|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

02-14-2015, 04:22 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,196
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanflood
Following this thread with much interest as I would like to get ADS-B out but can't afford it. Just wondering is anyone using the NavWorx ADS600-EXP box with an older mode C transponder and transmonspe? or a new mode S transponder? I'm a little confused about all the technical data, but does your system report come back okay, so you can use it till 2020?
Thanks,
Bryan
|
The ads600-exp is too new for folks to have experience with it. I believe it will support the same transponders as the ads600b. If you have a really old one that doesn't support a serial interface, you can use the transmon device.
There is too much rumor and misinformation floating on the various threads. I would highly recommend giving Bill at at Navworx a call and asking him directly your questions. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
|

04-06-2015, 11:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 256
|
|
Great help - what does Kinematics mean?
What does it mean to have a Kinematics failure?
Just did my first test with a 430W and a 330ES. All categories pass but these:
Baro Alt delta .57% fail MCF = 2
Geo Alt delta 1.12% fail MCF = 3
Latest firmware.
The email said the Baro/Geo failure may be related to an issue identified by Garmin. All the decoder rings don't help me turn this into English
Thanks for any advice you can give.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm117
Hi Mike/All, Sorry for the delay in responding to your question regarding my association with the FAA's ADS-B program, I've been somewhat busy sending out ADS-B reports since my original post. Yes, I work on the FAA ADS-B program as a avionics safety inspector with Flight Standards in DC. My primary responsibilities are to develop policy, guidance & training related ?91.225 & ?91.227 for our avionics inspectors. I also provide outreach to the aviation community related to the installation & maintenance of ADS-B systems. My arrival to the Vans forum was spurred by the latter of these and the knowledge that many who have already equipped with ADS-B are unaware that the system is not working properly. I've had little success with the alphabet groups when seeking to publish material that would be helpful to members such as those here. So out of frustration thought I'd go VFR direct (so to speak) to a large group of the GA community and provide assistance as able.
|
__________________
Roger Whittier
RV7A Quick Build, Tip Up
N1MY Reserved - Canopy finished - Wings mated, Engine hung, electrical 95%
|

04-07-2015, 05:21 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 2,885
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhittier
What does it mean to have a Kinematics failure?
Just did my first test with a 430W and a 330ES. All categories pass but these:
Baro Alt delta .57% fail MCF = 2
Geo Alt delta 1.12% fail MCF = 3
Latest firmware.
The email said the Baro/Geo failure may be related to an issue identified by Garmin. All the decoder rings don't help me turn this into English
Thanks for any advice you can give.
|
Hello Roger,
As explained in the FAA document, the ground based compliance monitor watches your data and performs a reasonableness check on changes in Baro/Geo Altitude, Position, and Velocity. Items highlighted in red were identified with parameter changes outside the range of normal aircraft performance.
The MCF term identifies the Maximum Consecutive Failures, which were very low for your data. Were you performing any maneuvering flight at all during the analysis flight? (of course, it is an RV!)
I looked at the data for several other RV aircraft that we have collected (all using G3X systems), including a G3X RV-10 with a GNS 430W/GTX330ES combination, and didn't see any kinematics failures in any of these reports.
You didn't identify your source of pressure altitude to the GTX, but your report data suggests that there might be disagreement between baro and GPS altitude at times, but only rarely.
For peace of mind, you might want to make a flight where you fly pretty straight and level and request another compliance report. If this one comes back "clean", then you were probably just tripping up the compliance monitor for a few cycles while you were maneuvering.
Let us know if we can help further.
Thanks,
Steve
__________________
Garmin G3X Support
g3xpert@garmin.com
1-866-854-8433 - 7 to 7 Central Time M to F
Please email us for support instead of using Private Messaging due to the limitations of the latter.
|

04-07-2015, 08:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 256
|
|
Thanks, I'll do as you suggest
I'll report back. Great help, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3xpert
Hello Roger,
As explained in the FAA document, the ground based compliance monitor watches your data and performs a reasonableness check on changes in Baro/Geo Altitude, Position, and Velocity. Items highlighted in red were identified with parameter changes outside the range of normal aircraft performance.
The MCF term identifies the Maximum Consecutive Failures, which were very low for your data. Were you performing any maneuvering flight at all during the analysis flight? (of course, it is an RV!)
I looked at the data for several other RV aircraft that we have collected (all using G3X systems), including a G3X RV-10 with a GNS 430W/GTX330ES combination, and didn't see any kinematics failures in any of these reports.
You didn't identify your source of pressure altitude to the GTX, but your report data suggests that there might be disagreement between baro and GPS altitude at times, but only rarely.
For peace of mind, you might want to make a flight where you fly pretty straight and level and request another compliance report. If this one comes back "clean", then you were probably just tripping up the compliance monitor for a few cycles while you were maneuvering.
Let us know if we can help further.
Thanks,
Steve
|
__________________
Roger Whittier
RV7A Quick Build, Tip Up
N1MY Reserved - Canopy finished - Wings mated, Engine hung, electrical 95%
|

05-11-2015, 07:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Clearwater,fl
Posts: 3
|
|
GNS530W serial configs
I swapped out my 430 for a 530W and just need to confirm the serial (in & out) settings for the 530W. I am using a GTX330ES so want ADS-B out settings too!
|

05-11-2015, 12:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrapilot
I swapped out my 430 for a 530W and just need to confirm the serial (in & out) settings for the 530W. I am using a GTX330ES so want ADS-B out settings too!
|
Set the 530W serial output to "ADSB+". Not "ADSB".
|

05-11-2015, 02:31 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 2,885
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrapilot
I swapped out my 430 for a 530W and just need to confirm the serial (in & out) settings for the 530W. I am using a GTX330ES so want ADS-B out settings too!
|
Hello,
This posting should be useful, especially this part:
The RS-232 serial output port on the GNS or GTN unit providing position data to the transponder should be set to "ADS-B+".
The RS-232 serial input port on a GTX330ES transponder configured to receive ADS-B+ position data from a GNS/GTN unit should be set to "REMOTE".
For the GTX330ES, don't forget to enter your Mode S Address (hex or U.S. tail number), configure your Flight ID to either be same as tail number or via manual entry, set the X,Y offset (from nose) of your GNS/GTN antenna, set your GPS Integrity to 1E-7, set aircraft type, max airspeed, length, and width, enable ADS-B TX, enable EHS (enhanced surveillance), and finally specify whether or not your aircraft has an ADS-B receiver that can listen on 1090 Mhz and/or UAT (978 Mhz).
Let us know if you have additional questions.
Thanks,
Steve
__________________
Garmin G3X Support
g3xpert@garmin.com
1-866-854-8433 - 7 to 7 Central Time M to F
Please email us for support instead of using Private Messaging due to the limitations of the latter.
|

05-13-2015, 12:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Clearwater,fl
Posts: 3
|
|
Thank you for the info Steve. Any ARINC settings?
|

06-09-2015, 04:35 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gearhart Oregon
Posts: 235
|
|
Call from FAA ADS-B Compliance Team...
So I just received a call from a guy on the "FAA ADS-B Compliance Team" -- said my ADS-B is "bad" and he's tracking down me and 400 other aircraft owners. Took some questioning to pin him down on what he meant by that -- I already know my ADS-B (NavWorx ADS-600B) is not now 2020 compliant, for two reasons:
1) SIL is reading 100% fail on my report. According to NavWorx that's expected, because the internal GPS is not TSO certified. However NavWorx has a firmware update coming that will resolve that -- I believe that's because of a recent ruling from FAA that for experimentals the TSO is not required, only "performance to TSO specs" whatever that means, and so the new firmware will have something to make that go away.
2) Mode 3A is showing 100% fail. That's also expected, because I have an old transponder and no txpdr suppression connection to the ADS-B. I have ordered a gizmo from NavWorx that lets you do that interconnect, so that'll be resolved shortly.
When he called my impression was, I need to get this fixed or turn it off. When I pinned him down on it however he said it's not actually required before 2020. So I guess the call was a courtesy call? Or maybe if it weren't in an experimental it would need to be compliant now, regardless?
Anyway, just tossing this info out, in case anyone's interested or has any further comment on the topic.
__________________
Randall Henderson
RV-6 / O-360 / CS, 1500+ hrs, 1st flight Sept. 1999
Airport committee chairman & ASNV for Seaside, OR Municipal (56S), www.seasideairport.org
Donated August 2020
|

06-09-2015, 06:28 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Woodinville, WA
Posts: 1,499
|
|
Randall,
The FAA compliance guys are generally pretty nice in our experience and they are just trying to make sure the ADS-B system is working as expected. They don't have as much experience with experimental equipment of course, which can lead to some discussions which aren't 100% accurate. Ultimately, they are trying to contact operators that have ADS-B in their certified planes and think they are compliant, but are not due to a configuration or equipment issue.
I can see them having an issue with the lack of a Mode A code though. This might cause alarms at ATC, since you look like two airplanes, one with a Mode A of XXXX via your transponder, and YYYY via your UAT, but you're always a collision risk due to how close you are to one another. That's not very cool.
As for if that's legal, 91.227 says:
Quote:
(d) Minimum Broadcast Message Element Set for ADS-B Out. Each aircraft must broadcast the following information, as defined in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c. The pilot must enter information for message elements listed in paragraphs (d)(7) through (d)(10) of this section during the appropriate phase of flight.
(7) An indication of the Mode 3/A transponder code specified by ATC;
|
I guess you have to decide if 91.227 applies before 2020. It does define "ADS-B OUT" as "a function of an aircraft's onboard avionics that periodically broadcasts the aircraft's state vector (3-dimensional position and 3-dimensional velocity) and other required information as described in this section. " and then lays out requirements for it. It doesn't say it's only ADS-B after 2020 and before then you can transmit whatever you want even if it's inaccurate.
The difference with a SIL=0 is that it's not inaccurate- it just doesn't meet the requirements to enter airspace after 2020 per 91.225, so that's clearly legal up to 2020 or even after if you stay out of rule airspace.
Note there is absolutely nothing in the FARs that differentiates an experimental airplane from a certified one. However, as you say, the FAA might not allow you to install something that doesn't meet the FAR in a certified plane because they get to limit installations in order to prevent issues. You can go and install whatever you want in your experimental, it's just that if it doesn't meet the FAR, they can use other forms of enforcement to get you to stop
--Ian Jordan
Last edited by dynonsupport : 06-09-2015 at 06:33 PM.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 AM.
|