an TSO-C145c approved GPS source and an existing AML STC for use with the Trig TT-22 that forms a basis for a field approval/337 install even for aircraft not on the AML list. There are other Trig/Peregrine STCs for third party GPS sources as well but you might as well use the TN70 today. As for using their maintenance network good point there, I'd missed that before although Trig say the same thing on their web site. Especially for glider installs by a glider A&P I hope/expect they would be flexible here.

And you likely know the relationships here but Peregrine Aero is essentially a consulting company that Trig paid to develop the AML STCs for the ADS-B Out installs of it's product. They seemed to do a good job getting stuff done.

Darryl

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
I just heard from Peregrine Aero regarding installation of a TN70 to go
with my TT22. This part of what they told me:

The recent FAA policy on field approval installations makes it much more practical for the repair stations within the Trig dealership network to accomplish our STC on models that are not currently included on the AML. The TT22 and the TN 70 are an approved equipment pair under our STC (SA00756DE), so the repair stations within the Trig dealer network have the ability to complete this installation as an approved alteration so long as the equipment Is installed per the instructions provided by our STC and per the FAA policy on ADS-B installations.

Now to wait and see when the TN70 becomes available. I hope it's as
simple as that...

[snip]
Dan, 5J

Vaughn

I'm not going to disagree in general, but it's intersting here that ForeFlight/Arapaho/Sporty's basically banded together, built this closed ecosystem and seemed to seriously whack Garmin in this space. Without that "it all just works together well" integration they may not have been able to knock Garmin so hard. And without focus on iOS devices the small development team like ForeFlight had they likely would not have been able to ship and innovate in the product like they have. The main product competing with the Status S/S2 is the the Garmin GDL-39 and that will only work with Garmin products... that to me seemed even worse, Garmin wants to lock up and control every cockpit at every size/cost point., and by comparison I actually welcomed ForeFlight/Arapaho/Sportys going after Garmin (and in my mind at least beating them in this portable/flight bag space).

And although I'd compare any portable ADS-B receiver first to the leading Status 2/2S, they are certainly not perfect or unapproachable. Including sometimes mounting and glareshield reflection issues, sometimes battery life, sometimes overheating issues sitting on a glareshield in sunlight and the closed system issues you point out. But still it's a great product and market leader, but bring on the competition...

Darryl


On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
zero.

If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.

Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
me can remember how to access.

And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.

Vaughn