[rwarre]

Getting ready to order a navworx unit to go with my mgl voyager, gtx 327, and garmin 430 avionics. The company sales person said I needed a transponder spe along with the ads-b unit.(a600-exp) According to the MGL diagrams there is no spe divice show. Anyone know if I need to order this. Thanks

 

[brad walton]

I was told the SPE is only required for converting non digital transpnder data to digital and not required with a GTX327

 

[Mike S]

No idea what a "spe" is.

You might find info in this thread helpful...........perhaps the subject you are looking for is answered here??

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=122702

 

[Walt]

I was told the SPE is only required for converting non digital transpnder data to digital and not required with a GTX327

You should not need the "TRANSMON SPE" with the GTX327.

From the website:
2. TransMonSPE - Required option if you have an older style transponder in the aircraft. See section on Transponder-Altitude Encoder above for more information

 

[rwarre]

Antennas

Ok, I have spe figured out. I am considering using an internal gps antenna for the navworx. Will that provide me with good enough reception.

 

[BobTurner]

Ok, I have spe figured out. I am considering using an internal gps antenna for the navworx. Will that provide me with good enough reception.

If it can see the sky thru plexi or fiberglass, not metal, then probably it will work. Now, will it meet the ADSB-out performance mandates for 2020? This is/are the question(s) everyone is asking since the 600-EXP was announced. It seems to fall into the "too good to be true" catagory.

 

[brad walton]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it too good to be true. The internal GPS performance exceeds that of their certified unit. So why the reluctance to believe? What if I put one in, how will anyone know whether it is TSO'd or not? The FAA language certainly seems to permit it. You rarely see the FAA change regulatory language, especially a single significant word, without it being a conscious decision.

 

[rzbill]

Getting ready to order a navworx unit to go with my mgl voyager, gtx 327, and garmin 430 avionics. The company sales person said I needed a transponder spe along with the ads-b unit.(a600-exp) According to the MGL diagrams there is no spe divice show. Anyone know if I need to order this. Thanks

Walt is correct, no SPE device needed to interface with the GTX 327. You will need to connect one of the RS232 Out ports of the 327 to a port on the 600-EXP. Set the 327 port to transmit "Remote" data.

I don't see any install manual on the Navworx site yet but I would imagine it is similar to the 600-B and -BG. Assuming it is.... You need the transponder wire noted above plus...some like to install the "suppression" wire to prevent the two units from transmitting at the same time. You will need two connections to the MGL. One for delivering altimeter encoder data to the 600-EXP and one for the EXP to deliver the "display" data back to the MGL.

Good luck!

 

[BobTurner]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it too good to be true. The internal GPS performance exceeds that of their certified unit. So why the reluctance to believe? What if I put one in, how will anyone know whether it is TSO'd or not? The FAA language certainly seems to permit it. You rarely see the FAA change regulatory language, especially a single significant word, without it being a conscious decision.

The FAA change was simply to bring ADSB requirements in line with other "certified" stuff, like transponders and ifr GPS boxes. You do not need to use a TSO'd transponder (or ifr gps, or, now, ADSB-out). But the owner/operator must be able to show that these boxes meet the TSO performance standards. This is a whole lot more than sensitivity numbers. There's an engineering analysis that predicts an error of less than one in 10 million; How is the typical owner/operator going to show that this box meets that standard, unless the manufacturer says it does (by way of getting a TSO)? As several equipment manufacturers have commented here, it is not the paperwork that is expensive; it's the actual engineering time to do the tests and analysis. This new wording still requires that the gps meet all 91.227 requirements. It's not enough to send out "SIL=3"; you have to be able to back that up, that that requirement is actually met. So if Navworx can release all their test data, showing compliance, then I'd say great. But until then I'm not jumping in.

 

[Walt]

The FAA change was simply to bring ADSB requirements in line with other "certified" stuff, like transponders and ifr GPS boxes. You do not need to use a TSO'd transponder (or ifr gps, or, now, ADSB-out). But the owner/operator must be able to show that these boxes meet the TSO performance standards. This is a whole lot more than sensitivity numbers. There's an engineering analysis that predicts an error of less than one in 10 million; How is the typical owner/operator going to show that this box meets that standard, unless the manufacturer says it does (by way of getting a TSO)? As several equipment manufacturers have commented here, it is not the paperwork that is expensive; it's the actual engineering time to do the tests and analysis. This new wording still requires that the gps meet all 91.227 requirements. It's not enough to send out "SIL=3"; you have to be able to back that up, that that requirement is actually met. So if Navworx can release all their test data, showing compliance, then I'd say great. But until then I'm not jumping in.

Agree 100% with Bob, and I love what Navworx is trying to do, but... they are walking a fine line here stating their system meets the reg if they can't support that position with FAA approved documentation that it meets the requirements of 91.227.
And don't forget it's the "operator" of the aircraft that will be in the position of defending himself if/when a question arises about his ADS-B equipment (which is monitored on every flight).