Garmin? Unveils the Next Generation of All-in-One ADS-B Transponders

[Spirko]

Originally Posted by Chkaharyer99

Thanks for posting DR.

I've been saving up to buy a Garmin GTX 330ES to go with my Garmin 430 W Navigator and AFS 4500 EFIS. My thought was to get a dual ADS-B in receiver as well to work with my Foreflight which I like a lot.

This announcement gives me some pretty cool options. If I were to just replace my current GTX 327 with a new Garmin GTX 335 I would be money ahead over the GTX 330ES choice. I would still need ADS-B in.

I really like that the Garmin GTX 345 is integrated. Saves weight and possibly complexity. It also is nice to see it plays nice with Foreflight.

The Garmin GTX 345 is priced at $4,995 right now.

Comparably a GTX 330 ES is approx. $3,500 + a Stratus II or GDL 39R would be about $800 = $4,300 a difference of approximately $700.

Maybe I missing something? Oh yeah, money. I'll need some of that. But hey, I'm worth it!

Pretty cool.

If nothing else, you might be able to pick up a slightly used GTX 330ES and a GDL39 for far less than new if you wait a few months,
"[GTX 345] Compatibility is extended to the G3X? Touch glass flight display and is expected in Q3 2016."

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

The problem is that all the functions that go into making an IFR area nav system have to meet certifcation standards whether it's all in one box or separated into LRUs. Can what you propose work -- sure but well enough to bet your life on it? To insure performance (lateral and vertial accuracy, database integrity, waypoint sequencing, mode annuciation, error checking, etc) you have to prove it via the certification process. Certification against the applicable TSOs isn't just about fillIng out a bunch of FAA paperwork. You know what you get when you certify the architecture you propose? A G1000.

I make my living by questioning things and that is exactly what I'm doing.

There is no reason this couldn't work, with the right software and hardware.

So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?

The GTN can plot your flight path, not just your location, based on a either a direct to waypoint or a series of waypoints calculated based on an approach plate. All things a modern EFIS can do, if programmed properly.

Heck, the SkyView can display an approach plate and your position on that approach plate with enough accuracy that I would fly an approach, should I get stuck on top in my "VFR" ship. (Thank God I have never been in the position to do that nor do I ever plan on putting my self in such a position.) I'm just saying, they are that accurate and yes, I would trust my life, and that of my family on it.

My point is, that modern EFIS's are much more accurate and reliable than VOR's / ILS's, NDB's, etc. that were used for decades.

My question is, why can't we use them? (Rumor is that the FAA's spec was written with assistance from Garman, thus making it more difficult for other's to produce similar products.)

Price does not dictate quality. I have driven many different cars, on and off the track, from many different manufactures and am convinced that price does not dictate performance and quality.

[bkthomps]

Originally Posted by N941WR

I make my living by questioning things and that is exactly what I'm doing.

And my post was not directed solely at you, but rather the larger mindset in experimental aviation which leads to guys taping iPads to their dash and filing /G, there's nothing wrong with a constructive conversation about what you're actually paying for when you buy the certified stuff- just want to make sure it is well thought out and fully consider all angles

Originally Posted by N941WR

So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?

Is there an EFIS GPS that accurately calculates RNAV to Term, enroute, and approach accuracy levels? I think that's one of the biggest factors

Originally Posted by N941WR

Price does not dictate quality. I have driven many different cars, on and off the track, from many different manufactures and am convinced that price does not dictate performance and quality.

I agree completely- Garmin does stand out from the rest with quality however.

[GalinHdz]

Originally Posted by N941WR

So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?

The GTN does the IFR GPS NAVIGATION while the experimental EFIS provides an additional display of what the GTN is doing.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by bkthomps

And my post was not directed solely at you, but rather the larger mindset in experimental aviation which leads to guys taping iPads to their dash and filing /G, there's nothing wrong with a constructive conversation about what you're actually paying for when you buy the certified stuff- just want to make sure it is well thought out and fully consider all angles

There is a big difference between using a certified GPS antenna and an iPad.
Take some time and go read the requirements for the ADS-B GPS accuracy and self checking. No iPad or cobbled together system could provide that accuracy.

Originally Posted by bkthomps

Is there an EFIS GPS that accurately calculates RNAV to Term, enroute, and approach accuracy levels? I think that's one of the biggest factors

Today? No, there is not but that doesn't mean tomorrow there can't be.

Originally Posted by bkthomps

I agree completely- Garmin does stand out from the rest with quality however.

I would disagree with that statement and other than an 496 that I bought when the first came out, my panel is Garmin free. I continue to be impressed by my OTG panel.

Remember, Garmin was late coming to the E-AB party and only jumped when it became obvious that the experimental EFIS's were cutting into their profits.

I don't see the value / benefit ratio of buying Garmin that you do. If flying IFR is truly safer, even on VFR days, then we should encourage everyone to file. The only way that is going to happen will be to put out realistic standards and equipment.

Are you aware that VOR's are certified every time you perform a check and log it? It has nothing to do with the brand. With that standard, you can legally fly an ILS approach with a Sporty's handheld. Why can't we self certify our GPS equipment like we do with VOR's or our entire airplanes?

[rv9av8tr]

Don't want to participate in "hijacking" this thread, but.... My understanding is most all the EFIS systems use WAAS qualified GPS positioning, and as such, can be legally used for IFR navigation during the ENROUTE segment (to the IAF). They just aren't qualified for the APPROACH portion, primarily because they lack RAIM check capability. All you need is a VOR/LOC/ILS receiver to get into many airports and use the EFIS/iPad GPS as positional awareness for backup.

The reality is I would trust my off the shelf EFIS & iPad GPS ForeflightPro approach plates any day of the week over a swinging needle VOR / NDB approach!!!!

Back to the thread, what I would HOPE for is an all in one Transponder option that would slip into the same tray as the 327, which so many people started out with. I can't fit a 330ES in my -9A without MAJOR changes under the panel because it's so much longer, and that just ain't gonna happen. If these new Garmin transponders are bigger than the 327, then they might as well be boat anchors to me.

[n82rb]

what makes the IFR Nav box a IFR nav box in not the GPS reciever. the gps2020 from dynon has that accuracy. even the GPS250 does. what makes it an IFR NAV box is the software and the error checking that it does. to be a legal IFR box the approach data must be in the data base, the box must check the accuracy ect ect ect.. that is what makes the box and IFR nav unit. dynon and the rest could make their units TSO nav boxes if they want, the chips will do the job. they have decided that the cost to meet the TSO does not fit in their business plan at the moment. It takes a lot of cash to test to the TSO and if they feel that the return on investment is not there they will not go in that direction. however, if they feel that it is you may see IFR boxes from them. I would love to see garmins lock on the market go away, i personally do not like the way garmin does business, but thats me. I hope someday dynon does build an IFR nav box, but they would have to see the return on investment be there before they jump in that game.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by rv9av8tr

Don't want to participate in "hijacking" this thread, but.... My understanding is most all the EFIS systems use WAAS qualified GPS positioning, and as such, can be legally used for IFR navigation during the ENROUTE segment (to the IAF). e.

This is just plain wrong. How do these crazy ideas get started?
-----------
Surprised no one has mentioned the Trig TT-22 and -33 transponders. Mode S-ES, can read Garmin's ADSB+ protocol out of its gps navigators, tray is shorter than 330's, and cost less than these new boxes. Special TT-22 controlled by a GRT Hx is something like $2200.

[RV7Guy]

Garmin ads have been conspicuously missing from Sport Aviation the last couple of months. That seems strange with Sport Aviation being the primary publication for the EAA.

Any of you guys with the Garmin tattoos know what's going on? Just curious.

The new offering looks nice but pretty pricy. Should come down with time and as the 2020 time frame creeps up.

[Auburntsts]

Originally Posted by N941WR

I make my living by questioning things and that is exactly what I'm doing.

There is no reason this couldn't work, with the right software and hardware.

So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?

The GTN can plot your flight path, not just your location, based on a either a direct to waypoint or a series of waypoints calculated based on an approach plate. All things a modern EFIS can do, if programmed properly.

Heck, the SkyView can display an approach plate and your position on that approach plate with enough accuracy that I would fly an approach, should I get stuck on top in my "VFR" ship. (Thank God I have never been in the position to do that nor do I ever plan on putting my self in such a position.) I'm just saying, they are that accurate and yes, I would trust my life, and that of my family on it.

My point is, that modern EFIS's are much more accurate and reliable than VOR's / ILS's, NDB's, etc. that were used for decades.

My question is, why can't we use them? (Rumor is that the FAA's spec was written with assistance from Garman, thus making it more difficult for other's to produce similar products.)

Price does not dictate quality. I have driven many different cars, on and off the track, from many different manufactures and am convinced that price does not dictate performance and quality.

OK here's the bottom line. To be approved for IFR operations GPS avionics have to meet either TSO 129/196 for non-WAAS or TSO 145/146 for WAAS. If you can get the FAA to change the rules, I'm all for it -- good luck.

In the meantime, I suggest you ask Dynon or Garmin why they haven't produced a cheap IFR navigator.