What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Garmin 330 upgrade?

N427EF

Well Known Member
Just curious, now that I have added an Dynon ADS-B receiver I "want" all the bells and whistles for traffic.
I currently have a Garmin 327 bought just before Dynon came out with their
Mode S transponder. A Dynon Transponder would make the most sense but would leave me with a hole in the panel.
How much rewiring is required to upgrade a Garmin 327 to a 330?
It is physically the same size but I am sure there is a new connector and wiring harness required or maybe just a few wires added to the existing harness.
The 330 will play nicely with the Dynon too from what I understand.
 
Last edited:
The 330 tray is different from the 327. The 330 is longer. The wiring is different but the differences in your install would not be that major.

To wake up the ADS-B traffic, you need the ES version of the 330 and they cost more. The non ES version can be upgraded for a price from Garmin.

You will have to do your own evaluation of what that hole in the panel is worth to you to have it filled.
 
Upgrade from 330 to 330ES is $1,200.. that assumes you already have a 330. ... since you only have a 327, it'd be a good chunk more... Going straight to a Dynon transponder instead would leave a lot of money for Avgas...
 
Thanks

Thanks for the input.
It looks like the Dynon Transponder would be the least expensive and best option
considering all the changes that need to be made for a Garmin upgrade.
The Garmin SL30 would be a nice fit for the empty hole but I already have 2 coms. Maybe a Val Nav Radio would fit the bill. $995.-http://www.valavionics.com/product pages/nav2000-VHFrec.htm
I just can't leave well enough alone.
 
Trig TT31

Sell the 327 for 1.2k, buy a Trigg for $2.7k, 1.5k difference. Fits in the same hole, not sure on length. That's my plan, not sure if ill do it this year or not yet.
Tim
 
Not to steal this thread

But our EAA club was given a presentation by a garmin rep and he said that the upgraded 330 also requires a WAAS gps. He went on to say that the cheapest WAAS gps they have is the 430. Is that correct?

Randy
8A
PANEL OVERHAUL IN PROGRESS
 
But our EAA club was given a presentation by a garmin rep and he said that the upgraded 330 also requires a WAAS gps. He went on to say that the cheapest WAAS gps they have is the 430. Is that correct?

Randy
8A
PANEL OVERHAUL IN PROGRESS

All ES enabled transponders require a "compatible" certified position source that meet the 2020 mandate requirements in order to be a fully compliant client to the ground stations. Does not matter the brand. Some will use non-compliant GPS's to wake up the ground stations for now for as long as the FAA allows it.

The least expensive Garmin GPS that meets the full compliancy needs of the 330ES is the 400W. The G3X will also drive it as well for now...

Thats the quick and easy version....here is the long and detailed one:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf
 
Last edited:
Fixed that for you :) It would be flawed to assume that every certified position source will be compatible/accepted by every certified ES transponder. I would not bet that Garmin's example will take in any non-Garmin position source.


All ES enabled transponders require a "compatible" certified position source that meet the 2020 mandate requirements in order to be a fully compliant client to the ground stations.
 
Fixed that for you :) It would be flawed to assume that every certified position source will be compatible/accepted by every certified ES transponder. I would not bet that Garmin's example will take in any non-Garmin position source.

Yes this is a good and most important point....sorry for the omission....

It is up to the maker of the ES enabled transponder to support a given GPS.

To add further detail to this subject:

"3.3.B(2)

Unless the ADS-B equipment manufacturer has analyzed the interface between the
position source and the ADS-B equipment you are installing, and specifically listed the position
source in the ADS-B equipment’s installation manual, you must provide an analysis of the
interface between the position source and the ADS-B equipment which demonstrates that the
position, velocity, position accuracy, position integrity, and velocity accuracy information taken
from the position source is properly interpreted by the ADS-B equipment.

Note: This analysis will require engineering design data
from the ADS-B equipment manufacturer and the position
source manufacturer."

This pretty much requires that the ES enabled transponder manufacturers must formally support the position source used. Just because it may work if connected won't cut it unless that position source is specifically listed in the installation manuals of the ES enabled xponder....I doubt the manufacturers are going to give up their engineering design data for both the GPS and the ES enabled xponder.....
 
Last edited:
Although not officially announced, Dynon will complement their arrangement
with a certified GPS in the future.
In the meantime the current version of their GPS will wake up traffic targets
when installed with their certified and compliant transponder.
We are still 7 years away from the 2020 target date.
I don't need to upgrade anything at this point I am just looking into the future and trying to lay out a plan for the eventual mandate of mode S and ADS-B
compliance.
 
Although not officially announced, Dynon will complement their arrangement
with a certified GPS in the future.
In the meantime the current version of their GPS will wake up traffic targets
when installed with their certified and compliant transponder.
We are still 7 years away from the 2020 target date.
I don't need to upgrade anything at this point I am just looking into the future and trying to lay out a plan for the eventual mandate of mode S and ADS-B
compliance.

I learned the lesson the hard way. If it does not exist today, don't ever assume it will in the future no matter what the marketing department says. This is not just focused on Dynon, it goes across the board.

We don't know how long the FAA will continue to allow "Non-Compliant" clients to continue to receive TIS-B data from the ground stations. It may last to 2020 and beyond or it may end tomorrow. Only the contractors operating the ground stations know....

Just to keep everything accurate....while Dynon's transponder is certified and does meet the requirements for an ES enabled transponder, alone it does not meet the requirements for ADS-B out. It must be connected to a certified position source that meets the requirements of the 2020 mandate to be considered a fully compliant client to the system.

When the Dynon transponder is operated by getting it's position source from the Skyview system, it is not a full compliant client to the system. However, for now the FAA is allowing this anyway. Keep in mind, this could end at any time.

The same goes for anyone driving a Garmin ES enabled xponder with the G3X system. It works for now but is not a full compliant client to the system.
 
While the cheapest Garmin WAAS solution for this maybe the 430W, there are certainly lots of cheap (under $100) WAAS enabled GPS's (those little pucks) on the market that could be be compliant(probably are) and work just fine in our EAB aircraft.
 
While the cheapest Garmin WAAS solution for this maybe the 430W, there are certainly lots of cheap (under $100) WAAS enabled GPS's (those little pucks) on the market that could be be compliant(probably are) and work just fine in our EAB aircraft.

While that would be nice, it simply is not a correct assumption.

WAAS capability is not the only factor to determine compliancy for a certified position source to be used with an ES enabled transponder for ADS-B out.

Most of these units output their data using the NMEA protocol and this protocol does not even come close to providing enough information to be used as a position source for an ES enabled transponder.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf
 
Last edited:
nope....

not to mention the software involved in a TSO's WAAS aviation GPS must meet requirements (for specific areas) of RTCA/DO-178B, in some cases to Level 'A'. This is a very stringent certification criteria which no COTS non-aviation GPS will endevor to meet.....
 
While that would be nice, it simply is not a correct assumption.

WAAS capability is not the only factor to determine compliancy for a certified position source to be used with an ES enabled transponder for ADS-B out.

Most of these units output their data using the NMEA protocol and this protocol does not even come close to providing enough information to be used as a position source for an ES enabled transponder.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf

Brantel I agree on those points. My point is that a WAAS enabled GPS could pretty easily be employed into this system if the squitter allowed it. Its a pretty simple sentence structure change. I cant find any requirement in the current FAA ADSB rules that show TSO requirements for the EAB space on the WAAS GPS receiver for the ADSB system. I could be wrong here and I did not go very deep.

We dont have one of these yet, but it would be pretty easy to make one.
 
Brantel I agree on those points. My point is that a WAAS enabled GPS could pretty easily be employed into this system if the squitter allowed it. Its a pretty simple sentence structure change. I cant find any requirement in the current FAA ADSB rules that show TSO requirements for the EAB space on the WAAS GPS receiver for the ADSB system. I could be wrong here and I did not go very deep.

We dont have one of these yet, but it would be pretty easy to make one.

Mike, Here you go...this is the deal breaker right here:

FROM FAR 91.227:

(c) ADS-B Out Performance Requirements for NACP, NACV, NIC, SDA, and SIL--

(1) For aircraft broadcasting ADS-B Out as required under Sec. 91.225 (a) and (b)--

(i) The aircraft's NACP must be less than 0.05 nautical miles;

(ii) The aircraft's NACV must be less than 10 meters per second;

(iii) The aircraft's NIC must be less than 0.2 nautical miles;

(iv) The aircraft's SDA must be 2; and

(v) The aircraft's SIL must be 3.

(2) Changes in NACP, NACV, SDA, and SIL must be broadcast within 10 seconds.

(3) Changes in NIC must be broadcast within 12 seconds.

This item in RED above ties directly into AC 20-165 Figure 9, this gives guidance of what SDA is and what level 2 requires.
 
Just did the 330 Transponder Upgrade for ADS-B Out

Okay, here's the deal for the 330 transponder upgrade based on my experience. I just got my 330 back from Garmin after doing the ADS-B upgrade. I was told that in order to be fully compliant that I also had to upgrade my 430W software to the new version 5.0. That upgrade was free but I had to pay the avionics shop for one hour to do the install.

If you're going to upgrade your 330, my advice is to make a note of all your current settings before sending it in. The upgrade seemed to change the settings back to default. Therefore input and output settings I had changed previously based on my wiring were gone. I couldn't find a good record of what I did so I had to reinvent the wheel. I didn't realize that at first so I plugged in the transponder and went flying. Of course nothing worked.

I had also expected the Arinc 429 connection that I already had to take care of making the ADS-B talk to the 330. That's not the case and I now need to connect a serial connection between the 330 and the 430W to make it work. Here's the explanation I received from G3Expert on that topic:

Both the GNS 4XX/5XX and the GTN 6XX/7XX have relatively new RS-232 output channel format selections for ADS-B. You cannot use an A429 interface to get the new V2 2020 compliant data from the 430W to the 330. You must use RS-232.

Set the GNS 430W RS-232 Output format to ADS-B Out+ and set the GTX 330 ES RS-232 channel Input format to REMOTE.

The 430W ADS-B Out data is generally provided to the GTX330ES on its port 2 as shown in this diagram. You will need to take one of the spare RS-232 channels on the 430W, configure it for ADS-B OUT (earlier than V5.00) or ADS-B OUT+ (V5.00 and later) and connect it to GTX330ES pins 24,58.

It is a transmit only connection from the GNS/GTN to the GTX. Very simple to wire and configure.

Set 1090 to off and UAT In to on. If this works to get the ground station to provide you a TIS-B uplink, you can try turning 1090 on as well and test that. All this does is tell the ground station what you are capable of receiving. Since the GDL39 is a dual frequency receiver, technically you should set both to ON, but we have seen cases where the ground station seems to prefer you just set UAT ON.


So this is all I know at this time. I won't have a chance to dig into this and change my wiring for a week or so. Once I get it all working I'll let everyone know how it all works. And thanks to G3Xpert for all his good assistance when needed.
 
Although not officially announced, Dynon will complement their arrangement with a certified GPS in the future.

Just to be clear, we have never said that we will have a certified GPS and nobody should assume that we will. It's an interesting business opportunity for sure, but not one we have made any statements about at all.
 
My bad

Didn't mean to spread any rumors.:eek:
I simply assumed a certified GPS would end up in the Dynon pipeline eventually. After all, it is the last piece of the ADS-B compliance puzzle missing in the Dynon harware line up. A lot can happen in 7 years and it is certainly not a priority at this time.
However, I can't imagine any reason why Dynon would not complete the last piece of the puzzle.
I already have wiring in for the second GPS;)
 
After you read the 800 page MOPS for a certified GPS you'll know why we might not do it ;)
 
It sort of depends on when you want to upgrade and what you want to do with the panel. Of course the easiest path if you have a Skyview is simply to plug in one of their remote SV/Trig transponders. However, if you want to fill up the hole in the panel, you can get a very similar panel mount Trig Transponder for not too much more money and it'll also play nice with other equipment as well as meeting the same ES requirements. A full upgrade to a 330ES is the most expensive option for you but would also fill the hole.

In regards to certified GPSes and such, there is starting to be a bunch of misinformation spread "around the internet" about such things. Some experimental mfgr's are listing their GPS as an "IFR GPS" (and also telling customers that it's IFR) leading them to believe it's a certified solution, when it's in fact not the case at all - this is not just misleading, it's dangerous. Also, plugging in a certified GPS remote box into something else and simply claiming the entire solution is "IFR CERTIFIED" does not make it so. If that were the case, the entire solution would have a TSO sticker on it or a heap of paperwork showing it meets the specs for both TSO 145 and 146. Anyway, I'd encourage folks to look past marketing rhetoric when it comes to "certified GPS boxes"...it is NOT a trivial thing to make one of these devices as Dynon points out. Impossible it is not, but simply claiming something does not make it so (as you see in some marketing literature).

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
330ES Upgraded

I had my 330 transponder upgraded to the 330ES a couple weeks ago and finally got it connected back up. I had to lay on my back under the panel for a couple hours to wire a new serial port connection between the 430W to the 330ES. Access to the back of the radio stack is a big disadvantage of a -9A with slider canopy. I wired and configured per recommendations of G3Xpert.

When I first powered up the panel the transponder indicated NOADSB on the screen. Once the 430W GPS locked in and provided a valid GPS location, that indication when away. Even on the ground traffic immediately started popping up. I have the GDL-39 connected to the 696 and also an iPad Mini to display traffic.

Today was an okay day to fly here, but not the ideal day when you would expect a lot of traffic. But even so, I've never seen so much traffic on the screen as previous without ADS-B out. The TIS-B indication on the display screen no longer had an 'X' over it so it appeared to be working as it should. It appeared to pick up all the traffic I spotted with exception of a few. In those cases the traffic was low and probably in a shadow of radar coverage behind a hill. And there was an ultra-light that probably didn't have a transponder it didn?t pick up. I was very impressed and it's amazing how much easier it is to pick out the traffic when you know exactly where it's located and at what altitude. I was picking up traffic in the pattern and on short final at several airports I passed. When I was on downwind to land I could see incoming traffic on the extended runway centerline that I figured was on a localizer approach. Sure enough he called in several miles out and we were head to head on final. But safe distance since he was only doing a low approach on the opposite runway. It was good to have the advance notice though.

I just happened to have a 430W and 330 in my panel so the upgrade to ADS-B out was much less expensive than it may be for others. If you have a GDL-39 or other ADS-B receiver and can figure out a way to get ADS-B out I would highly recommend it. The complete display of traffic sure made it worthwhile upgrade for me. If you don?t want to upgrade yet, then talk your best flying buddy into upgrading. Then you?re all set if you always fly next to him. ;)
 
Hello Mark,

Thank you for your pirep.

Like you, I have noticed that this equipment is invaluable when it comes to locating traffic inbound to land at the same airport.

Even though the traffic typically disappears from the screen before landing, seeing traffic inbound and even in the pattern is common.

Thanks,
Steve
 
Good pirep.

Can't wait!

I would assume that how close the field is to the radar station, the ground stations and terrain in the area will cause the performance to vary low and in the pattern.
 
2020 'mandate'... yea right...

Don't get all wrapped up around a 2020 'mandate'... likely it will get extended, then modified, then extended as vendors and reality meet up with the calendar.

The high level of early adoption is driven by a sensible implementation on the issue of a GPS source... the whole 'mandate' issue will likely be relaxed significantly by simply extending the current GPS position source implementation.
 
Last edited:
Don't get all wrapped up around a 2020 'mandate'... likely it will get extended, then modified, then extended as vendors and reality meet up with the calendar.

People will be in denial years after the mandate goes into effect.

I could care less about the mandate. What I am enjoying is the free FIS-B and TIS-B products available to us now.

I don't share your vision of the future around ADS-B. This rollout has been unlike many others and one can tell the FAA is serious about this one. A large percentage of the airliners/commuter planes are already participating. Vendors are already on board. Tons of products are already emerging. Many are already running second gen software. The FAA has already went thru a modification to the program and its requirements. The FAR's have already been published and activated.

This is going to happen...might as well get used to it now during this very generous rollout phase.

The reality is that we little guys don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things and it would be a stretch to think they will put things on hold because the lower end of GA drug their feet complying with the mandate.
 
Stephen,
A few months ago I would have disagreed with you although I have seen the FAA delay such things time and again. The way the FAA has rolled out ground stations is quite remarkable. ERAM is also nearing completion across the country. It seems as though the FAA was pushing hard to keep up with and take advantage current technology. It's very refreshing to say the least.

Lately, however, I am thinking you may be right. With the slowly recovering economy, budget cuts or non-existent budgets, and finally with the harrowing threat of sequestration.....I fear all this progress will be halted. In fact, it seems like the FAA will be unable to provide the same services we now take for granted. Hopefully our government will come to an agreement and we can avert such disasters.
 
Stephen,
A few months ago I would have disagreed with you although I have seen the FAA delay such things time and again. The way the FAA has rolled out ground stations is quite remarkable. ERAM is also nearing completion across the country. It seems as though the FAA was pushing hard to keep up with and take advantage current technology. It's very refreshing to say the least.

Lately, however, I am thinking you may be right. With the slowly recovering economy, budget cuts or non-existent budgets, and finally with the harrowing threat of sequestration.....I fear all this progress will be halted. In fact, it seems like the FAA will be unable to provide the same services we now take for granted. Hopefully our government will come to an agreement and we can avert such disasters.

I have found that the more I ignore the garbage the majority (Not all of em) of the media tries to cram down my throat, the better the situation starts to look.....:)
 
Back
Top