A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low cost ADS-B Options



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 31st 16, 10:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 5:09:16 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
Interesting. This will be the first competition for FLARM Technology. I wonder if they will adjust their princely pricing to keep their anti-collision market share. Would this work in an area that is not within ground ADS-B coverage?


I am not following what you are thinking. This is not direct competition for FLARM/PowerFLARM. This is an 1090ES Out ADS-B + source solution. It is a great thing to see happening, but it does not include any ADS-B In capability. ADS-B In solutions exist for GA but won't work at all as well as FLARM for many glider pilots, are not designed for high-traffic density glider on glider type scenarios, and won't easily fit in/integrate with most glider cockpits/avionics.

This ADS-B Out solution is great for providing visibility to ATC and GA aircraft equipped with ADS-B In (preferably 1090ES In). Another benefit of 1090ES Out carriage is it will provide longer distance visibility to PowerFLARM equipped gliders, which might appeal to some folks, like those buddy flying (PowerFLARM systems sold in the USA include 1090ES reception as standard). Maybe the best thing about this is its another sign ADS-B things are moving and that there are hopefully reasonable cost solutions coming for some clubs and FBOs that have to equip their towplanes with ADS-B Out to meed 2020 carriage mandates... and equipping them with affordable 1090ES Out is great for compatibility with gliders with powerFLARM and it's 1090ES In capability.
  #12  
Old August 1st 16, 07:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

I have to agree with Darryl on this.

It's great see cheaper ADS-B Out GPS sources coming out to provide better position reporting to ATC and a way for gliders to light up TIS-B services and ADS-B In on other aircraft.

What's missing is a suitable commercially available dual-band ADS-B In box that receives 1090ES, UAT (if anybody is equipping with UAT), is TIS-B compatible AND puts out NMEA sentences so you can look at traffic on your Oudie, ClearNav, LX or other glider flight computer display. I'm not going to mess around in my cockpit with glide computers as well as an iPad running Foreflight.

Even if an NMEA ADS-B box were available for sale it still would only provide traffic alerts based on general proximity. I am not aware of any software currently in existence that does anything more than warn of traffic in a big hockey puck of airspace around you. None of it does collision course estimation or real collision warning to my knowledge and even if one of the GA solutions did attempt such a feat it seems unlikely that it would be optimized to not drive you up the wall with collision warnings the second you got into a thermal with another glider. Flarm does a pretty good job with both collision alarming for maneuvering gliders and filtering out nearby, but non-conflicting gliders.

I have a home-brew ADS-B receiver running a modified version of Stratux to output NMEA to my flight computer, but I think of it as a complement to Flarm, certainly not a substitute. A cheaper GPS source that works with Trig transponders will make a big difference in terms of making ADS-B In reliable since I won't have to depend on ADS-B Out from other passing aircraft to light up TIS-B traffic reporting from the ADS-B ground infrastructure, but we are still a ways from having a good ADS-B In solution for gliders - other than Flarm.

9B

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:

I am not following what you are thinking. This is not direct competition for FLARM/PowerFLARM. This is an 1090ES Out ADS-B + source solution. It is a great thing to see happening, but it does not include any ADS-B In capability. ADS-B In solutions exist for GA but won't work at all as well as FLARM for many glider pilots, are not designed for high-traffic density glider on glider type scenarios, and won't easily fit in/integrate with most glider cockpits/avionics.

This ADS-B Out solution is great for providing visibility to ATC and GA aircraft equipped with ADS-B In (preferably 1090ES In). Another benefit of 1090ES Out carriage is it will provide longer distance visibility to PowerFLARM equipped gliders, which might appeal to some folks, like those buddy flying (PowerFLARM systems sold in the USA include 1090ES reception as standard). Maybe the best thing about this is its another sign ADS-B things are moving and that there are hopefully reasonable cost solutions coming for some clubs and FBOs that have to equip their towplanes with ADS-B Out to meed 2020 carriage mandates... and equipping them with affordable 1090ES Out is great for compatibility with gliders with powerFLARM and it's 1090ES In capability.

  #13  
Old August 1st 16, 10:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
vontresc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:04:41 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 5:09:16 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
Interesting. This will be the first competition for FLARM Technology. I wonder if they will adjust their princely pricing to keep their anti-collision market share. Would this work in an area that is not within ground ADS-B coverage?


I am not following what you are thinking. This is not direct competition for FLARM/PowerFLARM. This is an 1090ES Out ADS-B + source solution. It is a great thing to see happening, but it does not include any ADS-B In capability. ADS-B In solutions exist for GA but won't work at all as well as FLARM for many glider pilots, are not designed for high-traffic density glider on glider type scenarios, and won't easily fit in/integrate with most glider cockpits/avionics.

This ADS-B Out solution is great for providing visibility to ATC and GA aircraft equipped with ADS-B In (preferably 1090ES In). Another benefit of 1090ES Out carriage is it will provide longer distance visibility to PowerFLARM equipped gliders, which might appeal to some folks, like those buddy flying (PowerFLARM systems sold in the USA include 1090ES reception as standard). Maybe the best thing about this is its another sign ADS-B things are moving and that there are hopefully reasonable cost solutions coming for some clubs and FBOs that have to equip their towplanes with ADS-B Out to meed 2020 carriage mandates... and equipping them with affordable 1090ES Out is great for compatibility with gliders with powerFLARM and it's 1090ES In capability.


I was talking to the guys a uAvionix at Oshkosh this weekend, and they have a truly interesting ADS-
B solution that may actually work well for us glider folks.

http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping200b0/

They had the prototype they were testing at the show, and it truly was a tiny device. Hopebully they will follow through with the box, and get it blessed by the feds. Tiny physical size, 500mA power draw, and weighs 50 grams. Let's hope the pricetag doesn't break the bank.

Peter
  #14  
Old August 2nd 16, 02:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:02:27 PM UTC-7, vontresc wrote:
[snip]

I was talking to the guys a uAvionix at Oshkosh this weekend, and they have a truly interesting ADS-
B solution that may actually work well for us glider folks.

http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping200b0/

They had the prototype they were testing at the show, and it truly was a tiny device. Hopebully they will follow through with the box, and get it blessed by the feds. Tiny physical size, 500mA power draw, and weighs 50 grams. Let's hope the pricetag doesn't break the bank.

Peter


That is intersting, and it's great to see broad innovation happening in things related to ADS-B.

But it is worrying that the specs they present makes this not look like a Mode-S transponder. They mention no Mode-S or any other transponder related spec/standard. It might even have no 1030MHz receiver hardware at all. Once concern there in the UAV market would be the lack of compatibility with TCAS. You don't want airliners flying into UAVs, including UAVs that are out of control and have no way of avoiding the airliner. If the device is really intended to be a transponder then they have awful marketing.

The company is small and just received $5M in investment. Nothing they make meets TSO approval, but OK they are just getting started, hopefully they have folks with a background designing and manufacturing TSO approved avionics--but the company has been solidly targets the low-end UAV space. I question why they would want to worry about manned aircraft. The marketing and other costs alone just related with that for a new vendor are going to be significant. Maybe worth watching, but they need to improve their marketing/clean up/better state their claims if they think they are going after the manned aircraft market (and they certainly claim they are). They started out with a focus on receivers, which is great, but it's a very different thing to do say a TSO-ed ADS-B transmitter for general aviation.

Unfortunately reading stuff from them smells a bit too much like hype. When they talk about the PingNAV GPS source is "ADS-B Out compliant" but the needed specs are really not there, even as a promise of future compatibility. If they mean it's going to be TSO-C145c compliant or "meet the performance requirements of" then frigging say so, they have an strange way of not stating that clearly--which might be partially inexperience in the avionics market. They do clearly call out "meets requirements of" the GPS-source part of TSO-C199 (i.e. TABS). And I'm not sure it makes sense for a drone/UAV manufacturer to seek TSO approval on such a device. And TSO-C199 approval or even "meets requirements of" is not enough for ADS-B Out equipage today (certainly not in certified aircraft). Now if gliders lost their transponder/ADS-B out exemptions I'd actually like to see TABS carriage available as a means of compliance for ADS-B Out for gliders.. or available for voluntary equipage/non-mandated carriage.

BTW another interesting company in the UAV space is Sagetech (http://sagetechcorp.com/index.html). They've been shipping pretty impressive miniature transponders and ADS-B out systems for UAVs for a while. and have a less hyped feel than Uavionix.

Anyhow I guess it is good to see stuff happening. Not that I necessarily am too excited about lots of UAVs sharing airspace with manned aircraft.... but we get to sit back and see who delivers stuff here.

  #15  
Old August 5th 16, 12:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

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/
  #16  
Old August 5th 16, 02:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

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.).



  #17  
Old August 5th 16, 01:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

Darryl-

Thanks for the analysis. Maybe someday.....

  #18  
Old August 5th 16, 04:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

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

  #19  
Old August 5th 16, 06:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

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

  #20  
Old August 6th 16, 12:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Low cost ADS-B Options

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Insurance Options? Jonathan St. Cloud Soaring 2 October 22nd 15 01:25 AM
What Options? gpick Piloting 12 September 3rd 10 01:57 AM
LED options Ken Gage Home Built 2 November 8th 07 01:01 AM
A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons. Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 0 November 2nd 07 04:18 PM
Options [email protected] Soaring 32 March 14th 05 06:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.