What's new
Van's Air Force

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

ADS-B Made Simple

avionicsr

Active Member
These days I spend a fair amount of my time explaining what ADS-B is, who needs it, and where it's needed. I've decided to put together this brief informational document about the ADS-B mandate. It's written in plain English, with references and examples. Hope you guys enjoy it. Link below

http://www.avionics-installations.com/ADS-BMadeSimple.pdf


I'm open to suggestions as well if anyone has any. I will try to incorporate more pictures in the next revision.
 
Thanks

Pahan, looks like you have put a lot of thought and effort into this, appreciate it.
 
Who knows the future?

I for one wish I had some idea of what to do.
Avionics shop owner: "Prices won't get any cheaper"
Dynon: "We expect there will be more affordable options"
Magazine article "There's no way we can meet the 2020 date"
Shop owner: "date won't be postponed".
Dynon: "Wait"
Shop owner:"If you wait you will find the shops swamped with work."

This mess reminds me of the old joke:

"Definition of a manager: Someone whose position requires him to tell others to accomplish a certain goal, not withstanding the fact that he himself has no clue how to do it."
 
Bob,
We don't think the 2020 date will be changed. You will need to equip by 2020. In our opinion the magazine editors are also clearly wrong since there are multiple solutions for fully compliant ADS-B today, so compliance is clearly possible 5 years before the required date.

When we tell people to "wait", we mean our customers that already have a Dynon SkyView transponder, but are asking about a compliant GPS source. We are suggesting that they not spend money today when their is no rush for an experimental, and prices have been falling about $1,000 per year for the last few years.

We do assume that our customers will be installing this themselves as it will likely be quite easy to retrofit if all you are doing is changing a GPS sensor. If you are, then your only requirement is that you have the GPS in your hands early enough to install it by Jan 1, 2020. Thus, how busy shops in your area might be isn't all that relevant.

Admittedly, if you are looking at having a shop install a full ADS-B suite, then you may have a different set of constraints than we are assuming.

Thanks to the original poster for this document on ADS-B. It's accurate and quite helpful.
 
I for one wish I had some idea of what to do.
Avionics shop owner: "Prices won't get any cheaper"
Dynon: "We expect there will be more affordable options"
Magazine article "There's no way we can meet the 2020 date"
Shop owner: "date won't be postponed".
Dynon: "Wait"
Shop owner:"If you wait you will find the shops swamped with work."

This mess reminds me of the old joke:

"Definition of a manager: Someone whose position requires him to tell others to accomplish a certain goal, not withstanding the fact that he himself has no clue how to do it."

As Dynon Support mentioned, most of the issue is around the certified GPS source. Bill Moffett of NavWorx has stated that he'll sell you an expensive GPS solution today if you really want one, but advises to wait until 2016 for an affordable option that they'll be selling. I intentionally omitted the pricing for both options, but if you're interested I would suggest giving NavWorx a call. They've been fairly transparent on their approach and goals.

I've been pleased with the NavWorx unit. The issues I had were all self induced and resolved. I was an early adopter and NavWorx recently upgrade the unit to the TSO certified version at no charge. I will must likely pay for the certified GPS upgrade when it's available at the lower price point.

An interesting side benefit will be which TSO spec will it be certified for. It would be nice to have a back up GPS is certified for enroute and approach. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
 
Great easy to follow description, but I think there is an error in the Glossary section -

Mode C "Veil" - the airspace underneath the lateral boundaries of Class C airspace, but not within the Class C airspace itself.

This is shown as the solid magenta circular line on Sectionals.

I think it should read -

Mode C "Veil" - the airspace within 30 nm of the center of Class B airspace, as shown on Sectionals and Terminal Area Charts.


Or is this actually a definition referring to the airspace under the outer ring of Class B and C areas per this section of the FAR?

(4) All aircraft in all airspace above
the ceiling and within the lateral
boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace
area designated for an airport upward
to 10,000 feet MSL; and


Note that this specific description excludes the Mode C required airspace outside of the Class B area but inside the 30 nm limits.
 
I'm glad you guys are enjoying the document. I've gotten some very good suggestions on improving it and have already started implementing them. I'll let you guys know when I update the document to the next revision.
 
When we tell people to "wait", we mean our customers that already have a Dynon SkyView transponder, but are asking about a compliant GPS source.

Why wait?

NavWorx will soon be offering an ADS-B Compliant WAAS GPS solution for those with the Trig transponder. Much cheaper than the stand-alone NexNav or FreeFlight GPS boxes, AND it comes with a fully TSO'd ADS-B-IN receiver for weather and traffic.

Can be used in certified aircraft as well, since all of our products have the TSO, and the STC/AML for installations in certified aircraft.

For OEM's we offer the ability to output the GPS data to EFIS displays as well.

The model number is the ADS600-G - price is $2199.00

Shipments expected to begin Feb 1.

FYI - In my opinion, prices for ADS-B equipment will remain where they are at, if not go up slightly.
 
Bill, I have an ADS600-B and am wondering if I still need to use the supplied GPS puck antenna if I also have a certified GPS source (GTN 650) available to supply position info.

Thanks,
 
Hello Mike,

The Garmin series navigators are not currently on our STC - Garmin won't release the protocol (as they normally do with all of the other interfaces).

So until they do, or we reverse-engineer the interface, you should keep the setup you have.
 
Hello Mike,

The Garmin series navigators are not currently on our STC - Garmin won't release the protocol (as they normally do with all of the other interfaces).

So until they do, or we reverse-engineer the interface, you should keep the setup you have.

Bill, no need for the STC------experimental :D

Will you equipment accept the input from the GTN 650? or is there a problem in the communication between the two boxes-----what you mention as "protocol"
 
Great paper with a lot of the compliance issues clearly identified. The core of the issue will be how compliance with the mandate will be enforced by the FAA at the end of day. Page 7 shows the real problems: 1. Portable systems are not approved despite meeting all other technical requirements. 2. Non-integrated systems require additional approval even if the components are individually approved. 3. An integrated system is most likely going to be the lowest unit cost approach for those without any ADS-B or certified WAAS GPS source already installed.


AOPA had a great article on the ADS-B mandate from a spam-can cost perspective. What does one make of a mandate that could economically kill a large part of the older GA fleet with little benefit in return to the pilot at the controls?

For some reason the obvious answer to fixing the problem is the one the FAA will not allow. Technically, there is no reason that a sub-$2,500 integrated system could not be used on any GA aircraft to meet the mandate. In most cases, it appears those units also happen to be portable systems. I am not sure what the FAA has against portable systems meeting the mandate if they are otherwise qualified. If the interest really is improving operations in the NAS, the FAA will revisit the rule and make changes to allow the use of compliant portable systems and define some simplified method of approving non-integrated systems.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
(Avidyne IFD540/Dynon ADS-B combination)
 
I think Pahan did an excellent overview. That said, I also am primarily (though not always) in the camp with Dynon on this. I can see no good reason if you're building a new plane, or even retrofitting one with a new EFIS to go spend a ton of money on a certified GPS position source solely dedicated to ADSB. As a whole, those give you literally nothing else functionally in your plane as far as capability goes other than "checking off that box" for ADSB.

Right now, we know that functionally you can "get by" without a certified source. Or course that will change at some point, but for now it works. One top of that, even if you spend $1K or $2K or $3K on a certified source, my thought is that money would best be applied towards something that can add functionality to your plane (like using that money towards something like a 430/GTN or whatever). Since the popular EFIS mfgr's have their own "in" boxes (Dynon/Garmin, etc..) for hundreds of dollars, and you're already likely buying a transponder anyway (which in itself will likely be "out" compliant), then the all in one boxes just don't make as much financial sense with some EFIS combinations as they used to.

Now for retrofits of flying planes (really can depend on what is currently installed), that's a completely different story...one that I'm working on for a Kitplanes Article to be forthcoming.

Bob makes some good point about ambiguity from various sources, and there literally are no answers that cover everybody and their own relative circumstances.

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
Bill, no need for the STC------experimental :D

Will you equipment accept the input from the GTN 650? or is there a problem in the communication between the two boxes-----what you mention as "protocol"

No, but per the OP document the combination GPS - Transmitter has to be a certified combination - whatever the Airworthiness Certificate says.
 
Why wait?

NavWorx will soon be offering an ADS-B Compliant WAAS GPS solution for those with the Trig transponder. Much cheaper than the stand-alone NexNav or FreeFlight GPS boxes, AND it comes with a fully TSO'd ADS-B-IN receiver for weather and traffic.

Can be used in certified aircraft as well, since all of our products have the TSO, and the STC/AML for installations in certified aircraft.

For OEM's we offer the ability to output the GPS data to EFIS displays as well.

The model number is the ADS600-G - price is $2199.00

FYI - In my opinion, prices for ADS-B equipment will remain where they are at, if not go up slightly.

Bill,
Again, our suggestions are to our customers with our ADS-B compliant transponder. As you note, the reason to wait is that the product you suggest isn't on the market yet! Close, yes, but still not for sale, so it's not something we can be suggesting.

Additionally, as you mentioned, a system needs to be demonstrated compliant with both the ADS-B OUT and GPS source as a system. So our system will not be able to immediately use your GPS device as a compliant source. We've focused on supporting the IFR navigators so far since they are the ones people have already.

Finally, in our opinion, GPS sources will be cheaper than $2,200 in the next few years, so our recommendation to our customers is still to wait. Additionally, your website says the ADS600-G at $2,200 is not TSO'd, and the ADS600-BG with a TSO'd GPS is $3,800, not $2,200. So there's still a lot of confusion out there as to pricing and what you get.

Again, this is all about recommendations to customers or ours that already have our transponder or are buying new systems from us for VFR aircraft. Retrofits of whole systems may be different.
 
Last edited:
All of the UK is already Mode S on their transponders by mandate aren't they?

Mode-S, yes. ADS-B, no. There is no ADS-B (which is Mode-S with ES) mandate in Europe. This is why Garmin sells the GTX 328, which is a Mode-S with no ES, for use in Europe.

Of course, this is also why Europe might allow a less reliable GPS than the US will, since Europe has no expectation to use the position transmitted for separation, just for advisory traffic.
 
No, not yet, Gil. I think it 2017 but even then only in certain airspace.
There is no mandate for ADS-B Out except for a/c above 5700Kg or 250kt TAS.

The key thing is that in the UK the official position is to encourage voluntary take up of ADS-B in GA but not enforce it.

The hopefully future permanent permission to use a non-certified GPS as the position source for a 1090MHz ES transponder is to be applauded. I already have both bits of kit so the RS232 serial connection is all that is needed.

A low cost uncertified portable ADS-B unit would also be beneficial for older GA aircraft for which it is hard/impossible to justify the cost of a certified upgrade.
 
For some reason the obvious answer to fixing the problem is the one the FAA will not allow. Technically, there is no reason that a sub-$2,500 integrated system could not be used on any GA aircraft to meet the mandate. In most cases, it appears those units also happen to be portable systems. I am not sure what the FAA has against portable systems meeting the mandate if they are otherwise qualified.

The simple reason for not allowing portables is that they DON'T meet the FARs.

91.227 says:

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

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

These define the reliability of the installation. Note they say "aircraft" not "ADS-B system," so the way they are installed matters because it does change the reliability of the system. There is no way a portable unit can demonstrate a SIL of 3 when it has not been installed in a plane with some knowledge of where the GPS antenna is, the ADS-B OUT antenna is, and the quality of the power source. An ADS-B out antenna that is suction cupped to the window in the back of a Piper Archer and falls off is going to happen way to often.

So, if you want a portable to be OK, you need the FAA to change the FARs to allow lower reliability metrics.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics
 
Bill, no need for the STC------experimental :D

Mike,
The FARs require you to meet a certain performance metric to be 2020 compliant. If the vendor of the equipment hasn't proven this, then it's up to you as the installer. That's what the STC shows, and allows you to know you are compliant. So while it's true you don't "need" one, if you don't have data to back up your install, you're in violation of the FAR, even if the system appears to work OK that one time you asked ATC if they could see you.
 
Got it, I guess I am brain washed into thinking that a STC is only something for "type certified" aircraft-------forget that it can also relate to the equipment as a separate item.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
A little off topic

When Bill announced his new offerings available 2/1, I followed up with him off line for clarification. I think his response will help others, so I'll repost his response.

Today we have these products:

ADS600-B TSO/STC/AML Compliant ADS-B OUT, non-compliant WAAS GPS
ADS600-BG TSO/STC/AML Compliant ADS-B OUT, compliant WAAS GPS

The ?B can be upgraded to the ?BG at any time. However we will offer a lower upgrade price in 2016 for our existing customers.

We are introducing two new products on 2/1:
ADS600 TSO/STC/AML ADS-B IN (receiver-only) ? provides ADS-B IN for aircraft with 1090ES OUT
ADS600-G TSO/STC/AML ADS-B IN w/TSO-C145c WAAS GPS ? same as above except can provide GPS data to the 1090ES OUT transponder.


I hope this helps........

bob
 
Bill,
Again, our suggestions are to our customers with our ADS-B compliant transponder. As you note, the reason to wait is that the product you suggest isn't on the market yet! Close, yes, but still not for sale, so it's not something we can be suggesting.

Well, two weeks away and you can't suggest it? I know the reality is that you don't want to work with any other ADS-B vendor as you sell your own equipment, and like Garmin, make your interfaces proprietary so that other vendors can't inter-operate. That's your business, but in my opinion doesn't serve the GA interest.

Additionally, as you mentioned, a system needs to be demonstrated compliant with both the ADS-B OUT and GPS source as a system. So our system will not be able to immediately use your GPS device as a compliant source. We've focused on supporting the IFR navigators so far since they are the ones people have already.

Your system would be able to immediately use our GPS source. I understand that you don't produce FAA certified systems, but when a vendor sells a product that has an STC/AML, by definition, interfacing equipment is contained in the AML. In other words, it would be silly of me to offer a product that interfaces to the Trig, without it being legal to interface to the Trig.
[/QUOTE]

Finally, in our opinion, GPS sources will be cheaper than $2,200 in the next few years, so our recommendation to our customers is still to wait.
Unlikely. Our ADS600-B is both an ADS-B IN product and the TSO-C145c WAAS GPS - for $2200.00. Your uncertified ADS-B IN receiver alone, is what, around $1000.00?

Additionally, your website says the ADS600-G at $2,200 is not TSO'd, and the ADS600-BG with a TSO'd GPS is $3,800, not $2,200. So there's still a lot of confusion out there as to pricing and what you get.
We don't have the info on the ADS600-B on the website, so you are incorrect when you list the (inaccurate) price for it. The -BG and the -B are two separate products, btw.
 
The simple reason for not allowing portables is that they DON'T meet the FARs.

91.227 says:

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

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

These define the reliability of the installation. Note they say "aircraft" not "ADS-B system," so the way they are installed matters because it does change the reliability of the system. There is no way a portable unit can demonstrate a SIL of 3 when it has not been installed in a plane with some knowledge of where the GPS antenna is, the ADS-B OUT antenna is, and the quality of the power source. An ADS-B out antenna that is suction cupped to the window in the back of a Piper Archer and falls off is going to happen way to often.

So, if you want a portable to be OK, you need the FAA to change the FARs to allow lower reliability metrics.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

Ian, with all due respect, Dynon's interpretation of some of the FAA stuff is bewildering to me. SIL refers to the certification level of the GPS receiver, and has nothing to do with the installation of the GPS antenna. Quality of Power Source? Nothing to do with either SIL or SDA - it is part of the TSO however. And regarding the suction cupped GPS antenna - I agree not the way to go, but how about velcro? Did you know that Cirrus SR20/22 aircraft have both of the Garmin GNS430W GPS antennas velcro'd to the bottom of the glare shield? And this is a Type Certificated aircraft.
 
the reality is that you don't want to work with any other ADS-B vendor as you sell your own equipment, and like Garmin, make your interfaces proprietary so that other vendors can't inter-operate. That's your business, but in my opinion doesn't serve the GA interest.

Thanks Bill.

A voice for the GA interest here................

This has been an ongoing complaint of mine for years:mad:

It would be so nice if we end users had the ability to buy from various vendors, and that the various items would play nicely together, so we could just simply plug-and-play install of the various things and they would work
 
Ian, with all due respect, Dynon's interpretation of some of the FAA stuff is bewildering to me. SIL refers to the certification level of the GPS receiver, and has nothing to do with the installation of the GPS antenna.

He's quoting the regulation exactly:

(1) For aircraft broadcasting ADS?B
Out as required under ? 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.

At least for SDA:

System Design Assurance (SDA) indicates
the probability of an aircraft
malfunction causing false or misleading
information to be transmitted,
as defined in TSO?C166b and TSO?
C154c.
 
Portable ADS-B Transmitters

This is entirely personal opinion, but I think the largest reason portable ADS-B Transmitters are prohibited is because of the ability to move them between aircraft and those associated issues.
For example, say I owned a Lancair IV-P and an RV-7. If I were to move a portable transmitter out of a IV-P into an RV-7, and forgot to reconfigure it, I'd take off and be transmitting the wrong tail number, size, and aircraft performance information. ATC could potentially issue dangerous instructions based on the assumption I was a pressurized aircraft or another piece of misinformation.
Again, no basis in fact for this, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
He's quoting the regulation exactly:



At least for SDA:

Agree, Ian and you quoted the regulations - which are <certification> items. Again, nothing about SIL, SDA, or "Power Source" pertains to <installation> issues for a self-contained unit - the portable ADS-B unit - which was the topic of Ian's post.
 
A voice for the GA interest here................

This has been an ongoing complaint of mine for years:mad:

It would be so nice if we end users had the ability to buy from various vendors, and that the various items would play nicely together, so we could just simply plug-and-play install of the various things and they would work

Remember that modern avionics systems are largely software. You can't go and hook up ADS-B if that display doesn't have ADS-B code in it. If someone invents a $100 radar altimeter tomorrow, you can't hook that up until the EFIS knows how to display a radar altimeter. So the idea that a software based EFIS should play with all hardware forever is a bit of an impossible dream, since the general purpose of new hardware is to give a system capabilities it didn't have before, which would require new software to go with it.

While open standards are limitless interoperability would indeed be nice, we all have businesses to run that are pretty low volumes in a low margin market, and so far nobody has been able to make that business work with just selling an EFIS with hundreds of man years of software in it that just openly supports any hardware you want to hook to it, leaving the money to the hardware guys. I'm sure if someone can make that work, there will be some customers for it, but there will likely be some significant costs to the larger scale support.
 
Last edited:
SIL refers to the certification level of the GPS receiver, and has nothing to do with the installation of the GPS antenna. Quality of Power Source? Nothing to do with either SIL or SDA - it is part of the TSO however.

Bill, the FAR (which has nothing to do with certification, since experimentals must follow the FARs that apply), says the AIRCRAFT must have a SDA of 2.

Yes, the GPS has an SDA itself. You couldn't claim an aircraft SDA of 2 if the GPS was a 0 or 1. But just because the GPS is a 2 doesn't mean the whole ADS-B system is or that the aircraft is. I think we can agree that just because your GPS SDA was 2 doesn't mean your aircraft had an SDA of 2 if your ADS-B out device had no TSO or other pedigree, and was using a completely untested parser for the GPS data.

I fail to see how a pilot could get in a plane, put a portable device in that plane, and know that the aircraft he/she is operating is compliant with 91.227.

Maybe I'm wrong though and someone will come up with a foolproof enough ADS-B OUT device that the FAA will issue a letter saying "if this is in a plane, it is 91.227 compliant." What I do know up to this point is that the FAA has be unambiguous in saying that portable devices do not meet the requirements of 91.227.
 
...
Maybe I'm wrong though and someone will come up with a foolproof enough ADS-B OUT device that the FAA will issue a letter saying "if this is in a plane, it is 91.227 compliant." What I do know up to this point is that the FAA has be unambiguous in saying that portable devices do not meet the requirements of 91.227.
I've always wondered if the FAA is going to mandate some type of simple, portable, battery powered transponder for aircraft with no electrical system. Of course, those planes would also need to have their mags, plug wires, and plugs changed also. Not exactly an inexpensive solution but then the FAA has never worried about how much their mandates cost us.
 
Gettin' kind of nasty in here.

Not really, just repeating my long held position that it would be really nice if all of our magic boxes would talk to each other. See this post ( http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=90714&postcount=8 ) from years back.



Bill won't sell someone a standalone GPS receiver. He'll only sell it to you packaged with HIS ADS-B receiver as well. So it goes both ways, and I don't think there is any company that is pure in this regard.

Apples and oranges---------you are talking hardware, I am talking compatibility of the communications used by that hardware, from various manufactures.
 
91.225:

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders. These aircraft may conduct operations without ADS-B Out in the airspace specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section. Operations authorized by this section must be conducted--

(1) Outside any Class B or Class C airspace area; and

(2) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport, or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower.

However, the FAA is working on TSO-C199, which is exactly what Bill describes. C199 however is NOT 2020 compliant and only for advisory traffic. Doesn't get you into Class B/C. So they've allowed a "portable" system and even wrote a TSO for it, and it specifically doesn't comply with 91.227.
 
91.225:

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders. These aircraft may conduct operations without ADS-B Out in the airspace specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section. Operations authorized by this section must be conducted--

(1) Outside any Class B or Class C airspace area; and

(2) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport, or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower.

However, the FAA is working on TSO-C199, which is exactly what Bill describes. C199 however is NOT 2020 compliant and only for advisory traffic. Doesn't get you into Class B/C. So they've allowed a "portable" system and even wrote a TSO for it, and it specifically doesn't comply with 91.227.
Wait? So, a Cub with no transponder can fly inside a Mode-C vale, under, but not in Class Bravo airspace but my RV with a transponder but not a certified ADS-B installation cannot fly in that same airspace.

Please tell me that I have that wrong.
 
Wait? So, a Cub with no transponder can fly inside a Mode-C vale, under, but not in Class Bravo airspace but my RV with a transponder but not a certified ADS-B installation cannot fly in that same airspace.

Please tell me that I have that wrong.

You have it right. But that's no different than the current situation. Because you have an electrical system you must have a mode C transponder to fly within the vail; the cub is exempt.

BTW, for all those worried about user fees, it's too late: The ADSB-out mandate IS a user fee; it's the FAA saying that if you want to fly (in many areas) then the owner must pony up $$. Long term the FAA wants to get rid of radar, which is very expensive for them. Their solution: make the owners pay for the substitute.
 
Long term the FAA wants to get rid of radar, which is very expensive for them.
Not sure radar will be decommissioned in my lifetime. More importantly radar is not particularly accurate. ADSB will allow closer spacing of aircraft, very important to the airlines.
 
Be careful what you wish for!

If we had been locked into standards too early, we would all be reading this with a 2400 baud modem!

Thanks Bill.

It would be so nice if we end users had the ability to buy from various vendors, and that the various items would play nicely together, so we could just simply plug-and-play install of the various things and they would work
 
Be careful what you wish for!

If we had been locked into standards too early, we would all be reading this with a 2400 baud modem!

No, you are talking hardware.

I am talking about how various chunks of hardware talk to each other.
 
These days I spend a fair amount of my time explaining what ADS-B is, who needs it, and where it's needed. I've decided to put together this brief informational document about the ADS-B mandate. It's written in plain English, with references and examples. Hope you guys enjoy it. Link below

http://www.avionics-installations.com/ADS-BMadeSimple.pdf


I'm open to suggestions as well if anyone has any. I will try to incorporate more pictures in the next revision.

Pahan,

Good document, however I think you should make it clear this is a USA only view. Europe will not be implementing UAT, and has different airspace categorisation scheme (uses same letters but applied in a different way). I'm not suggesting you should try to explain how the whole World is doing ADS-B, just that this is a US specific view. There are already plenty of people in Europe wondering how they will get weather and re-transmitted traffic from ADS-B (they won't).

Pete
 
No, you are talking hardware.
I am talking about how various chunks of hardware talk to each other.

I think he was referring to the communications protocol between two 2400 baud modems, which is different than that of 1Gb ethernet, for example.

This is analogous to one vendor using serial connections, and another using ethernet connections. Yes, different hardware, but also different communications protocols.

If we "locked" every vendor into using serial protocols, for example, then we also lock them out of any flexibility for future improvements/upgrades, like moving to a faster communications method like ethernet.

All of this is essentially "how various chunks of hardware talk to each other", IMHO.

As much as I agree it would be wonderful to have all vendors tech be able to talk to all other vendors tech, it is a huge challenge.

A nice first step would simply be to have each vendor publish their communications protocols, whether that be serial, ethernet, or whatever. Other companies can then choose if they want to be compatible or not, and the market will speak as to the success. This would involve companies working together versus competing with each other, so not likely to happen.

-Dj
 
Pete,
I'll incorporate the change in the next revision. Thanks

Pahan,

Good document, however I think you should make it clear this is a USA only view. Europe will not be implementing UAT, and has different airspace categorisation scheme (uses same letters but applied in a different way). I'm not suggesting you should try to explain how the whole World is doing ADS-B, just that this is a US specific view. There are already plenty of people in Europe wondering how they will get weather and re-transmitted traffic from ADS-B (they won't).

Pete
 
Compliance

I'm operating a TT-22 (Trig Transponder) & GTN-650 for ADS-B In & Out on AFS-5500/5600s ... It's working great.

But, from what I'm reading .. this configuration is not compliant(?).
 
I'm operating a TT-22 (Trig Transponder) & GTN-650 for ADS-B In & Out on AFS-5500/5600s ... It's working great.

But, from what I'm reading .. this configuration is not compliant(?).

That's correct as of the last time the ADS-B approved combination list was published by the FAA. At that time, the only approved position source for the TT-22 was the Freeflight 1201. This may have change since the list was published. I would check with Trig to see what the current approved combinations for the TT-22 are.
 
Back
Top