[Dynon]

I just wanted to share that Dynon released SkyView Software Version 5.0 today. This release is a big one: It adds ADS-B weather, traffic, and TFRs capability to US-based SkyView systems when paired with the SV-ADSB-470 module ($995) that we released last week.

This also means that when paired with an SV-XPNDR-26X transponder, Dynon has a widely available and affordable ADS-B In/Out solution for homebuilts and LSA aircraft that incorporate an ADS-B Out transmission. This is important, as the transponder-based ADS-B Out transmission wakes up the ADS-B ground stations and causes them to send a traffic portrait that includes all known ADS-B targets around the SkyView-equipped aircraft.

SkyView 5.0 can be found on from our website.

Michael Schofield
Dynon Avionics

Here are a couple of images of how weather looks on SkyView 5.0:

Terrain Only:

Terrain/Weather (terrain muted):

Weather only (terrain off):

 

[DRBuilder]

Time Lapse

How often does the wx feature update on the screen? Is it similar to Stratus and Foreflight? Stratus only updates every 5 minutes or so and doesn't receive a signal until you are 1000 msl or so......

 

[Dynon]

ADS-B transmits weather for regional weather every 2.5 minutes, and CONUS every 15 minutes. Note that the actual ground weather stations only sweep once every 5 minutes (or even 10 minutes if the air is clear), so no product (even XM) really gives you quicker than 5 minute updates. You basically receive each actual radar sweep twice.

We update data whenever we get it. This means that you can expect to have the local weather within 2.5 minutes of entering an ADS-B coverage area.

You can read AIM 7-1-1 to see the times on various products.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0701.html

The altitude that ADS-B works at varies based on your relation to the ground stations. Lots of people have good coverage on the ground, even in their hangars. Others will not find reliable coverage until 1800' AGL, which is the FAA's minimum "guaranteed" altitude.

ADS-B is ADS-B. Getting it from Stratus, Garmin's GDL-39, a Navworx box, or a Dynon box will not make it update faster or slower, or at different altitudes. Systems like Dynon's do have some advantage since they are built-in receivers with optimal antenna placement and thus will work a little farther away or a little lower than an antenna in the cockpit on the dash.

 

[bpattonsoa]

I am confused by your traffic statement. Is this now full ADSB traffic or is it still waiting for a better GPS?

 

[Dynon]

If you have Dynon's transponder, this is full ADS-B traffic. No special GPS needed.

 

[Brantel]

I am confused by your traffic statement. Is this now full ADSB traffic or is it still waiting for a better GPS?

Until 2020 you can use whatever GPS you want to provide the position source to an ADS-B out solution.

At that time however things change. At that time, the GPS used for the position source must meet the AC 20-165 appendix 2 requirements.

 

[Flying Scotsman]

Note that here is an example of what we discussed earlier about field updates of firmware/software on TSO'd boxes. Per Dynon's webpage:

Note that SkyView 5.0 contains a software update to the SV-XPNDR-26X transponders. This update enables full ADS-B traffic reception (via the SV-ADSB-470) in the US. It also enables an auto air/gnd mode switching for all customers. Due to US TSO requirements, this update must be initialized manually after updating to SkyView 5.0, and requires that a label be applied (available at www.dynonavionics.com/transponder) when the aircraft is registerd or operated in the US. See the latest SkyView Installation Guide for full details.​

So clearly, such things *are* possible...if only other vendors (cough cough Garmin cough cough) would provide for similar update paths for their equipment .

 

[Brantel]

Note that here is an example of what we discussed earlier about field updates of firmware/software on TSO'd boxes. Per Dynon's webpage:

Note that SkyView 5.0 contains a software update to the SV-XPNDR-26X transponders. This update enables full ADS-B traffic reception (via the SV-ADSB-470) in the US. It also enables an auto air/gnd mode switching for all customers. Due to US TSO requirements, this update must be initialized manually after updating to SkyView 5.0, and requires that a label be applied (available at www.dynonavionics.com/transponder) when the aircraft is registerd or operated in the US. See the latest SkyView Installation Guide for full details.​

So clearly, such things *are* possible...if only other vendors (cough cough Garmin cough cough) would provide for similar update paths for their equipment .

The following is just a general statement and is not directly pointed at Steve's post:

I would be cautious about quickly drawing a conclusion that just because Dynon is allowing you to do it, that it is now OK and authorized for all situations. What Dynon interprets as OK may be interpreted totally different by some other manufacturer or it may not apply to all TSO'd gear.

That being said, it is cool that this is being allowed on this transponder....as long as it does not cause issues down the road.

 

[Radomir]

..and there's a good chance you may start getting ignored by the FAA infrastructure most likely well before 2020... "Any GPS works" is definitely not a correct statement to be legally compliant with the 2020 rule. It's best to talk to the actual manufacturer of the transponder to get a sense (list) of which GPS'es are compatible. Trig went through the exercise with several GPS'es so they will know what works and is legal.

 

[Flying Scotsman]

I would be cautious about quickly drawing a conclusion that just because Dynon is allowing you to do it, that it is now OK and authorized for all situations. What Dynon interprets as OK may be interpreted totally different by some other manufacturer or it may not apply to all TSO'd gear.

Not what I said at all. I only pointed out that it's *possible* and apparently perfectly legitimate/legal to design, implement and deploy TSO'd equipment which has field-updatable firmware serviceable by the owner.

I never said it applied to "all situations" or any other manufacturer's equipment.

 

[Dynon]

We have specific authorization from the FAA that it is fine for the user to upgrade the transponder in place in the airplane. There is nothing I am aware of that disallows any manufacturer from doing this. All we had to do was make the label available and clear instructions. There is no interpretation here. A properly designed and documented software update can be done by the owner of an experimental aircraft. Databases are certified and pilots update those all the time because the process is designed to make it foolproof.

We know about the hassle our customers have to go through to update most certified avionics, and it is very directly one of our goals to not require this. We had to make the transponder easily upgradeable before we even shipped the first one so that we could do this when needed. The firmware update process was in the original certification explicitly so it could be used in the future. This is not some backdoor, unauthorized process we are using. This was designed in from the beginning because we knew it was important.

We have never, ever, not once, said that our GPS is compliant with the 2020 rule. It is, without question, not. It is however, sufficient to get the ADS-B ground stations to start sending you traffic so that your ADS-B receiver gives you really awesome traffic coverage.

From our install manual:

Although SkyView’s GPS output does not meet the 2020 requirements, it can be used until then to “wake up” the ADS-B ground stations so that they report back traffic targets around your aircraft’s position.

If you think we did this without talking to the FAA and Trig first, then you seriously underestimate the rigor we take when entering into enormous product development efforts here at Dynon, and the honesty with which we communicate product features to our customers.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

 

[Brantel]

Not what I said at all. I only pointed out that it's *possible* and apparently perfectly legitimate/legal to design, implement and deploy TSO'd equipment which has field-updatable firmware serviceable by the owner.

I never said it applied to "all situations" or any other manufacturer's equipment.

Never intended to imply that you said anything...sorry if it comes across that way, I stink at English. Again, very sorry for the confusion.

 

[Brantel]

We have specific authorization from the FAA that it is fine for the user to upgrade the transponder in place in the airplane. There is nothing I am aware of that disallows any manufacturer from doing this. All we had to do was make the label available and clear instructions. There is no interpretation here. A properly designed and documented software update can be done by the owner of an experimental aircraft. Databases are certified and pilots update those all the time because the process is designed to make it foolproof.

We know about the hassle our customers have to go through to update most certified avionics, and it is very directly one of our goals to not require this. We had to make the transponder easily upgradeable before we even shipped the first one so that we could do this when needed. The firmware update process was in the original certification explicitly so it could be used in the future. This is not some backdoor, unauthorized process we are using. This was designed in from the beginning because we knew it was important.

We have never, ever, not once, said that our GPS is compliant with the 2020 rule. It is, without question, not. It is however, sufficient to get the ADS-B ground stations to start sending you traffic so that your ADS-B receiver gives you really awesome traffic coverage.

From our install manual:


If you think we did this without talking to the FAA and Trig first, then you seriously underestimate the rigor we take when entering into enormous product development efforts here at Dynon, and the honesty with which we communicate product features to our customers.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

Ian,

It would be helpful if you would quote who you are talking to in your post. It appears that you are replying to several different people in the same post.

As far as user updates to TSO'd gear goes...

If there is nothing to disallow a manufacturer from doing this, why do you guys even need specific authorization from the FAA?

Nobody ever said, that I am aware of, that you were using some backdoor, unauthorized process.
All I said is something akin to Trust but Verify....surely you guys at Dynon have to understand that what you are doing just ain't the way it has been done in the past so it will raise some eyebrows.
I know that the guy that normally does my static, alt, xponder check is very meticulous in checking the tags on my transponder. If he notices that the rev. has changed, most likely he is going to want to see the paperwork trail on who and how it was updated. How are Dynon customers going to respond to a request like that?

Transponders are one of a few devices that most will agree are required to be TSO'd even when used in experimentals. How can a typical experimental end user verify that the transponder still meets the original performance specifications of a particular TSO after he/she flashes the firmware? Will a full xponder check be required by an authorized repair station? Every time I have put a new transponder in my airplane, I have had to have this done so what makes this different?

Who knows, maybe you guys are paving the way to a future where all TSO'd gear can get updated in a similar manner for experimental's. Sounds good short term, hopefully it all works out long term as well.

Looks like the rest of your post is pointed at Radomir....

 

[RV8R999]

Ian,

It would be helpful if you would quote who you are talking to in your post. It appears that you are replying to several different people in the same post.

As far as user updates to TSO'd gear goes...

If there is nothing to disallow a manufacturer from doing this, why do you guys even need specific authorization from the FAA?

Nobody ever said that I am aware of that you were using some backdoor, unauthorized process.
All I said is something akin to Trust but Verify....surely you guys at Dynon have to understand that what you are doing just ain't the way it has been done in the past so it will raise some eyebrows.
I know that the guy that normally does my static, alt, xponder check is very meticulous in checking the tags on my transponder. If he notices that the rev. has changed, most likely he is going to want to see the paperwork trail on who and how it was updated. How are Dynon customers going to respond to a request like that?

Transponders are one of a few devices that most will agree are required to be TSO'd even when used in experimentals. How can a typical experimental end user verify that the transponder still meets the original performance specifications of a particular TSO after he/she flashes the firmware? Will a full xponder check be required by an authorized repair station? Every time I have put a new transponder in my airplane, I have had to have this done so what makes this different?

Who knows, maybe you guys are paving the way to a future where all TSO'd gear can get updated in a similar manner for experimental's. Sounds good short term, hopefully it all works out long term as well.

Looks like the rest of your post is pointed at Radomir....

Your OP did imply perhaps Dynon was liberally interpreting the rules... at least the way I read it.

 

[Brantel]

Your OP did imply perhaps Dynon was liberally interpreting the rules... at least the way I read it.

Nope...All I said that it was their interpretation that what they are doing is OK. Ian now claims to have a specific authorization that allows them to do this, if this is true, good for them.

 

[Flying Scotsman]

I know that the guy that normally does my static, alt, xponder check is very meticulous in checking the tags on my transponder. If he notices that the rev. has changed, most likely he is going to want to see the paperwork trail on who and how it was updated. How are Dynon customers going to respond to a request like that?

Perhaps by making the appropriate entries in the Avionics Logbook at the time the update is installed?

 

[Flying Scotsman]

Nope...All I said that it was their interpretation that what they are doing is OK. Ian now claims to have a specific authorization that allows them to do this, if this is true, good for them.

What do you mean "if this is true"?

The Dynon rep specifically said:

The firmware update process was in the original certification explicitly so it could be used in the future.

I'll let Dynon defend themselves, but the whole point goes waaaaay back to earlier assertions that TSO'd equipment HAD to be updated by an authorized repair station, or conversely, that it could NOT be updated by an end user.

Clearly, that is not the case. Whether our unnamed TSO'd WAAS-certified GPS manufacturer ever plans on getting their TSO amended to allow this is a different question, but hopefully, Dynon (and perhaps others) will, by way of example, be putting pressure on them to do so (and thus save their end users time and money) remains to be seen.

My only point was that is IS allowed under the regulations. Kudos to Dynon for doing so.

 

[Brantel]

What do you mean "if this is true"?

The Dynon rep specifically said:



I'll let Dynon defend themselves, but the whole point goes waaaaay back to earlier assertions that TSO'd equipment HAD to be updated by an authorized repair station, or conversely, that it could NOT be updated by an end user.

Clearly, that is not the case. Whether our unnamed TSO'd WAAS-certified GPS manufacturer ever plans on getting their TSO amended to allow this is a different question, but hopefully, Dynon (and perhaps others) will, by way of example, be putting pressure on them to do so (and thus save their end users time and money) remains to be seen.

My only point was that is IS allowed under the regulations. Kudos to Dynon for doing so.

Steve,

My post on this subject are not meant to start a ruckus and have already went beyond my original intent. I am happy to just give this time and see what happens.

Who knows Dynon might change the status quo on this one....I definitely don't want to be viewed as someone who is trying to block progress in this area. I just have some questions that would need to be answered in order for me to buy into or recommend the system to my buddies.

I look forward to the response by Ian to my post above. His answers to those questions may help me settle my mind on the issue.

Best regards and have a great day!

 

[Dynon]

If there is nothing to disallow a manufacturer from doing this, why do you guys even need specific authorization from the FAA?

Did someone say trust, but verify?

I know that the guy that normally does my static, alt, xponder check is very meticulous in checking the tags on my transponder. If he notices that the rev. has changed, most likely he is going to want to see the paperwork trail on who and how it was updated. How are Dynon customers going to respond to a request like that?

Put a note in your logbook, just like you did when you first installed it, like you do every time you update the software in your EFIS, and like you do when you remove a Brand X transponder, mail it to them to be updated, have it mailed back, and then re-install it. You didn't use a certified install shop to install your Transponder the first time, and you don't use a certified shop to remove and install it when you get it updated.

A lot of certified stuff is updated by you taking it out of the plane, mailing it to a shop, having them mail it back to you, and you re-install it. The FAA is smart enough to know that if they allow that, allowing you to press a single button in the plane that updates the transponder is probably acceptable. The update method is certified, so the FAA trusts that the transponder is either running fully verified, certified code, or it will fail to operate at all.

Transponders are one of a few devices that most will agree are required to be TSO'd even when used in experimentals. How can a typical experimental end user verify that the transponder still meets the original performance specifications of a particular TSO after he/she flashes the firmware? Will a full xponder check be required by an authorized repair station? Every time I have put a new transponder in my airplane, I have had to have this done so what makes this different?

FAR ? 91.413
ATC transponder tests and inspections.

(b) Following any installation or maintenance on an ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.

The above FAR is the one which requires re-certifcation when transponders are worked on. There is not universal agreement on what can cause a "data correspondence error" and thus some people read this as any removal and replacement of the transponder requires re-cert. This is somewhat reasonable in the days of gray code, where the transponder has no way to know that one of the pins is bent and line B3 is now totally disconnected. However, with modern transponders, all communication is over a digital bus that is fully error checked, so it's not really possible to send an altitude to the transponder that gets corrupted, so you can reasonably argue that just unplugging and re-plugging a transponder on a digital bus isn't an issue.

In this case, the transponder was not removed from the aircraft, so there is no place where a data correspondence error could be introduced. The new software is TSO'd just like the old, and is fully self verified that it loaded correctly. The certification authorities agree that the software will not execute unless it is the TSO'd software, down to every last bit. Thus the software is certified to not act differently, and thus there is no way there could be a data correspondence error.

We have discussed our system with the FAA and their opinion is that our method is fine with them. It's your airplane though, ultimately, and you can go beyond what is required by having your transponder re-tested, if you want, but we stand by the work we did to make sure that no such additional testing is required.

If you want to mail the transponder to us to be updated, we would be happy to do that for you so that you can have a paper trail. Note that we are not a certified shop, if that's what you're after. We can offer a certified shop to update the transponder if you want, but this will require payment.

Finally, we also don't want to at all imply that the update method that we've implemented here means that you can now update other certified products in-situ. It doesn't. Update methods for any certified product is prescribed by the manufacturer of a given product, after being worked out and approved with the certifying authority.

--Ian Jordan and Michael Schofield
Dynon Avionics