Low cost ADS-B Options

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.

The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.

The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.

Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.

Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.

This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.

Get your checkbooks ready.

[Sean[_2_]]

Yeah!!!!

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

Interesting. This will be the first competition for FLARM Technology. I wonder if they will adjust their princely pricing to keep their anti-collision market share. Would this work in an area that is not within ground ADS-B coverage?

[Dan Marotta]

Yippee!!!

Where do I get in line? I've already got the TT22 and there's plenty of
room in the Stemme to install the TN72. Now I just have to figure out
how to mount the Nexus 7 running Avare since I've used up my two good
spots for Dell Streaks (one for me and one for Sweetie Pie). Perhaps I
can remove the Garmin 396 in the panel and install the Nexus there in a
horizontal position. I can mount the Black Berry Pi and two antennae
with Velcro... Voila! A complete system!

On 7/29/2016 11:22 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
>
> The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
>
> The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
>
> Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
>
> Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
>
> This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
>
> Get your checkbooks ready.

--
Dan, 5J

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:22:22 AM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
>
> The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
>
> The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
>
> Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
>
> Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
>
> This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
>
> Get your checkbooks ready.

A word of caution. I equipped my new ASH-31 Mi with ADS-B out. I spent a lot of money to find a combination of a transponder, position source and antenna that would work in a glider. I can tell you that $3500 position source with recommended antenna would not keep the GPS lock during circling with bank angel more or equal to 40 deg. For a motor-glider there is added problem with a pylon shading the antenna, during engine run. Finding a good place for an antenna is almost impossible.

I succeeded but with lots of frustration and only because my glider is experimental.

[Dan Marotta]

Good information but I don't see much need for concern for me for the
following reasons:

Entering a thermal, I should already have a pretty good idea of local
traffic from previous glances at the display. It's not likely that
someone will penetrate my airspace during the minute or three that I'm
climbing but I do recognize the possibility and will continue to keep my
head on a swivel.

The GPS antenna will likely be mounted at the top of the instrument
panel (below the instrument cowl as the other two GPS antennae are
located). There's no engine pylon in a Stemme. ;-)

The Stratux will have its two antennae mounted on opposite sides of the
instrument cowl towards the forward edge of the canopy. There are no
obstructions above, but we'll see how that works out receiving signals
from ground stations due to the carbon fuselage.

There will always be concerns about non-ADSB-out equipped aircraft but
those numbers should dwindle as time marches on, especially in the high
western deserts.

I'm pretty excited about this.

On 7/30/2016 12:07 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> A word of caution. I equipped my new ASH-31 Mi with ADS-B out. I spent a lot of money to find a combination of a transponder, position source and antenna that would work in a glider. I can tell you that $3500 position source with recommended antenna would not keep the GPS lock during circling with bank angel more or equal to 40 deg. For a motor-glider there is added problem with a pylon shading the antenna, during engine run. Finding a good place for an antenna is almost impossible.
>
> I succeeded but with lots of frustration and only because my glider is experimental.

--
Dan, 5J

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:34:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Good information but I don't see much need for concern for me for the
> following reasons:
>
> Entering a thermal, I should already have a pretty good idea of local
> traffic from previous glances at the display. It's not likely that
> someone will penetrate my airspace during the minute or three that I'm
> climbing but I do recognize the possibility and will continue to keep my
> head on a swivel.
>
> The GPS antenna will likely be mounted at the top of the instrument
> panel (below the instrument cowl as the other two GPS antennae are
> located). There's no engine pylon in a Stemme. ;-)
>
> The Stratux will have its two antennae mounted on opposite sides of the
> instrument cowl towards the forward edge of the canopy. There are no
> obstructions above, but we'll see how that works out receiving signals
> from ground stations due to the carbon fuselage.
>
> There will always be concerns about non-ADSB-out equipped aircraft but
> those numbers should dwindle as time marches on, especially in the high
> western deserts.
>
> I'm pretty excited about this.
>
> On 7/30/2016 12:07 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > A word of caution. I equipped my new ASH-31 Mi with ADS-B out. I spent a lot of money to find a combination of a transponder, position source and antenna that would work in a glider. I can tell you that $3500 position source with recommended antenna would not keep the GPS lock during circling with bank angel more or equal to 40 deg. For a motor-glider there is added problem with a pylon shading the antenna, during engine run. Finding a good place for an antenna is almost impossible.
> >
> > I succeeded but with lots of frustration and only because my glider is experimental.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

If you keep loosing signal rest assured FAA will send you a letter of non-compliance.

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks again, Andrzej.

I forgot to mention that my transponder antenna is on the underside of
the propeller dome and so I shouldn't have problems with shadowing from
the fuselage. My concern was with the "In" portion of the ADS-B system
as received by the Stratux with dual antennae on the glare shield. I
flew that system in my Pipistrel Sinus (still for sale, BTW) and it
seemed to work well picking up replies to "Out" equipped aircraft.
Also, during my ferry flight from Mexico to Arizona, my instructor had a
Stratus and iPad in his lap and we always had weather information
available so maybe there won't be a problem with my seeing ADS-B In
transmissions. Time will tell, and if the Stratux doesn't work, then
there are commercial systems to look at.


On 7/30/2016 4:23 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> If you keep loosing signal rest assured FAA will send you a letter of non-compliance.

--
Dan, 5J

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 11:51:41 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks again, Andrzej.
>
> I forgot to mention that my transponder antenna is on the underside of
> the propeller dome and so I shouldn't have problems with shadowing from
> the fuselage. My concern was with the "In" portion of the ADS-B system
> as received by the Stratux with dual antennae on the glare shield. I
> flew that system in my Pipistrel Sinus (still for sale, BTW) and it
> seemed to work well picking up replies to "Out" equipped aircraft.
> Also, during my ferry flight from Mexico to Arizona, my instructor had a
> Stratus and iPad in his lap and we always had weather information
> available so maybe there won't be a problem with my seeing ADS-B In
> transmissions. Time will tell, and if the Stratux doesn't work, then
> there are commercial systems to look at.
>
>
> On 7/30/2016 4:23 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > If you keep loosing signal rest assured FAA will send you a letter of non-compliance.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

I also have ADS-B in in addition to PF that works very well, considering I have ADS-B out. I get all traffic now.

A couple of months ago while flying in the North East I had an encounter with a fast moving airplane that was on a collision course with me. Stratus 2S with ForeFlight alerted me to the conflicting traffic while my PowerFlarm was completely silent, not even a warning about transponder equipped traffic. I initially did not see the conflicting traffic, even though I had it on my screen for at least 30 seconds. I finally spotted the traffic when it was really close and exactly at my altitude. That day I figured all the frustration finally paid off.

In regards to shadowing I was not talking about transponder antenna but the GPS antenna for a position source. The position sources for ADS-B are different beasts comparing to our gliding GPS devices that seem to give position at all times without issues, even banking at 45 deg, but do not meet other requirements for ADS-B position sources.

[Dan Marotta]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm... Maybe a gimbal (ala ship's compass) upon which to mount
the position source antenna. Just kidding.

Glad you spotted that conflict aircraft, but a question: Why not take
mild corrective action early during the encounter saving that "Oh, Sh!t"
moment?

On 7/31/2016 10:25 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 11:51:41 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Thanks again, Andrzej.
>>
>> I forgot to mention that my transponder antenna is on the underside of
>> the propeller dome and so I shouldn't have problems with shadowing from
>> the fuselage. My concern was with the "In" portion of the ADS-B system
>> as received by the Stratux with dual antennae on the glare shield. I
>> flew that system in my Pipistrel Sinus (still for sale, BTW) and it
>> seemed to work well picking up replies to "Out" equipped aircraft.
>> Also, during my ferry flight from Mexico to Arizona, my instructor had a
>> Stratus and iPad in his lap and we always had weather information
>> available so maybe there won't be a problem with my seeing ADS-B In
>> transmissions. Time will tell, and if the Stratux doesn't work, then
>> there are commercial systems to look at.
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2016 4:23 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>>> If you keep loosing signal rest assured FAA will send you a letter of non-compliance.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> I also have ADS-B in in addition to PF that works very well, considering I have ADS-B out. I get all traffic now.
>
> A couple of months ago while flying in the North East I had an encounter with a fast moving airplane that was on a collision course with me. Stratus 2S with ForeFlight alerted me to the conflicting traffic while my PowerFlarm was completely silent, not even a warning about transponder equipped traffic. I initially did not see the conflicting traffic, even though I had it on my screen for at least 30 seconds. I finally spotted the traffic when it was really close and exactly at my altitude. That day I figured all the frustration finally paid off.
>
> In regards to shadowing I was not talking about transponder antenna but the GPS antenna for a position source. The position sources for ADS-B are different beasts comparing to our gliding GPS devices that seem to give position at all times without issues, even banking at 45 deg, but do not meet other requirements for ADS-B position sources.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 5:09:16 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> Interesting. This will be the first competition for FLARM Technology. I wonder if they will adjust their princely pricing to keep their anti-collision market share. Would this work in an area that is not within ground ADS-B coverage?

I am not following what you are thinking. This is not direct competition for FLARM/PowerFLARM. This is an 1090ES Out ADS-B + source solution. It is a great thing to see happening, but it does not include any ADS-B In capability. ADS-B In solutions exist for GA but won't work at all as well as FLARM for many glider pilots, are not designed for high-traffic density glider on glider type scenarios, and won't easily fit in/integrate with most glider cockpits/avionics.

This ADS-B Out solution is great for providing visibility to ATC and GA aircraft equipped with ADS-B In (preferably 1090ES In). Another benefit of 1090ES Out carriage is it will provide longer distance visibility to PowerFLARM equipped gliders, which might appeal to some folks, like those buddy flying (PowerFLARM systems sold in the USA include 1090ES reception as standard). Maybe the best thing about this is its another sign ADS-B things are moving and that there are hopefully reasonable cost solutions coming for some clubs and FBOs that have to equip their towplanes with ADS-B Out to meed 2020 carriage mandates... and equipping them with affordable 1090ES Out is great for compatibility with gliders with powerFLARM and it's 1090ES In capability.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

I have to agree with Darryl on this.

It's great see cheaper ADS-B Out GPS sources coming out to provide better position reporting to ATC and a way for gliders to light up TIS-B services and ADS-B In on other aircraft.

What's missing is a suitable commercially available dual-band ADS-B In box that receives 1090ES, UAT (if anybody is equipping with UAT), is TIS-B compatible AND puts out NMEA sentences so you can look at traffic on your Oudie, ClearNav, LX or other glider flight computer display. I'm not going to mess around in my cockpit with glide computers as well as an iPad running Foreflight.

Even if an NMEA ADS-B box were available for sale it still would only provide traffic alerts based on general proximity. I am not aware of any software currently in existence that does anything more than warn of traffic in a big hockey puck of airspace around you. None of it does collision course estimation or real collision warning to my knowledge and even if one of the GA solutions did attempt such a feat it seems unlikely that it would be optimized to not drive you up the wall with collision warnings the second you got into a thermal with another glider. Flarm does a pretty good job with both collision alarming for maneuvering gliders and filtering out nearby, but non-conflicting gliders.

I have a home-brew ADS-B receiver running a modified version of Stratux to output NMEA to my flight computer, but I think of it as a complement to Flarm, certainly not a substitute. A cheaper GPS source that works with Trig transponders will make a big difference in terms of making ADS-B In reliable since I won't have to depend on ADS-B Out from other passing aircraft to light up TIS-B traffic reporting from the ADS-B ground infrastructure, but we are still a ways from having a good ADS-B In solution for gliders - other than Flarm.

9B

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> I am not following what you are thinking. This is not direct competition for FLARM/PowerFLARM. This is an 1090ES Out ADS-B + source solution. It is a great thing to see happening, but it does not include any ADS-B In capability. ADS-B In solutions exist for GA but won't work at all as well as FLARM for many glider pilots, are not designed for high-traffic density glider on glider type scenarios, and won't easily fit in/integrate with most glider cockpits/avionics.
>
> This ADS-B Out solution is great for providing visibility to ATC and GA aircraft equipped with ADS-B In (preferably 1090ES In). Another benefit of 1090ES Out carriage is it will provide longer distance visibility to PowerFLARM equipped gliders, which might appeal to some folks, like those buddy flying (PowerFLARM systems sold in the USA include 1090ES reception as standard). Maybe the best thing about this is its another sign ADS-B things are moving and that there are hopefully reasonable cost solutions coming for some clubs and FBOs that have to equip their towplanes with ADS-B Out to meed 2020 carriage mandates... and equipping them with affordable 1090ES Out is great for compatibility with gliders with powerFLARM and it's 1090ES In capability.

[vontresc]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:04:41 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 5:09:16 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> > Interesting. This will be the first competition for FLARM Technology. I wonder if they will adjust their princely pricing to keep their anti-collision market share. Would this work in an area that is not within ground ADS-B coverage?
>
> I am not following what you are thinking. This is not direct competition for FLARM/PowerFLARM. This is an 1090ES Out ADS-B + source solution. It is a great thing to see happening, but it does not include any ADS-B In capability. ADS-B In solutions exist for GA but won't work at all as well as FLARM for many glider pilots, are not designed for high-traffic density glider on glider type scenarios, and won't easily fit in/integrate with most glider cockpits/avionics.
>
> This ADS-B Out solution is great for providing visibility to ATC and GA aircraft equipped with ADS-B In (preferably 1090ES In). Another benefit of 1090ES Out carriage is it will provide longer distance visibility to PowerFLARM equipped gliders, which might appeal to some folks, like those buddy flying (PowerFLARM systems sold in the USA include 1090ES reception as standard). Maybe the best thing about this is its another sign ADS-B things are moving and that there are hopefully reasonable cost solutions coming for some clubs and FBOs that have to equip their towplanes with ADS-B Out to meed 2020 carriage mandates... and equipping them with affordable 1090ES Out is great for compatibility with gliders with powerFLARM and it's 1090ES In capability.

I was talking to the guys a uAvionix at Oshkosh this weekend, and they have a truly interesting ADS-
B solution that may actually work well for us glider folks.

http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping200b0/

They had the prototype they were testing at the show, and it truly was a tiny device. Hopebully they will follow through with the box, and get it blessed by the feds. Tiny physical size, 500mA power draw, and weighs 50 grams. Let's hope the pricetag doesn't break the bank.

Peter

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:02:27 PM UTC-7, vontresc wrote:
[snip]
>
> I was talking to the guys a uAvionix at Oshkosh this weekend, and they have a truly interesting ADS-
> B solution that may actually work well for us glider folks.
>
> http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping200b0/
>
> They had the prototype they were testing at the show, and it truly was a tiny device. Hopebully they will follow through with the box, and get it blessed by the feds. Tiny physical size, 500mA power draw, and weighs 50 grams. Let's hope the pricetag doesn't break the bank.
>
> Peter

That is intersting, and it's great to see broad innovation happening in things related to ADS-B.

But it is worrying that the specs they present makes this not look like a Mode-S transponder. They mention no Mode-S or any other transponder related spec/standard. It might even have no 1030MHz receiver hardware at all. Once concern there in the UAV market would be the lack of compatibility with TCAS. You don't want airliners flying into UAVs, including UAVs that are out of control and have no way of avoiding the airliner. If the device is really intended to be a transponder then they have awful marketing.

The company is small and just received $5M in investment. Nothing they make meets TSO approval, but OK they are just getting started, hopefully they have folks with a background designing and manufacturing TSO approved avionics--but the company has been solidly targets the low-end UAV space. I question why they would want to worry about manned aircraft. The marketing and other costs alone just related with that for a new vendor are going to be significant. Maybe worth watching, but they need to improve their marketing/clean up/better state their claims if they think they are going after the manned aircraft market (and they certainly claim they are). They started out with a focus on receivers, which is great, but it's a very different thing to do say a TSO-ed ADS-B transmitter for general aviation.

Unfortunately reading stuff from them smells a bit too much like hype. When they talk about the PingNAV GPS source is "ADS-B Out compliant" but the needed specs are really not there, even as a promise of future compatibility. If they mean it's going to be TSO-C145c compliant or "meet the performance requirements of" then frigging say so, they have an strange way of not stating that clearly--which might be partially inexperience in the avionics market. They do clearly call out "meets requirements of" the GPS-source part of TSO-C199 (i.e. TABS). And I'm not sure it makes sense for a drone/UAV manufacturer to seek TSO approval on such a device. And TSO-C199 approval or even "meets requirements of" is not enough for ADS-B Out equipage today (certainly not in certified aircraft). Now if gliders lost their transponder/ADS-B out exemptions I'd actually like to see TABS carriage available as a means of compliance for ADS-B Out for gliders.. or available for voluntary equipage/non-mandated carriage.

BTW another interesting company in the UAV space is Sagetech (http://sagetechcorp.com/index.html). They've been shipping pretty impressive miniature transponders and ADS-B out systems for UAVs for a while. and have a less hyped feel than Uavionix.

Anyhow I guess it is good to see stuff happening. Not that I necessarily am too excited about lots of UAVs sharing airspace with manned aircraft.... but we get to sit back and see who delivers stuff here.

[[email protected]]

Darryl-

What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.

http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Darryl-
>
> What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.
>
> http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/

Hi Mark

I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.

Remember this is not actually shipping yet.

So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.

The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.

These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).

No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.

For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.

It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.

We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)

---

Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~<$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility.... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).

[[email protected]]

Darryl-

Thanks for the analysis. Maybe someday.....

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks Darryl,

I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
here when I have the answers.

Dan

On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> Darryl-
>>
>> What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.
>>
>> http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
> Hi Mark
>
> I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.
>
> Remember this is not actually shipping yet.
>
> So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.
>
> The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.
>
> These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).
>
> No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
> Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
> Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
> Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.
>
> For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.
>
> It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.
>
> We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)
>
> ---
>
> Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~<$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

Dan

First I'll start with a possible downer. I just realized Mike mentioned this is the TN72 GPS. Complete brain fart on my part, I wish I had spotted that before. That has actually been talked about once or twice by Trig before but as a TSO-C199 (ie. TABS) Class B (i.e. GPS part of TABS) device. There are no install and use regulations that allow use of a TSO-C199 GPS to drive ADS-B Out in any certified aircraft in the USA. The next step us is Trig might also claim that it "meets performance requirement of TSO-C145c"... which would allow/encourage it to be installed in experimental aircraft, but they would need to actually have a TSO-C145c approved device to allow you to install it in your type certified Stemme. And again saying a GPS is "WAAS" says nothing about it's actual TSO approval it has or meets performance requirements of. That's the real question to ask Trig: Is this actually a TSO-C199 Class B? TSO-C145c or a "meets performance requirement of...(which of either TSO)" device?

Mike -- did they give any clarity on that when you spoke to them?

-----

For now lets be optimistic and assume they have an actual TSO-C145c GPS source coming at lower cost. If so, you do not necessarily need an STC for a ADS-B Out install specific to your Stemme.

Originally ADS-B Out installs did required a specific STC, since they were usually AML (Approved Model List) STCs they usually covering quite a few aircraft in one STC. But I'm not aware of any vendor or third party with a glider on one of these STC. And that would have been a waste of their money given gliders have ADS-B out exemption and most glider owners were not interested in spending $10k type numbers or ADS-B Out installs back when STCs were the thing.

Originally the FAA required STC based installs of ADS-B Out equipment. This was relaxed a few year ago, you can look at AC 20-165B, or start here http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing. The main point for a current field approval is the FAA wants to see the GPS source and ADS-B out transmitter used together in a current STC, and that documentation followed for the install, even if the aircraft is not in the AML STC. That is for good reason, there are just too many interconnect things that can go wrong, too many config settings to make, etc.

I am sure if it's better to try to find an A&P/avionics shop who has done an ADS-B installs before with that same components or find a glider A&P who is willing to put the time in, work carefully with their FSDO on a first time ADS-B Out install,.. I guess it all depends on who you like to work with and the choices available.

Questions for Trig, in addition to the big one above, may be when will you be able to get their new GPS-source in your hands, what size and power consumption will it have, and when will there be an STC (not specific to a Stemme) for a TT-22 combination that your shop can base a field approval/337 install off of.

Your Stemme is certified, owners of experimental category gliders don't need to do a field approval to install, but should be using STCs and/or other documentation/advice from manufactures to install a system. And there they still at a minimum need a "complaint" aka "meets performance requirements of TSO-C145c" type GPS source for things like TIS-B to provide traffic services to their aircraft (but just not necessarily actually TSO-C145c as say would be required in a certified glider).



On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks Darryl,
>
> I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
> Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
> product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
> contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
> here when I have the answers.
>
> Dan
>
> On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> Darryl-
> >>
> >> What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.
> >>
> >> http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
> > Hi Mark
> >
> > I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.
> >
> > Remember this is not actually shipping yet.
> >
> > So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.
> >
> > The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed.. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.
> >
> > These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e..g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).
> >
> > No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
> > Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
> > Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
> > Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.
> >
> > For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.
> >
> > It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.
> >
> > We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~<$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks Darryl,

I'll keep asking questions of Trig and I'll also ask around among our
local mechanics. Further, I'm friends with the local FSDO and I'll ask
him what it might take to get this job done locally.

Dan

On 8/5/2016 11:05 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Dan
>
> First I'll start with a possible downer. I just realized Mike mentioned this is the TN72 GPS. Complete brain fart on my part, I wish I had spotted that before. That has actually been talked about once or twice by Trig before but as a TSO-C199 (ie. TABS) Class B (i.e. GPS part of TABS) device. There are no install and use regulations that allow use of a TSO-C199 GPS to drive ADS-B Out in any certified aircraft in the USA. The next step us is Trig might also claim that it "meets performance requirement of TSO-C145c"... which would allow/encourage it to be installed in experimental aircraft, but they would need to actually have a TSO-C145c approved device to allow you to install it in your type certified Stemme. And again saying a GPS is "WAAS" says nothing about it's actual TSO approval it has or meets performance requirements of. That's the real question to ask Trig: Is this actually a TSO-C199 Class B? TSO-C145c or a "meets performance requirement of...(which of either TSO)" device?
>
> Mike -- did they give any clarity on that when you spoke to them?
>
> -----
>
> For now lets be optimistic and assume they have an actual TSO-C145c GPS source coming at lower cost. If so, you do not necessarily need an STC for a ADS-B Out install specific to your Stemme.
>
> Originally ADS-B Out installs did required a specific STC, since they were usually AML (Approved Model List) STCs they usually covering quite a few aircraft in one STC. But I'm not aware of any vendor or third party with a glider on one of these STC. And that would have been a waste of their money given gliders have ADS-B out exemption and most glider owners were not interested in spending $10k type numbers or ADS-B Out installs back when STCs were the thing.
>
> Originally the FAA required STC based installs of ADS-B Out equipment. This was relaxed a few year ago, you can look at AC 20-165B, or start here http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing. The main point for a current field approval is the FAA wants to see the GPS source and ADS-B out transmitter used together in a current STC, and that documentation followed for the install, even if the aircraft is not in the AML STC. That is for good reason, there are just too many interconnect things that can go wrong, too many config settings to make, etc.
>
> I am sure if it's better to try to find an A&P/avionics shop who has done an ADS-B installs before with that same components or find a glider A&P who is willing to put the time in, work carefully with their FSDO on a first time ADS-B Out install,.. I guess it all depends on who you like to work with and the choices available.
>
> Questions for Trig, in addition to the big one above, may be when will you be able to get their new GPS-source in your hands, what size and power consumption will it have, and when will there be an STC (not specific to a Stemme) for a TT-22 combination that your shop can base a field approval/337 install off of.
>
> Your Stemme is certified, owners of experimental category gliders don't need to do a field approval to install, but should be using STCs and/or other documentation/advice from manufactures to install a system. And there they still at a minimum need a "complaint" aka "meets performance requirements of TSO-C145c" type GPS source for things like TIS-B to provide traffic services to their aircraft (but just not necessarily actually TSO-C145c as say would be required in a certified glider).
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Thanks Darryl,
>>
>> I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
>> Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
>> product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
>> contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
>> here when I have the answers.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>> Darryl-
>>>>
>>>> What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
>>> Hi Mark
>>>
>>> I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.
>>>
>>> Remember this is not actually shipping yet.
>>>
>>> So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.
>>>
>>> The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.
>>>
>>> These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).
>>>
>>> No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
>>> Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
>>> Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
>>> Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.
>>>
>>> For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.
>>>
>>> It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.
>>>
>>> We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~<$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

[JS]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:20:22 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks Darryl,
>
> I'll keep asking questions of Trig and I'll also ask around among our
> local mechanics. Further, I'm friends with the local FSDO and I'll ask
> him what it might take to get this job done locally.
>
> Dan
>
> On 8/5/2016 11:05 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Dan
> >
> > First I'll start with a possible downer. I just realized Mike mentioned this is the TN72 GPS. Complete brain fart on my part, I wish I had spotted that before. That has actually been talked about once or twice by Trig before but as a TSO-C199 (ie. TABS) Class B (i.e. GPS part of TABS) device. There are no install and use regulations that allow use of a TSO-C199 GPS to drive ADS-B Out in any certified aircraft in the USA. The next step us is Trig might also claim that it "meets performance requirement of TSO-C145c".... which would allow/encourage it to be installed in experimental aircraft, but they would need to actually have a TSO-C145c approved device to allow you to install it in your type certified Stemme. And again saying a GPS is "WAAS" says nothing about it's actual TSO approval it has or meets performance requirements of. That's the real question to ask Trig: Is this actually a TSO-C199 Class B? TSO-C145c or a "meets performance requirement of...(which of either TSO)" device?
> >
> > Mike -- did they give any clarity on that when you spoke to them?
> >
> > -----
> >
> > For now lets be optimistic and assume they have an actual TSO-C145c GPS source coming at lower cost. If so, you do not necessarily need an STC for a ADS-B Out install specific to your Stemme.
> >
> > Originally ADS-B Out installs did required a specific STC, since they were usually AML (Approved Model List) STCs they usually covering quite a few aircraft in one STC. But I'm not aware of any vendor or third party with a glider on one of these STC. And that would have been a waste of their money given gliders have ADS-B out exemption and most glider owners were not interested in spending $10k type numbers or ADS-B Out installs back when STCs were the thing.
> >
> > Originally the FAA required STC based installs of ADS-B Out equipment. This was relaxed a few year ago, you can look at AC 20-165B, or start here http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing. The main point for a current field approval is the FAA wants to see the GPS source and ADS-B out transmitter used together in a current STC, and that documentation followed for the install, even if the aircraft is not in the AML STC. That is for good reason, there are just too many interconnect things that can go wrong, too many config settings to make, etc.
> >
> > I am sure if it's better to try to find an A&P/avionics shop who has done an ADS-B installs before with that same components or find a glider A&P who is willing to put the time in, work carefully with their FSDO on a first time ADS-B Out install,.. I guess it all depends on who you like to work with and the choices available.
> >
> > Questions for Trig, in addition to the big one above, may be when will you be able to get their new GPS-source in your hands, what size and power consumption will it have, and when will there be an STC (not specific to a Stemme) for a TT-22 combination that your shop can base a field approval/337 install off of.
> >
> > Your Stemme is certified, owners of experimental category gliders don't need to do a field approval to install, but should be using STCs and/or other documentation/advice from manufactures to install a system. And there they still at a minimum need a "complaint" aka "meets performance requirements of TSO-C145c" type GPS source for things like TIS-B to provide traffic services to their aircraft (but just not necessarily actually TSO-C145c as say would be required in a certified glider).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> Thanks Darryl,
> >>
> >> I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
> >> Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
> >> product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
> >> contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
> >> here when I have the answers.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>>> Darryl-
> >>>>
> >>>> What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
> >>> Hi Mark
> >>>
> >>> I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.
> >>>
> >>> Remember this is not actually shipping yet.
> >>>
> >>> So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.
> >>>
> >>> The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.
> >>>
> >>> These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).
> >>>
> >>> No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
> >>> Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
> >>> Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
> >>> Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.
> >>>
> >>> For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.
> >>>
> >>> It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.
> >>>
> >>> We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~<$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Dan, 5J
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

How about this, complete with AHRS?
http://levil-aviation-powered-by-tucan.myshopify.com/products/ilevil-3-aw?variant=22245128513
Jim

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
[snip]
>
> How about this, complete with AHRS?
> http://levil-aviation-powered-by-tucan.myshopify.com/products/ilevil-3-aw?variant=22245128513
> Jim

I can keep this up for a while, well until I run out of beer :-)

OK so that's a dual link UAT and 109ES ADS-B receiver with *no* ADS-B Out. It's got GPS to provide navigation data to PDA/Tablet navigation apps.

Like other sloppy marketing in this space they claim to support traffic data (and you'll see all ASD-B Out equipped traffic) but they don't state as clearly as I wish that you need a properly configured ADS-B Out to receive TIS-B.

They claim the "certified" GPS they offer is a "meets performance requirements of ...yadda yadda " and is therefore suitable for use in experimental aircraft to drive an ADS-B Out device (which this box itself is not). And that may be nice for some low-end experiential aircraft owners (but I'd personally much rather spend the $850 or so on a Garmin GPS 20A suitable for driving ADS-B output in an experimental aircraft as it and its antenna can be permanently installed and mounted firmly away behind the panel). It irks me that what they call a "certified" GPS on that web page ain't actually certified at all, just bulslhit, this continuing type of sloppy marketing in this space is just frustrating. And I'd not want to spend one dollar with companies that can't clearly and accurately explain what they are selling.

For many folks they might as well just go with market leader Stratus (the 2S has dual link receive and AHRS and battery powered just like the iLevel 3 but no GPS suitable or driving even experimental category ADS-B Out. Nice and compact for ~$900) or Garmin GDL-39 series (ditto on AHRS for the GDL-39 3D, and it has an optional battery again for ~$900 (Stratus is setting the market price here, others are following). The issue with these is what map/display devices they support. IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

[JS]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:58:07 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > How about this, complete with AHRS?
> > http://levil-aviation-powered-by-tucan.myshopify.com/products/ilevil-3-aw?variant=22245128513
> > Jim
>
> I can keep this up for a while, well until I run out of beer :-)
>
> OK so that's a dual link UAT and 109ES ADS-B receiver with *no* ADS-B Out.. It's got GPS to provide navigation data to PDA/Tablet navigation apps.
>
> Like other sloppy marketing in this space they claim to support traffic data (and you'll see all ASD-B Out equipped traffic) but they don't state as clearly as I wish that you need a properly configured ADS-B Out to receive TIS-B.
>
> They claim the "certified" GPS they offer is a "meets performance requirements of ...yadda yadda " and is therefore suitable for use in experimental aircraft to drive an ADS-B Out device (which this box itself is not). And that may be nice for some low-end experiential aircraft owners (but I'd personally much rather spend the $850 or so on a Garmin GPS 20A suitable for driving ADS-B output in an experimental aircraft as it and its antenna can be permanently installed and mounted firmly away behind the panel). It irks me that what they call a "certified" GPS on that web page ain't actually certified at all, just bulslhit, this continuing type of sloppy marketing in this space is just frustrating. And I'd not want to spend one dollar with companies that can't clearly and accurately explain what they are selling.
>
> For many folks they might as well just go with market leader Stratus (the 2S has dual link receive and AHRS and battery powered just like the iLevel 3 but no GPS suitable or driving even experimental category ADS-B Out. Nice and compact for ~$900) or Garmin GDL-39 series (ditto on AHRS for the GDL-39 3D, and it has an optional battery again for ~$900 (Stratus is setting the market price here, others are following). The issue with these is what map/display devices they support. IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

Let's hope he doesn't run out of beer.
Hey, wait a minute... Lets hope WE don't run out of beer!
Jim

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:05:24 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Dan
>
> First I'll start with a possible downer. I just realized Mike mentioned this is the TN72 GPS. Complete brain fart on my part, I wish I had spotted that before. That has actually been talked about once or twice by Trig before but as a TSO-C199 (ie. TABS) Class B (i.e. GPS part of TABS) device. There are no install and use regulations that allow use of a TSO-C199 GPS to drive ADS-B Out in any certified aircraft in the USA. The next step us is Trig might also claim that it "meets performance requirement of TSO-C145c"... which would allow/encourage it to be installed in experimental aircraft, but they would need to actually have a TSO-C145c approved device to allow you to install it in your type certified Stemme. And again saying a GPS is "WAAS" says nothing about it's actual TSO approval it has or meets performance requirements of. That's the real question to ask Trig: Is this actually a TSO-C199 Class B? TSO-C145c or a "meets performance requirement of...(which of either TSO)" device?
>
> Mike -- did they give any clarity on that when you spoke to them?
>
> -----
>
> For now lets be optimistic and assume they have an actual TSO-C145c GPS source coming at lower cost. If so, you do not necessarily need an STC for a ADS-B Out install specific to your Stemme.
>
> Originally ADS-B Out installs did required a specific STC, since they were usually AML (Approved Model List) STCs they usually covering quite a few aircraft in one STC. But I'm not aware of any vendor or third party with a glider on one of these STC. And that would have been a waste of their money given gliders have ADS-B out exemption and most glider owners were not interested in spending $10k type numbers or ADS-B Out installs back when STCs were the thing.
>
> Originally the FAA required STC based installs of ADS-B Out equipment. This was relaxed a few year ago, you can look at AC 20-165B, or start here http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing. The main point for a current field approval is the FAA wants to see the GPS source and ADS-B out transmitter used together in a current STC, and that documentation followed for the install, even if the aircraft is not in the AML STC. That is for good reason, there are just too many interconnect things that can go wrong, too many config settings to make, etc.
>
> I am sure if it's better to try to find an A&P/avionics shop who has done an ADS-B installs before with that same components or find a glider A&P who is willing to put the time in, work carefully with their FSDO on a first time ADS-B Out install,.. I guess it all depends on who you like to work with and the choices available.
>
> Questions for Trig, in addition to the big one above, may be when will you be able to get their new GPS-source in your hands, what size and power consumption will it have, and when will there be an STC (not specific to a Stemme) for a TT-22 combination that your shop can base a field approval/337 install off of.
>
> Your Stemme is certified, owners of experimental category gliders don't need to do a field approval to install, but should be using STCs and/or other documentation/advice from manufactures to install a system. And there they still at a minimum need a "complaint" aka "meets performance requirements of TSO-C145c" type GPS source for things like TIS-B to provide traffic services to their aircraft (but just not necessarily actually TSO-C145c as say would be required in a certified glider).
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Thanks Darryl,
> >
> > I've been looking at the Trig solution since I have a TT22 in my
> > Stemme. Their website refers to a free STC for anyone buying their
> > product but I don't see the Stemme on their list of STCs. I will be
> > contacting Trig for help in getting this thing going and will report
> > here when I have the answers.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On 8/4/2016 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > >> Darryl-
> > >>
> > >> What is your take on this other product from Uavionix? My sources say a price in the $1,300 range.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/
> > > Hi Mark
> > >
> > > I'll try to cover a lot here, if unclear ask specifics.
> > >
> > > Remember this is not actually shipping yet.
> > >
> > > So if you could install that in a glider today, it's a dual-link receiver for UAT and 1090ES ADS-B In. It's a UAT-Out only transmitter. No transponder/1090E-Out. So no compatibility with TCAS (you need a separate Mode C or S transponder) , and no visibility of your aircraft to PowerFLARM. And since it is not TSO approved as a UAT transmitter and does not have a TSO-C145c or similar GPS source you can't install in a certified glider. And you likely cannot install in a experimental glider without much more assurance of the actual performance level of the device.
> > >
> > > The lack of compatibility with PowerFLARM and TCAS alone makes it likely uninteresting for many glider applications, even if it could be installed. If you did want to use just the receiver parts (and the transmitter could be disabled which I expect it can) then you still have the issue you need a third party traffic awareness app and hardware to run it on, and many of those don't work well in a glider environment/cockpit as already mentioned in this thread. If you really wanted a dual-link ADS-B receiver you are likely just better off buying the already very popular and lower costing Status 2 or Garmin GDL-39 receivers. And remember without an approved/fully compatible ADS-B Out and GPS source none of these ADS-B receivers will receive the FAA TIS-B traffic services.
> > >
> > > These kind of things are hard to read around because the folks making them are not seriously/have not seriously been targeting the fully regulated avionics/GA market--and the product is not actually shipping yet. So for now at least we are largely left trying to decode their marketing claims. e.g. The specs say "designed to meet the performance requirement of TSO-C154c" the "designed to" is ell reasonable since it's not actually shipping yet, but on the other hand that could be a bit of a cop-out. What we need them to actually say is "will meet" or when the product ships "meet the performance requirements of TSO-C154c". Without that I doubt anybody would have a basis for installing this in an experimental category aircraft. And even if the manufacture claimed it was full TSO-C154c complaint that still does not cover the GPS source part of the requirements... for that you also typically want to see TSO-C145c or "meets performance requirements of..." for that (notice the 4 and 5 digit transpositions, totally different specs).
> > >
> > > No claim here that the GPS source is even "designed to meet performance requirements of TSO-C145c", and...
> > > Claiming a WAAS GPS has SBAS is kind of redundant, WAAS is an implementation SBAS.
> > > Claiming a GPS has RAIM does not mean it is TSO-C145c or even meets TSO-C145c, although RAIM capability is part of that.
> > > Saying "WAAS" does not mean TSO-C145c, although WAAS is a citical part of that, and we'll often mean TSO-C145c or similar specs when we say "WAAS GPS" when talkign about certified aviation GPS.
> > >
> > > For gliding related use, the 1090ES Output devices would likely be more intersting/useful to many pilots than this UAT-out devices. And I already raised questions on that device earlier.
> > >
> > > It's hard to tell with these folks how much of this is sloppy marketing/inexperience/just scrambling to ship product. I do wonder how much of this is more just them feeling out if there is a GA market they can address. It is quite a leap from the unregulated UAV type uses to GA. Without regulations covering drones and ADS-B I wonder if they will get much traction there at all and if they are trying to see where else they can apply their efforts. Again, great to see folks trying stuff but I'd like to see actual products delivered, including actual equipment installed and flying in manned aircraft and clear documentation from them on how to do that/what exact standards are actually met/or meet performance requirements of etc.
> > >
> > > We had relatively well proven GPS vendors talk for a long time about new products that are still are not available to end-users/installers so I'm even more pessimistic with a brand-new startup that has never delivered anything to the manned aircraft/avionics market claim stuff. I'd love them to prove my pessimism wrong. :-)
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Back the the original post from Mike. The news that Trig is hopefully shipping a more affordable ADS-B source by the end of the year is the best thing I've heard in ages about ADS-B for the glider market. A full Trig Mode S transponder and GPS source for ~<$3k (plus install) would be a lot better than were that cost has been. So much is still up in the air until what is happening with carriage mandate exemptions and TABS equipment and carriage regulations. Newer type devices from innovative vendors might well be usable under TABS regulations (but a TABS device needs 1090ES Out with transponder functionality, TABS does not apply to UAT-Out devices, and you can't do 1090ES Out only, it has to have transponder features for TCAS compatibility... the TABS folks knew what they were doing... responding to the NTSB Minden mid-air concerns :-) And that's a good thing.).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J

The TRIG guys assured me that the new TN72 GPS source would be 2020 compliant and have all the necessary approvals required for use in certified aircraft.

[[email protected]]

The FAA and a bunch of the avionics manufacturers should be paying Darryl richly for the service he's providing here - he's doing a fine job explaining and analyzing the issues related to ADS-B etc.

[Vaughn Simon[_2_]]

On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.

Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
zero.

If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.

Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
me can remember how to access.

And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:07 AM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.
>
> Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
> the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
> have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
> zero.
>
> If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
> Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
> with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
> navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
> hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
> including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.
>
> Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
> both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
> me can remember how to access.
>
> And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.
>
> Vaughn

If I was religious, I'd start praying for Darryl's health... especially his sanity.

[Dan Marotta]

I just heard from Peregrine Aero regarding installation of a TN70 to go
with my TT22. This part of what they told me:

The recent FAA policy on field approval installations makes it much more practical for the repair stations within the Trig dealership network to accomplish our STC on models that are not currently included on the AML. The TT22 and the TN 70 are an approved equipment pair under our STC (SA00756DE), so the repair stations within the Trig dealer network have the ability to complete this installation as an approved alteration so long as the equipment Is installed per the instructions provided by our STC and per the FAA policy on ADS-B installations.

Now to wait and see when the TN70 becomes available. I hope it's as
simple as that...


On 8/6/2016 7:46 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:07 AM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>> IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.
>> Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
>> the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
>> have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
>> zero.
>>
>> If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
>> Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
>> with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
>> navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
>> hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
>> including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.
>>
>> Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
>> both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
>> me can remember how to access.
>>
>> And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.
>>
>> Vaughn
> If I was religious, I'd start praying for Darryl's health... especially his sanity.

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

Hi Dan

I think you might be confusing the Trig TN70 and TN72 that Mike mentioned.

The TN70 is an existing ~$3k TSO-C145c GPS source from Trig that has been available for quite a while. It's a rebranded NexNav Mini. I had suspected the TN72 will be a rebranded NexNav Micro-i. Early photos from UK TABS trials showed a TN72 in NexNav looking packaging that looked like a Micro-i. Accord (the maker of NexNav GPS) was acquired by Aspen in 2015 and it's going to be interesting what happens there long term, especially with competition with Garmin. Accord makes nice stuff but they seemed to often announce new things quite early for the OEM market. If the low-cost TN72 is TSO-C145c approved it would replace the $3k TN70... which has me a bit suspicious of Trig announcing this early at Oshkosh (regardless of what staff there told Mike). If it's based on the Micro-i, then given what Accord has said about the Micro-i in the past it likely would not be TSO-C145c approved and would be for experimental aircraft only or TABS if TABS ever happens. If could be based on something entirely different, we'll have to wait and see. Again if it is TSO-C145c approved at that price point that is a really dramatic change, but right now that price point is where competing "meets requirements of..." GPS sources like the Garmin GPS 20A are priced (and Trig has no OEM/rebadged product to match today).

What they are telling you here about a TN70 install is not really different than what I said earlier. With an TSO-C145c approved GPS source and an existing AML STC for use with the Trig TT-22 that forms a basis for a field approval/337 install even for aircraft not on the AML list. There are other Trig/Peregrine STCs for third party GPS sources as well but you might as well use the TN70 today. As for using their maintenance network good point there, I'd missed that before although Trig say the same thing on their web site. Especially for glider installs by a glider A&P I hope/expect they would be flexible here.

And you likely know the relationships here but Peregrine Aero is essentially a consulting company that Trig paid to develop the AML STCs for the ADS-B Out installs of it's product. They seemed to do a good job getting stuff done.

Darryl

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I just heard from Peregrine Aero regarding installation of a TN70 to go
> with my TT22. This part of what they told me:
>
> The recent FAA policy on field approval installations makes it much more practical for the repair stations within the Trig dealership network to accomplish our STC on models that are not currently included on the AML. The TT22 and the TN 70 are an approved equipment pair under our STC (SA00756DE), so the repair stations within the Trig dealer network have the ability to complete this installation as an approved alteration so long as the equipment Is installed per the instructions provided by our STC and per the FAA policy on ADS-B installations.
>
> Now to wait and see when the TN70 becomes available. I hope it's as
> simple as that...
>
[snip]
> Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

Vaughn

I'm not going to disagree in general, but it's intersting here that ForeFlight/Arapaho/Sporty's basically banded together, built this closed ecosystem and seemed to seriously whack Garmin in this space. Without that "it all just works together well" integration they may not have been able to knock Garmin so hard. And without focus on iOS devices the small development team like ForeFlight had they likely would not have been able to ship and innovate in the product like they have. The main product competing with the Status S/S2 is the the Garmin GDL-39 and that will only work with Garmin products... that to me seemed even worse, Garmin wants to lock up and control every cockpit at every size/cost point., and by comparison I actually welcomed ForeFlight/Arapaho/Sportys going after Garmin (and in my mind at least beating them in this portable/flight bag space).

And although I'd compare any portable ADS-B receiver first to the leading Status 2/2S, they are certainly not perfect or unapproachable. Including sometimes mounting and glareshield reflection issues, sometimes battery life, sometimes overheating issues sitting on a glareshield in sunlight and the closed system issues you point out. But still it's a great product and market leader, but bring on the competition...

Darryl


On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Vaughn Simon wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 11:58 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > IMNSHO Stratus wins there big time with support for ForeFlight.
>
> Just my opinion, but I detest artificially closed ecosystems, especially
> the unholy alliance between Foreflight-Stratus-Apple, which seems to
> have been deliberately created to keep prices high and your choices at
> zero.
>
> If you buy Stratus, you are stuck with Foreflight and Apple. If you buy
> Foreflight, you are stuck with Stratus and Apple. That's why I went
> with the Dual XGPS-series ADS-B/GPS receiver and the "IFly GPS"
> navigation App. Dual supports a multitude of navigation apps with their
> hardware, whilst the IFly app supports a multitude of hardware,
> including many ADS-B receivers and serves both the Apple and Android worlds.
>
> Is Foreflight better than IFly? I can't tell! I've subscribed to them
> both, and they both have far more features than a humble VFR pilot like
> me can remember how to access.
>
> And please Darryl, keep a healthy supply of beer on hand. We need you.
>
> Vaughn

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks Darryl,

You are correct - I did confuse the two. I'm waiting for the less
expensive model and hoping it will be satisfactory to the FAA. Too many
TSOs and "meets the requirements of"s for me.

Dan

On 8/6/2016 11:14 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Hi Dan
>
> I think you might be confusing the Trig TN70 and TN72 that Mike mentioned.
>
> The TN70 is an existing ~$3k TSO-C145c GPS source from Trig that has been available for quite a while. It's a rebranded NexNav Mini. I had suspected the TN72 will be a rebranded NexNav Micro-i. Early photos from UK TABS trials showed a TN72 in NexNav looking packaging that looked like a Micro-i. Accord (the maker of NexNav GPS) was acquired by Aspen in 2015 and it's going to be interesting what happens there long term, especially with competition with Garmin. Accord makes nice stuff but they seemed to often announce new things quite early for the OEM market. If the low-cost TN72 is TSO-C145c approved it would replace the $3k TN70... which has me a bit suspicious of Trig announcing this early at Oshkosh (regardless of what staff there told Mike). If it's based on the Micro-i, then given what Accord has said about the Micro-i in the past it likely would not be TSO-C145c approved and would be for experimental aircraft only or TABS if TABS ever happens. If could be based on something entirely different, we'll have to wait and see. Again if it is TSO-C145c approved at that price point that is a really dramatic change, but right now that price point is where competing "meets requirements of..." GPS sources like the Garmin GPS 20A are priced (and Trig has no OEM/rebadged product to match today).
>
> What they are telling you here about a TN70 install is not really different than what I said earlier. With an TSO-C145c approved GPS source and an existing AML STC for use with the Trig TT-22 that forms a basis for a field approval/337 install even for aircraft not on the AML list. There are other Trig/Peregrine STCs for third party GPS sources as well but you might as well use the TN70 today. As for using their maintenance network good point there, I'd missed that before although Trig say the same thing on their web site. Especially for glider installs by a glider A&P I hope/expect they would be flexible here.
>
> And you likely know the relationships here but Peregrine Aero is essentially a consulting company that Trig paid to develop the AML STCs for the ADS-B Out installs of it's product. They seemed to do a good job getting stuff done.
>
> Darryl
>
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I just heard from Peregrine Aero regarding installation of a TN70 to go
>> with my TT22. This part of what they told me:
>>
>> The recent FAA policy on field approval installations makes it much more practical for the repair stations within the Trig dealership network to accomplish our STC on models that are not currently included on the AML. The TT22 and the TN 70 are an approved equipment pair under our STC (SA00756DE), so the repair stations within the Trig dealer network have the ability to complete this installation as an approved alteration so long as the equipment Is installed per the instructions provided by our STC and per the FAA policy on ADS-B installations.
>>
>> Now to wait and see when the TN70 becomes available. I hope it's as
>> simple as that...
>>
> [snip]
>> Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 12:14:03 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Hi Dan
>
> I think you might be confusing the Trig TN70 and TN72 that Mike mentioned..
>
> The TN70 is an existing ~$3k TSO-C145c GPS source from Trig that has been available for quite a while. It's a rebranded NexNav Mini. I had suspected the TN72 will be a rebranded NexNav Micro-i. Early photos from UK TABS trials showed a TN72 in NexNav looking packaging that looked like a Micro-i. Accord (the maker of NexNav GPS) was acquired by Aspen in 2015 and it's going to be interesting what happens there long term, especially with competition with Garmin. Accord makes nice stuff but they seemed to often announce new things quite early for the OEM market. If the low-cost TN72 is TSO-C145c approved it would replace the $3k TN70... which has me a bit suspicious of Trig announcing this early at Oshkosh (regardless of what staff there told Mike). If it's based on the Micro-i, then given what Accord has said about the Micro-i in the past it likely would not be TSO-C145c approved and would be for experimental aircraft only or TABS if TABS ever happens. If could be based on something entirely different, we'll have to wait and see. Again if it is TSO-C145c approved at that price point that is a really dramatic change, but right now that price point is where competing "meets requirements of..." GPS sources like the Garmin GPS 20A are priced (and Trig has no OEM/rebadged product to match today).
>
> What they are telling you here about a TN70 install is not really different than what I said earlier. With an TSO-C145c approved GPS source and an existing AML STC for use with the Trig TT-22 that forms a basis for a field approval/337 install even for aircraft not on the AML list. There are other Trig/Peregrine STCs for third party GPS sources as well but you might as well use the TN70 today. As for using their maintenance network good point there, I'd missed that before although Trig say the same thing on their web site. Especially for glider installs by a glider A&P I hope/expect they would be flexible here.
>
> And you likely know the relationships here but Peregrine Aero is essentially a consulting company that Trig paid to develop the AML STCs for the ADS-B Out installs of it's product. They seemed to do a good job getting stuff done.
>
> Darryl
>
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:24:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > I just heard from Peregrine Aero regarding installation of a TN70 to go
> > with my TT22. This part of what they told me:
> >
> > The recent FAA policy on field approval installations makes it much more practical for the repair stations within the Trig dealership network to accomplish our STC on models that are not currently included on the AML. The TT22 and the TN 70 are an approved equipment pair under our STC (SA00756DE), so the repair stations within the Trig dealer network have the ability to complete this installation as an approved alteration so long as the equipment Is installed per the instructions provided by our STC and per the FAA policy on ADS-B installations.
> >
> > Now to wait and see when the TN70 becomes available. I hope it's as
> > simple as that...
> >
> [snip]
> > Dan, 5J

While I didn't get any info from TRIG on who they are working with on the TN72 GPS Source, one possibility is that this is based on the same platform used in Dynon's 2020 compliant GPS source, which is currently available for ~$600 (unfortunately it only works with the Dynon Skyview system). TRIG is the OEM supplier for the Mode S / 1090ES transponder that is part of the Skyview system, so these guys already have a close working relationship.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:43:51 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
[snip]
> While I didn't get any info from TRIG on who they are working with on the TN72 GPS Source, one possibility is that this is based on the same platform used in Dynon's 2020 compliant GPS source, which is currently available for ~$600 (unfortunately it only works with the Dynon Skyview system). TRIG is the OEM supplier for the Mode S / 1090ES transponder that is part of the Skyview system, so these guys already have a close working relationship.

Mike

The Dynon SV-GPS-2020 is not TSO-C145c approved and has no STCs for installing in certified aircraft. It is a "meets requirements of.. " source. Without that I don't believe you can install this in a certified aircraft today, and Dynon's market is really experimental aircraft, where absolutely the "meets requirements of .." is enough. Like many vendors in this space you have to be very careful reading Dynon marketing collateral because most of it implicitly assumes the discussion is about experimental aircraft.

I have no clue who the OEM for the SC-GPS-2020 GPS engine is. It's got unusual packaging with the receiver built into the antenna housing like the previous Dynon GPS did as well.

---

Now.... there is a separate effort that Dynon is part of to allow (via STC) non-TSO avionics use in certified aircraft. Dynon has a recent STC for their EFIS-D10A and EFIS-D100 units for example, nothing to do with ADS-B Out.. I am not aware of any other vendor with a STC for a non-TSO GPS source with an ADS-B Out transmitter. That *might* be what Trig is aiming at as well for ADS-B Out and account for how a NexNav Micro-i might be claimed as suitable in certified aircraft. Wether non-TSO but STC'ed stuff is a possibility for ADS-B out has been an area of speculation/confusion for a while. I'll (happily) believe it when we see an STC.

Darryl

[Andrzej Kobus]

Based on my discussion with Trig the new position source is not going to be certified and it is essentially the modified Dynon unit. The modification of the position source was to support lower baud rate since Trig T22 does not support the required baud rate that the Dynon position source requires. The transponder Trig makes for Dynon supports the huger baud rate.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 10:32:13 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
[snip]
>
> The TRIG guys assured me that the new TN72 GPS source would be 2020 compliant and have all the necessary approvals required for use in certified aircraft.

Unfortunately it seems you were not being told accurate information or there was a miscommunication about exactly what was being said. It is always critical to ask exactly what TSO vendors mean. I just checked with Trig executives and the TN72 will be TSO-C199 (i.e. TABS) Class B (i.e. the GPS part of TABS) approved. It will not be TSO-C145c approved (and the price point there just seemed totally wrong for a TSO-C145 GPS). Trig is hoping to use it in experimental aircraft with a "meets requirements of...". There is always that long term possibility of STC but non-TSO type use, but it is speculation today/if anybody will pull that off with ADS-B Out. My take on all this is this is the TN72 won't be relevant for use in certified gliders when it ships/certainly not end of this year timeframe.

I have high regard for Trig, they don't hype stuff, have pretty clear marketing, build well engineered products that work well in gliders, and generally bent-over backwards to provide technical help or advice etc. It's unfortunate here something went wrong with communicating information.

So my take on three separate things here when thinking about the TN72.... (when folks see/hear more about the TN72 keep there three separate things in mind and match up the exact specs you see to regulations and what you can actually do with the device).

1. The geek in me thinks it will be great to see the TN72 available with TSO-C199 Class B approval, that helps validate and promote TSO-C199 and the approval process. The more TSO-C199 (TABS) devices actually shipping the more it helps push along TABS install/use regulation, even if not installable under them today (since there are no TABS regulations). If for example gliders got suitable TABS install/use regulations and an alternate means of providing ADS-B Out then this device would hopefully be usable in certified and experimental gliders. But we have to see what that all that regulation looks like, it might be nice, it might be a horrible mess, it might be tied in with gliders effectively losing transponder/ADS-B carriage exemptions or it might not. Who knows. This potential regulatory stuff is where the SSA should be involved today, with the FAA and manufacturers.

2. It will be great to see it with "meets requirements of .. " TSO-C145c type language so it can be used in experimental aircraft, including experimental gliders for "2020 complaint" ADS-B Out installs. Great news for folks with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want ADS-B Out.

3. It would be great to eventually see AML STC/non-TSO approved if Trig (and partners) can pull this off so this can be installed in certified aircraft. But that's more my speculation/not guaranteed/don't expect this soon, etc.

---

Dan -- if you want an ADS-B Out install with your TT-22 in your Stemme around the end of this year timeframe it's likely the TN70 is the GPS box for you. If you really want this you might as sign up for the $500 FAA rebate (motorgliders should qualify, non-powered gliders won't). Not much of a cost offset, but still...

[Paul Villinski]

> 2. It will be great to see it with "meets requirements of .. " TSO-C145c type language so it can be used in experimental aircraft, including experimental gliders for "2020 complaint" ADS-B Out installs. Great news for folks with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want ADS-B Out.

Darryl, thank you for sharing your expertise -- extremely helpful. Your #2 above is my scenario: I just installed the TT-22 in my experimental DG-400. You say above "Trig is *hoping* to use it in experimental aircraft with a "meets requirements of..." Do you think it's a reasonable expectation that this will be allowed?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:13:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Villinski wrote:
> > 2. It will be great to see it with "meets requirements of .. " TSO-C145c type language so it can be used in experimental aircraft, including experimental gliders for "2020 complaint" ADS-B Out installs. Great news for folks with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want ADS-B Out.
>
> Darryl, thank you for sharing your expertise -- extremely helpful. Your #2 above is my scenario: I just installed the TT-22 in my experimental DG-400. You say above "Trig is *hoping* to use it in experimental aircraft with a "meets requirements of..." Do you think it's a reasonable expectation that this will be allowed?

Paul

I don't don't know for sure, but I would hope so since it's what is likely to drive most installs for the TN72, at least initially. And if it comes near the end of the year hopefully it will be usable for you and installable over the off-season. I'd be pinging dealers and asking them what they know/can find out about availability of the GPS (and install documentation to with a Trig TT-22 in an experiential aircraft). For a ~$600 + install cost its likely an appealing update for many folks with a TT-22.

[glidergreg]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
>
> The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
>
> The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
>
> Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
>
> Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
>
> This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
>
> Get your checkbooks ready.

Just got a reply update from Trig Avionics Technical Support,
Mid-Continent Instruments and Avionics, that the TN72 will be available soon.

Trig is going to officially announce the TN72 this coming weekend at a UK show, at this time "we" will formally distribute TN72 information.

[John Carlyle]

Here's a little more about it: http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/

The antenna is sold separately. If I remember correctly, the Garmin GPS 20A box needed a $300 antenna. I'm guessing the Trig TN72 with an antenna will cost around $1000. We'll see soon...

-John, Q3

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:39:40 PM UTC-5, glidergreg wrote:
> Trig is going to officially announce the TN72 this coming weekend at a UK show, at this time "we" will formally distribute TN72 information.

[Dan Marotta]

Please keep us posted!

On 12/1/2016 2:39 PM, glidergreg wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
>> I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
>>
>> The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
>>
>> The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
>>
>> Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
>>
>> Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
>>
>> This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
>>
>> Get your checkbooks ready.
> Just got a reply update from Trig Avionics Technical Support,
> Mid-Continent Instruments and Avionics, that the TN72 will be available soon.
>
> Trig is going to officially announce the TN72 this coming weekend at a UK show, at this time "we" will formally distribute TN72 information.

--
Dan, 5J

[glidergreg]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
>
> The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
>
> The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
>
> Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
>
> Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
>
> This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
>
> Get your checkbooks ready.

You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:22:22 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
>
> The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
>
> The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
>
> Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
>
> Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
>
> This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
>
> Get your checkbooks ready.

I appreciate the thread, and I'm trying to sort this out a little better. So, according to the Trig marketing info, 'the TN72 GPS receiver is a fully certified product (FAA TSO-C199) designed for voluntary equipage and use in areas outside of designated or mandated ADS-B airspace.' So when coupled to a Trig T22 transponder, it will transmit ADS-B out info to contribute to your being seen by others. Sounds good, but as of right now, as the TN72 is not a TSO-C145C GPS receiver, it may not qualify as an FAA certified ADS-B OUT device, and therefore may disqualify one from obtaining traffic services (TIS-B) and weather services (FIS-B) over your separate, even pricier, ADS-B IN setup?

Charlie Gillespie

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:47:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:22:22 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> >
> > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> >
> > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> >
> > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> >
> > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> >
> > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> >
> > Get your checkbooks ready.
>
> I appreciate the thread, and I'm trying to sort this out a little better. So, according to the Trig marketing info, 'the TN72 GPS receiver is a fully certified product (FAA TSO-C199) designed for voluntary equipage and use in areas outside of designated or mandated ADS-B airspace.' So when coupled to a Trig T22 transponder, it will transmit ADS-B out info to contribute to your being seen by others. Sounds good, but as of right now, as the TN72 is not a TSO-C145C GPS receiver, it may not qualify as an FAA certified ADS-B OUT device, and therefore may disqualify one from obtaining traffic services (TIS-B) and weather services (FIS-B) over your separate, even pricier, ADS-B IN setup?
>
> Charlie Gillespie

Charlie, I suggest you read earlier posts by Darryl. Please do a search on this topic and read his posts. Your post suggests you would benefit from it and I am writing this as an encouragement not criticism. This is a complex problem and I can tell you from experience that even a fully certified system may not work in a glider, especially certified antennas. They are very old designs and they are not designed to provide proper signal when aircraft is constantly maneuvering (thermalling) with 45 deg bank angle.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 5:50:48 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:47:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:22:22 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > >
> > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source.. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > >
> > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > >
> > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > >
> > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > >
> > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > >
> > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> >
> > I appreciate the thread, and I'm trying to sort this out a little better. So, according to the Trig marketing info, 'the TN72 GPS receiver is a fully certified product (FAA TSO-C199) designed for voluntary equipage and use in areas outside of designated or mandated ADS-B airspace.' So when coupled to a Trig T22 transponder, it will transmit ADS-B out info to contribute to your being seen by others. Sounds good, but as of right now, as the TN72 is not a TSO-C145C GPS receiver, it may not qualify as an FAA certified ADS-B OUT device, and therefore may disqualify one from obtaining traffic services (TIS-B) and weather services (FIS-B) over your separate, even pricier, ADS-B IN setup?
> >
> > Charlie Gillespie
>
> Charlie, I suggest you read earlier posts by Darryl. Please do a search on this topic and read his posts. Your post suggests you would benefit from it and I am writing this as an encouragement not criticism. This is a complex problem and I can tell you from experience that even a fully certified system may not work in a glider, especially certified antennas. They are very old designs and they are not designed to provide proper signal when aircraft is constantly maneuvering (thermalling) with 45 deg bank angle.

Good point, Andrzej. The FAA has an online Public ADS-B Performance Report (PAPR) query for operators to find out how their equipment performs at a specified time/date (https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx). I'd be curious to hear feedback from general aviation pilots, and perhaps some Stemme drivers with ADS-B, as to how their gear is functioning.

CG

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> >
> > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> >
> > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> >
> > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> >
> > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> >
> > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> >
> > Get your checkbooks ready.
>
> You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.

The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.

A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).

That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.

What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.

For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.

As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.

[Renny[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > >
> > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source.. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > >
> > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > >
> > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > >
> > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > >
> > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > >
> > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> >
> > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
>
> The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
>
> A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
>
> That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
>
> What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
>
> For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
>
> As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.

Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?

Thanks for your excellent help - Renny

[Darryl Ramm]

Hi Renny

Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.

I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.

For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.

14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.

The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.

Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.

And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.

----

So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.

For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).

I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...

And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.

It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.

The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.


Darryl


On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > >
> > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > >
> > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > >
> > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > >
> > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > >
> > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> >
> > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> >
> > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> >
> > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> >
> > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> >
> > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> >
> > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
>
> Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
>
> Thanks for your excellent help - Renny

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:02:26 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 5:50:48 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:47:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:22:22 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > >
> > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > >
> > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > >
> > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > >
> > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > >
> > > I appreciate the thread, and I'm trying to sort this out a little better. So, according to the Trig marketing info, 'the TN72 GPS receiver is a fully certified product (FAA TSO-C199) designed for voluntary equipage and use in areas outside of designated or mandated ADS-B airspace.' So when coupled to a Trig T22 transponder, it will transmit ADS-B out info to contribute to your being seen by others. Sounds good, but as of right now, as the TN72 is not a TSO-C145C GPS receiver, it may not qualify as an FAA certified ADS-B OUT device, and therefore may disqualify one from obtaining traffic services (TIS-B) and weather services (FIS-B) over your separate, even pricier, ADS-B IN setup?
> > >
> > > Charlie Gillespie
> >
> > Charlie, I suggest you read earlier posts by Darryl. Please do a search on this topic and read his posts. Your post suggests you would benefit from it and I am writing this as an encouragement not criticism. This is a complex problem and I can tell you from experience that even a fully certified system may not work in a glider, especially certified antennas. They are very old designs and they are not designed to provide proper signal when aircraft is constantly maneuvering (thermalling) with 45 deg bank angle.
>
> Good point, Andrzej. The FAA has an online Public ADS-B Performance Report (PAPR) query for operators to find out how their equipment performs at a specified time/date (https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx). I'd be curious to hear feedback from general aviation pilots, and perhaps some Stemme drivers with ADS-B, as to how their gear is functioning.
>
> CG

I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system with 2020 compliant ADS-B OUT. This system uses an OEM version of the Trig TT-22 transponder and a GPS source that is rumored to be the same pedigree as the new TN-72 Trig GPS source.

I have run the FAA performance report for numerous flights and the system is working flawlessly. The only hiccup is that most of the performance reports, but not all, indicate that the Emitter Type is "Parachutist / Skydiver", not "Glider", which is how the Dynon is configured.

It is not clear if this is a Dynon or FAA problem. There are a number of Phoenix owners who have identified this problem and we are currently working with Dynon and the FAA to get this fixed.

I suspect that the Phoenix Motorglider community constitutes the vast majority of gliders that are currently flying with ADS-B OUT equipment. If anyone else out there has a glider with ADS-B OUT currently installed, we would be very interested in seeing your FAA Performance report, which would help us understand if this is a Dynon or FAA issue.

[Renny[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Hi Renny
>
> Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
>
> I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
>
> For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
>
> 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
>
> The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
>
> Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
>
> And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
>
> ----
>
> So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
>
> For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
>
> I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
>
> And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
>
> It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
>
> The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
>
>
> Darryl
>
>
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600..
> > > > >
> > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > >
> > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > >
> > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > >
> > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > >
> > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > >
> > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > >
> > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > >
> > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> >
> > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> >
> > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny

Darryl - Thanks for all of the detailed information. I will contact Trig on this, but I am also hopeful that, as we get closer to 2020, we will get more clarification from the various manufacturers and also from the FAA.

Thanks again for your great help and guidance!
Renny

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:52:50 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:02:26 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 5:50:48 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:47:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:22:22 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600..
> > > > >
> > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate the thread, and I'm trying to sort this out a little better. So, according to the Trig marketing info, 'the TN72 GPS receiver is a fully certified product (FAA TSO-C199) designed for voluntary equipage and use in areas outside of designated or mandated ADS-B airspace.' So when coupled to a Trig T22 transponder, it will transmit ADS-B out info to contribute to your being seen by others. Sounds good, but as of right now, as the TN72 is not a TSO-C145C GPS receiver, it may not qualify as an FAA certified ADS-B OUT device, and therefore may disqualify one from obtaining traffic services (TIS-B) and weather services (FIS-B) over your separate, even pricier, ADS-B IN setup?
> > > >
> > > > Charlie Gillespie
> > >
> > > Charlie, I suggest you read earlier posts by Darryl. Please do a search on this topic and read his posts. Your post suggests you would benefit from it and I am writing this as an encouragement not criticism. This is a complex problem and I can tell you from experience that even a fully certified system may not work in a glider, especially certified antennas. They are very old designs and they are not designed to provide proper signal when aircraft is constantly maneuvering (thermalling) with 45 deg bank angle.
> >
> > Good point, Andrzej. The FAA has an online Public ADS-B Performance Report (PAPR) query for operators to find out how their equipment performs at a specified time/date (https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx). I'd be curious to hear feedback from general aviation pilots, and perhaps some Stemme drivers with ADS-B, as to how their gear is functioning.
> >
> > CG
>
> I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system with 2020 compliant ADS-B OUT. This system uses an OEM version of the Trig TT-22 transponder and a GPS source that is rumored to be the same pedigree as the new TN-72 Trig GPS source.
>
> I have run the FAA performance report for numerous flights and the system is working flawlessly. The only hiccup is that most of the performance reports, but not all, indicate that the Emitter Type is "Parachutist / Skydiver", not "Glider", which is how the Dynon is configured.
>
> It is not clear if this is a Dynon or FAA problem. There are a number of Phoenix owners who have identified this problem and we are currently working with Dynon and the FAA to get this fixed.
>
> I suspect that the Phoenix Motorglider community constitutes the vast majority of gliders that are currently flying with ADS-B OUT equipment. If anyone else out there has a glider with ADS-B OUT currently installed, we would be very interested in seeing your FAA Performance report, which would help us understand if this is a Dynon or FAA issue.

Same issue with Trig.

[vontresc]

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Hi Renny
>
> Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
>
> I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
>
> For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
>
> 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
>
> The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
>
> Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
>
> And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
>
> ----
>
> So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
>
> For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
>
> I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
>
> And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
>
> It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
>
> The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
>
>
> Darryl
>
>
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600..
> > > > >
> > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > >
> > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > >
> > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > >
> > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > >
> > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > >
> > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > >
> > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > >
> > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> >
> > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> >
> > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny

Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.

Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?

Peter

[Darryl Ramm]

There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.

No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.

uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness..



On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Hi Renny
> >
> > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> >
> > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> >
> > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> >
> > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> >
> > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> >
> > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> >
> > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> >
> > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> >
> > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> >
> > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> >
> > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> >
> > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> >
> >
> > Darryl
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.

[vontresc]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.
>
> No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.
>
> uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > Hi Renny
> > >
> > > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> > >
> > > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> > >
> > > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> > >
> > > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> > >
> > > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> > >
> > > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> > >
> > > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> > >
> > > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> > >
> > > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> > >
> > > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> > >
> > > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> > >
> > > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Darryl
> > >
> > >
> > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > > > >
> > > > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > > > >
> > > > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > > > >
> > > > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > > > >
> > > > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> > > >
> > > > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny
> >
> > Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.
> >
> > Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?
> >
> > Peter

Thanks for the updates. I really wish the FAA could actually summarize their own BS like you do for us. I have consistently gotten better info out of you than the FAA itself.

So back to TABS/TSO-C199. Why even introduce this stuff if there is nothing in the regs for installation/use? When it first came out, it got to thinking this may be a decent "solution" for gliders and other non electrical system users of the NAS. This ADS-B thing has really gotten idiotic.

Peter

[Darryl Ramm]

Introducing TABS/TSO-C199 approved devices to the market now does make sense. I did not meant to sound like it did not. It's possible for manufactures to add that approval, at least the Class B GPS part, to other devices at relatively low cost Trig and others worked with the FAA on the development of TSO-C199 so it's natural to see them approve devices agains that standard as soon as they can. And makes all perfect sense, hopefully building for use under future regulations. In the case of the TN72 it also "meets perforamnce of TSO-C145c" so can be used in experimental aircraft today to meet the 2020 Compliance requirements--but because it is not actually TSO-C145c approved it can't be installed in certified aircraft. The TN72 being "TSO" but not "that-TSO" has unfortunately confused people.

This whole space may change if folks are able to pull off AML STCs that use non-TSO GPS sources... that potential and process around that is something I really don't currently understand.

As much as I have also been frustrated with the FAA and ADS-B, I think the folks there working on TSO-C199/TABS, and the vendors involved with that have tried to do/are working towards the right thing.

I would like to see TABS installation and carriage regulations at least for gliders and similar aircraft. OTOH, I would not be surprised if that is accompanied by loss of transponder or the 2020 ADS-B Out exemptions and TABS used as an alternate means of compliance.

The recent fatal mid-air collision in the UK is a terribly sad reminder of dangers here.

Darryl


On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:50 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work.. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.
> >
> > No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.
> >
> > uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > Hi Renny
> > > >
> > > > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> > > >
> > > > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> > > >
> > > > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > > > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> > > >
> > > > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> > > >
> > > > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> > > >
> > > > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> > > >
> > > > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> > > >
> > > > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> > > >
> > > > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> > > >
> > > > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Darryl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny
> > >
> > > Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.
> > >
> > > Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?
> > >
> > > Peter
>
> Thanks for the updates. I really wish the FAA could actually summarize their own BS like you do for us. I have consistently gotten better info out of you than the FAA itself.
>
> So back to TABS/TSO-C199. Why even introduce this stuff if there is nothing in the regs for installation/use? When it first came out, it got to thinking this may be a decent "solution" for gliders and other non electrical system users of the NAS. This ADS-B thing has really gotten idiotic.
>
> Peter

[vontresc]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Introducing TABS/TSO-C199 approved devices to the market now does make sense. I did not meant to sound like it did not. It's possible for manufactures to add that approval, at least the Class B GPS part, to other devices at relatively low cost Trig and others worked with the FAA on the development of TSO-C199 so it's natural to see them approve devices agains that standard as soon as they can. And makes all perfect sense, hopefully building for use under future regulations. In the case of the TN72 it also "meets perforamnce of TSO-C145c" so can be used in experimental aircraft today to meet the 2020 Compliance requirements--but because it is not actually TSO-C145c approved it can't be installed in certified aircraft. The TN72 being "TSO" but not "that-TSO" has unfortunately confused people.
>
> This whole space may change if folks are able to pull off AML STCs that use non-TSO GPS sources... that potential and process around that is something I really don't currently understand.
>
> As much as I have also been frustrated with the FAA and ADS-B, I think the folks there working on TSO-C199/TABS, and the vendors involved with that have tried to do/are working towards the right thing.
>
> I would like to see TABS installation and carriage regulations at least for gliders and similar aircraft. OTOH, I would not be surprised if that is accompanied by loss of transponder or the 2020 ADS-B Out exemptions and TABS used as an alternate means of compliance.
>
> The recent fatal mid-air collision in the UK is a terribly sad reminder of dangers here.
>
> Darryl
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:50 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.
> > >
> > > No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support.. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.
> > >
> > > uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > Hi Renny
> > > > >
> > > > > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > > > > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> > > > >
> > > > > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----
> > > > >
> > > > > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> > > > >
> > > > > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Darryl
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny
> > > >
> > > > Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.
> > > >
> > > > Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> >
> > Thanks for the updates. I really wish the FAA could actually summarize their own BS like you do for us. I have consistently gotten better info out of you than the FAA itself.
> >
> > So back to TABS/TSO-C199. Why even introduce this stuff if there is nothing in the regs for installation/use? When it first came out, it got to thinking this may be a decent "solution" for gliders and other non electrical system users of the NAS. This ADS-B thing has really gotten idiotic.
> >
> > Peter

I for one would love to have something in my Libelle. Thankfully it is Exp, so I may be able to do one of the lower cost options. Even then I am still looking at $1500-$2000. This shouldn't be so damned expensive...

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 2:50:10 PM UTC-6, vontresc wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Introducing TABS/TSO-C199 approved devices to the market now does make sense. I did not meant to sound like it did not. It's possible for manufactures to add that approval, at least the Class B GPS part, to other devices at relatively low cost Trig and others worked with the FAA on the development of TSO-C199 so it's natural to see them approve devices agains that standard as soon as they can. And makes all perfect sense, hopefully building for use under future regulations. In the case of the TN72 it also "meets perforamnce of TSO-C145c" so can be used in experimental aircraft today to meet the 2020 Compliance requirements--but because it is not actually TSO-C145c approved it can't be installed in certified aircraft. The TN72 being "TSO" but not "that-TSO" has unfortunately confused people.
> >
> > This whole space may change if folks are able to pull off AML STCs that use non-TSO GPS sources... that potential and process around that is something I really don't currently understand.
> >
> > As much as I have also been frustrated with the FAA and ADS-B, I think the folks there working on TSO-C199/TABS, and the vendors involved with that have tried to do/are working towards the right thing.
> >
> > I would like to see TABS installation and carriage regulations at least for gliders and similar aircraft. OTOH, I would not be surprised if that is accompanied by loss of transponder or the 2020 ADS-B Out exemptions and TABS used as an alternate means of compliance.
> >
> > The recent fatal mid-air collision in the UK is a terribly sad reminder of dangers here.
> >
> > Darryl
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:50 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.
> > > >
> > > > No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.
> > > >
> > > > uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Renny
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft.. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > > > > > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder.. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Darryl
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny
> > > > >
> > > > > Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > >
> > > Thanks for the updates. I really wish the FAA could actually summarize their own BS like you do for us. I have consistently gotten better info out of you than the FAA itself.
> > >
> > > So back to TABS/TSO-C199. Why even introduce this stuff if there is nothing in the regs for installation/use? When it first came out, it got to thinking this may be a decent "solution" for gliders and other non electrical system users of the NAS. This ADS-B thing has really gotten idiotic.
> > >
> > > Peter
>
> I for one would love to have something in my Libelle. Thankfully it is Exp, so I may be able to do one of the lower cost options. Even then I am still looking at $1500-$2000. This shouldn't be so damned expensive...

One word, Peter: PowerFlarm (after you install a transponder). I see all the ADS-B 1090 reporting traffic going into Chicago B airspace, plus C and S transponders plus many other gliders.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:10:35 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Introducing TABS/TSO-C199 approved devices to the market now does make sense. I did not meant to sound like it did not. It's possible for manufactures to add that approval, at least the Class B GPS part, to other devices at relatively low cost Trig and others worked with the FAA on the development of TSO-C199 so it's natural to see them approve devices agains that standard as soon as they can. And makes all perfect sense, hopefully building for use under future regulations. In the case of the TN72 it also "meets perforamnce of TSO-C145c" so can be used in experimental aircraft today to meet the 2020 Compliance requirements--but because it is not actually TSO-C145c approved it can't be installed in certified aircraft. The TN72 being "TSO" but not "that-TSO" has unfortunately confused people.
>
> This whole space may change if folks are able to pull off AML STCs that use non-TSO GPS sources... that potential and process around that is something I really don't currently understand.
>
> As much as I have also been frustrated with the FAA and ADS-B, I think the folks there working on TSO-C199/TABS, and the vendors involved with that have tried to do/are working towards the right thing.
>
> I would like to see TABS installation and carriage regulations at least for gliders and similar aircraft. OTOH, I would not be surprised if that is accompanied by loss of transponder or the 2020 ADS-B Out exemptions and TABS used as an alternate means of compliance.
>
> The recent fatal mid-air collision in the UK is a terribly sad reminder of dangers here.
>
> Darryl
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:50 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.
> > >
> > > No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support.. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.
> > >
> > > uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > Hi Renny
> > > > >
> > > > > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > > > > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> > > > >
> > > > > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----
> > > > >
> > > > > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> > > > >
> > > > > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Darryl
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny
> > > >
> > > > Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.
> > > >
> > > > Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> >
> > Thanks for the updates. I really wish the FAA could actually summarize their own BS like you do for us. I have consistently gotten better info out of you than the FAA itself.
> >
> > So back to TABS/TSO-C199. Why even introduce this stuff if there is nothing in the regs for installation/use? When it first came out, it got to thinking this may be a decent "solution" for gliders and other non electrical system users of the NAS. This ADS-B thing has really gotten idiotic.
> >
> > Peter

This message just came in from Trig this morning based on an inquiry I recently made about the potential use of a TT21 and the new TN72 in an "experimental" glider. It seems like pretty good news to me...
Thx - Renny

"Dear Renny,

Thank you for your interest in our TN72 GPS receiver.

The TN72 is compatible with your TT21 transponder and is an ideal choice for your glider.
TABS exists to allow exempt aircraft like yours to participate in ADS-B.
Your TT21 transponder exceeds the technical requirements of TABS and so does not require upgrading.

The TN72 will be shipping in early 2017 and will be available through all Trig dealers.

If you need any more help with this, then please don’t hesitate to ask."

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

This is somewhat misleading. PowerFlarm doesn't actually let you "see" mode C and S transponders. It warns you if a transponder equipped aircraft is in your vicinity. It tells you the altitude and an approximate range, but you have absolutely no idea if the aircraft is in front of you, behind, you etc.

If the PowerFlarm guys had bothered to implement TIS-B, it would be be able to tell you exactly where the transponder equipped aircraft is. Similarly, you get absolutely no visibility for UAT equipped aircraft or drones.

This may be an acceptable product for Europe, but definitely a half baked solution for the US market.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:28:17 AM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> This is somewhat misleading. PowerFlarm doesn't actually let you "see" mode C and S transponders. It warns you if a transponder equipped aircraft is in your vicinity. It tells you the altitude and an approximate range, but you have absolutely no idea if the aircraft is in front of you, behind, you etc.
>
> If the PowerFlarm guys had bothered to implement TIS-B, it would be be able to tell you exactly where the transponder equipped aircraft is. Similarly, you get absolutely no visibility for UAT equipped aircraft or drones.
>
> This may be an acceptable product for Europe, but definitely a half baked solution for the US market.

I can direct the 'misleading' label right back at you, Mike. You failed to mention that the transponder traffic I'm talking about is only visible if it also is equipped with an ADS-B out system. With just a transponder heading for you, you see bumpkes on your ADS-in screen.
But as long as you can bad-mouth PFlarm, what does it matter?
Herb

[vontresc]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 9:42:09 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 2:50:10 PM UTC-6, vontresc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > Introducing TABS/TSO-C199 approved devices to the market now does make sense. I did not meant to sound like it did not. It's possible for manufactures to add that approval, at least the Class B GPS part, to other devices at relatively low cost Trig and others worked with the FAA on the development of TSO-C199 so it's natural to see them approve devices agains that standard as soon as they can. And makes all perfect sense, hopefully building for use under future regulations. In the case of the TN72 it also "meets perforamnce of TSO-C145c" so can be used in experimental aircraft today to meet the 2020 Compliance requirements--but because it is not actually TSO-C145c approved it can't be installed in certified aircraft. The TN72 being "TSO" but not "that-TSO" has unfortunately confused people.
> > >
> > > This whole space may change if folks are able to pull off AML STCs that use non-TSO GPS sources... that potential and process around that is something I really don't currently understand.
> > >
> > > As much as I have also been frustrated with the FAA and ADS-B, I think the folks there working on TSO-C199/TABS, and the vendors involved with that have tried to do/are working towards the right thing.
> > >
> > > I would like to see TABS installation and carriage regulations at least for gliders and similar aircraft. OTOH, I would not be surprised if that is accompanied by loss of transponder or the 2020 ADS-B Out exemptions and TABS used as an alternate means of compliance.
> > >
> > > The recent fatal mid-air collision in the UK is a terribly sad reminder of dangers here.
> > >
> > > Darryl
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:50 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > There are no TABS/TSO-C199 installation or use regulations in the USA so TSO-C199 products being introduced into the market are not that intersting. A Trig TT-21 or TT-22 will meet TABS Class A device requirements since they are effectively meet the TSO requirement in being full Mode-S transponders. But again we need to see actual regulations to see how stuff will work. The Trig TN72 *is* a TSO-C199 Class B (e.g. GPS) device. But again that TSO is not the same as having a TSO-C166b (1090ES Out) and give you no 2020 Mandate compliance in any aircraft. Neither can you actually install in in any certified aircraft. If you have an experimental glider and want to play with ADS-B Out in the USA then the Trig TT-22 and TN72 looks like the way to go right now.
> > > > >
> > > > > No the UK EC program is not the same as TABS. TABS Class A devices (the Class B part is just the GPS) both feature a reduced functionality Mode-S transponder and 1090ES Out. And are compatible with both TCAS and the FAA ADS-B system, including being enough to get client services for TIS-B and ADS-R (which yes PowerFLARM can't receive anyhow). The uAvionix Skylym Echo ATT-20B is 1090ES Out and In only with no basic Mode-S transponder support. So not TCAS RA compatibility and unclear if its enough to trigger FAA based ADS-B ground services. Lack of TCAS compatibility is a dangerous shortcoming when worrying about flight near busy airspace. It's also not possible to add that uAvionix device to an aircraft with a separate transponder (they could interfere with each other). I expect/hope the FAA focus in on TABS regulations in the USA.
> > > > >
> > > > > uAvionix have a problem with how they dribble bull**** like: "Worlds first approved ADS-B Out Solution" ah right, if you ignore all the other ADS-B Out systems from all those other manufacturers. It's hard to take them seriously when they do stuff like that, and they have a history of such silliness.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:54:24 AM UTC-8, vontresc wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Renny
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Great question. Here is a long-winded way of saying I don't know the answer :-) But maybe it recaps some useful stuff.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't see how it could be "illegal" there is no law or regulation I'm aware of saying you can't do this in an experimental aircraft. What exact ground services you would receive, wether its a good idea or would upset folks, etc. I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For completeness let me just mention the relevant 1090ES part of the ADS-B carriage regulations here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 14 CFR 91.225 requires 1090ES Out TSO-C166b Class A1, A1S, A2, A3, B1S, or B1 devices, or "meets performance of" for experimental aircraft. And yes the "Class" spec includes power output but also other stuff, For example Class A devices are ADS-B Out and In (think transport category aircraft), Class B devices are ADS-B Out only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Trig TT-22 is TSO-C166b Class B1S device
> > > > > > > The Trig TT-21 is TSO-C166b Class B0 device -- so does not meet the requirement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Requiring higher-power 1090ES Out devices allowed the FAA to save money by requiring fewer ADS-B ground stations. My understanding was Trig was surprised by this FAA requirement that came into effect after they were already selling the TT-21 in the USA.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And none of this changes any usefulness of the TT-21 as a plain transponder before or after 2020. If you are flying with a Trig TT-21 transponder in a glider today, you already have a fantastic device for providing traffic information about your glider to ATC SSR and TCAS and PCAS systems and via TIS-B to suitably equipped aircraft. Obviously some of those things only work when within appropriate service coverage... but TCAS is great technology or last resort in part because it works *everywhere*. And none of that goes away in 2020.... but some ATC SSR is expected to be decommissioned in the longer term.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you can today use a TT-22 but not a TT-21 to meet the FAA 2020 ADS-B Out carriage requirements, but as you point out gliders are currently exempt from most of those requirements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For an experimental aircraft, you can in principle connect up any GPS source to an ADS-B out system as long as you correctly configure the GPS source to reflect it's quality parameters like SIL. Transmitting lies about the GPS data or it's quality is just stupid and is really going to **** off the FAA and may earn you a visit from some feds. Lets see if anything is left of NavWorx after the FAA finishes chewing on them for their apparent decision to transmitting false GPS SIL etc. data. This is where you absolutely should not be guessing or messing around. Make sure you work with manufacturers instructions for doing that, and if in doubt check with them (start with the transponder manufacture).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't recall that the ADS-B device class being transmitted in any ADS-B extended squitter messages. There may be some ways to reverse engineer this is you are also interrogating the underlying mode S transponder. I'd have to dig though too much stuff now to check. I have no idea if the FAA ADS-B ground infrastructure would transmit TIS-B or ADS-R for client aircraft if it knew that a 1090ES device was "under-spec" at Class B0. I suspect they might not care/look at that, they certainly do care/look at the GPS source spec data (like SIL) and that is clearly transmitted. This would be interesting to ask FAA folks about...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And just playing with this is certainly not what I'd do. I'd be talking to Trig and local FSDO folks to make sure they are all OK with this any "experimenting". A TT-21 with a TN71 is really an early version of a TABS device, so asking the right questions might help find Trig and FAA folks interested in working with anybody who wanted to play with this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's certainly my hope that *if* gliders lose their ADS-B Out exemption that TABS regulations are introduced that would hopefully help provide a lower-cost/easier to install etc. method of compliance. Of course I'd also like to see TABS regulations introduced even if the ADS-B Out exemption was not removed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The folks at Trig have been very helpful every contact I've had with them, and they are a great place to start asking with these questions if you own a TT-21 today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Darryl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-8, glidergreg wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I spent a day at Oshkosh last Monday and had a chance to talk to Trig about their ADS-B plans.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The Trig TT22 Mode S Transponder is currently shipping and supports 1090ES ADS-B Out, if it is connected to an approved WAAS GPS position source. Up to now, approved GPS sources have been quite expensive.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The good news is that around Christmas, Trig is going to start shipping their new, as yet unannounced, TN72 GPS position source. I had a chance to see a prototype. It easily fits in the palm of your hand, weighs about 100 grams, and uses minimal power. While Trig wouldn't commit to a price, the people I talked to said that the unit would sell for less than $600.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Couple this with an ADS-B receiver ($500 - $850), an iPhone, iPad, or Android device, and a low cost app like Foreflight, etc., and you will have a full blown collision avoidance system that will accurately display and warn you about all other ADS-B and/or Transponder equipped aircraft in your vicinity. In addition you will be visible to all TCAS equipped commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Trig indicated that their distributors have significant discounts available of groups and clubs that organize a volume purchase.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is a great solution for glider pilots who fly near metropolitan airports and are mainly concerned about collision threats with other GA or commercial aircraft.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Get your checkbooks ready.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You may me correct on this, the TN72 looks like it will require an antenna and a brief search of TSO-C190 antenna much like the one used on the TN70 are upwards of $300.00 and more. Ironically I don't think the TN72 is TSOed but the antenna may well need to be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The TN72 at it exists today cannot be installed in any certified aircraft including certified gliders. Since it's an experimental market focused product I'm not sure why you are talking about TSO antennas. Having an actual TSO GPS antenna is not a requirement there.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A TN72 can be installed as an ADS-B Out GPS source in an experimental glider, and since it's a "meets performance of TSO-C145c" device it absolutely will trigger TIS-B and ADS-R ground services. But few glider will likely be equipped to receive that data (a PowerFLARM receives 1090ES direct only, it does not receive ADS-R, TIS-B or FIS-B). Trig are good guys they damn well would not sell a product in the experimental market that did not do that correctly (Uh unlike some other folks).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That the TN72 is TSO-C199 certified is irrelevant to any use today since there are no TSO-C199 related use or installation regulations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What will happen moving forward is intersting. And may change here as TSO-C199 related regulations appear and if (unrelated) ADS-B installation STCs are developed by folks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For people with a Trig TT-22 in an experimental glider who want to play with ADS-B out the TN72 is good news. It would be great to hear about them being installed and used.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As Andez says all this has been well discussed before, including in posts earlier n this very thread.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Darryl - I much appreciate all of the info you provide on this issue. Quick question....In a glider with an experimental airworthiness certificate, it seems one can now install a Trig TN72, but would it actually be "illegal" (if that is the proper term) to link it up to a Trig TT-21? I know that the TT-22 is a Class I transponder and it has the 250 watt power requirement and meets the ADS-B transponder requirements, but in an experimental glider is there any way the TT-21 could still legally be used (especially since gliders are actually exempt from the ADS-B requirement in 2020)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your excellent help - Renny
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Darryl, have you seen any new developments from Trig about their TABS solution? They have been pretty quiet about it recently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also looks like uAvionix got one of their devices approved in the UK as an EC device. Is that similar to the TABS TSO here in the US?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the updates. I really wish the FAA could actually summarize their own BS like you do for us. I have consistently gotten better info out of you than the FAA itself.
> > > >
> > > > So back to TABS/TSO-C199. Why even introduce this stuff if there is nothing in the regs for installation/use? When it first came out, it got to thinking this may be a decent "solution" for gliders and other non electrical system users of the NAS. This ADS-B thing has really gotten idiotic.
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> >
> > I for one would love to have something in my Libelle. Thankfully it is Exp, so I may be able to do one of the lower cost options. Even then I am still looking at $1500-$2000. This shouldn't be so damned expensive...
>
> One word, Peter: PowerFlarm (after you install a transponder). I see all the ADS-B 1090 reporting traffic going into Chicago B airspace, plus C and S transponders plus many other gliders.

By the time i get the transponder and powerflarm installed you are talking 30-40% of the price I paid for the Libelle... ;-(

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:28:17 AM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> This is somewhat misleading. PowerFlarm doesn't actually let you "see" mode C and S transponders. It warns you if a transponder equipped aircraft is in your vicinity. It tells you the altitude and an approximate range, but you have absolutely no idea if the aircraft is in front of you, behind, you etc.
>
> If the PowerFlarm guys had bothered to implement TIS-B, it would be be able to tell you exactly where the transponder equipped aircraft is. Similarly, you get absolutely no visibility for UAT equipped aircraft or drones.
>
> This may be an acceptable product for Europe, but definitely a half baked solution for the US market.

Again, Mike, please describe for us a practical ADS-B OUT/IN setup that you can buy today, and install it in a glider, that provides the same situational awareness that a PowerFLARM does.

Crickets....as expected.

My PowerFLARM, for the last 3 years, has provided me with ALL the nearby Mode-S ES ADS-B traffic, as well as approximate distance and relative altitude (critical, that) of ALL transponder equipped aircraft. Still does. And it displays that data on it's own BF display as well as on my Oudie and SN10.. Oh and it shows other FLARM equipped gliders!

ADS-B is GREAT for powered aircraft that need it. It could have been great for gliders too, if it had cost $500 for a VFR-only portable system. Instead, it's become a fancy required toy for motor heads, and gliders will continue to fly around blind (in the US at least).

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:42:34 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:28:17 AM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > This is somewhat misleading. PowerFlarm doesn't actually let you "see" mode C and S transponders. It warns you if a transponder equipped aircraft is in your vicinity. It tells you the altitude and an approximate range, but you have absolutely no idea if the aircraft is in front of you, behind, you etc.
> >
> > If the PowerFlarm guys had bothered to implement TIS-B, it would be be able to tell you exactly where the transponder equipped aircraft is. Similarly, you get absolutely no visibility for UAT equipped aircraft or drones.
> >
> > This may be an acceptable product for Europe, but definitely a half baked solution for the US market.
>
> Again, Mike, please describe for us a practical ADS-B OUT/IN setup that you can buy today, and install it in a glider, that provides the same situational awareness that a PowerFLARM does.
>
> Crickets....as expected.
>
> My PowerFLARM, for the last 3 years, has provided me with ALL the nearby Mode-S ES ADS-B traffic, as well as approximate distance and relative altitude (critical, that) of ALL transponder equipped aircraft. Still does. And it displays that data on it's own BF display as well as on my Oudie and SN10. Oh and it shows other FLARM equipped gliders!
>
> ADS-B is GREAT for powered aircraft that need it. It could have been great for gliders too, if it had cost $500 for a VFR-only portable system. Instead, it's become a fancy required toy for motor heads, and gliders will continue to fly around blind (in the US at least).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk, your PowerFlarm does not even come close to traffic awareness ADS-B out/in installation provides. Before I installed ADS-B Out/In, I was in situations, e.g. in a thermal, when I got a warning from PowerFlarm about another aircraft a mile away at my altitude. How do you find that aircraft? You only see part of the sky and not for too long, plus it might be coming from the sunny side. One 360 turn takes 20 seconds and if you miss the other aircraft it may take considerable amount of time before you see that part of the sky again. Flying with PowerFlarm in areas with considerable power traffic is simply stressful.

TIS-B service gives me total situation awareness. I know exactly where the other transponder equipped traffic is as well as his direction of travel and speed.

I still have PowerFlarm to see other gliders, but saying that PowerFlarm is better than ADS-B out/in is a stretch.

You might not be able to install it in a certified glider but you can sure install it now in any experimental glider.

Also why would you want ADS-B system to cost $500 when PowerFlarm costs around $1,500? You are not being fair.

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:22:00 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> Kirk, your PowerFlarm does not even come close to traffic awareness ADS-B out/in installation provides. Before I installed ADS-B Out/In, I was in situations, e.g. in a thermal, when I got a warning from PowerFlarm about another aircraft a mile away at my altitude. How do you find that aircraft? You only see part of the sky and not for too long, plus it might be coming from the sunny side. One 360 turn takes 20 seconds and if you miss the other aircraft it may take considerable amount of time before you see that part of the sky again. Flying with PowerFlarm in areas with considerable power traffic is simply stressful.
>
> TIS-B service gives me total situation awareness. I know exactly where the other transponder equipped traffic is as well as his direction of travel and speed.
>
> I still have PowerFlarm to see other gliders, but saying that PowerFlarm is better than ADS-B out/in is a stretch.
>
> You might not be able to install it in a certified glider but you can sure install it now in any experimental glider.
>
> Also why would you want ADS-B system to cost $500 when PowerFlarm costs around $1,500? You are not being fair.

Andrej, I completely understand the limitations of PF vs ADS-B - but something that is available is better that something that isn't. What is your setup? How much? Is it likely that other glider owners will equip?

There is no technological reason why a VFR only ADS-B system should cost more than $500, IT THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE UNIVERSAL TRAFFIC AWARENESS. But ADS-B is about replacing SSR radars - not freebie traffic info for the small guys.

Hey, it's great that you have a working ADS-B system in you glider. In my club, we have 2 transponders, 2 PFs, and nothing else - out of around 20 gliders on the field. So ADS-B is a TOTAL FAIL in our environment.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:50:26 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:22:00 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> >
> > Kirk, your PowerFlarm does not even come close to traffic awareness ADS-B out/in installation provides. Before I installed ADS-B Out/In, I was in situations, e.g. in a thermal, when I got a warning from PowerFlarm about another aircraft a mile away at my altitude. How do you find that aircraft? You only see part of the sky and not for too long, plus it might be coming from the sunny side. One 360 turn takes 20 seconds and if you miss the other aircraft it may take considerable amount of time before you see that part of the sky again. Flying with PowerFlarm in areas with considerable power traffic is simply stressful.
> >
> > TIS-B service gives me total situation awareness. I know exactly where the other transponder equipped traffic is as well as his direction of travel and speed.
> >
> > I still have PowerFlarm to see other gliders, but saying that PowerFlarm is better than ADS-B out/in is a stretch.
> >
> > You might not be able to install it in a certified glider but you can sure install it now in any experimental glider.
> >
> > Also why would you want ADS-B system to cost $500 when PowerFlarm costs around $1,500? You are not being fair.
>
> Andrej, I completely understand the limitations of PF vs ADS-B - but something that is available is better that something that isn't. What is your setup? How much? Is it likely that other glider owners will equip?
>
> There is no technological reason why a VFR only ADS-B system should cost more than $500, IT THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE UNIVERSAL TRAFFIC AWARENESS. But ADS-B is about replacing SSR radars - not freebie traffic info for the small guys.
>
> Hey, it's great that you have a working ADS-B system in you glider. In my club, we have 2 transponders, 2 PFs, and nothing else - out of around 20 gliders on the field. So ADS-B is a TOTAL FAIL in our environment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk, you are flying an experimental glider so you can install ADS-B out now. You can install a reasonably priced system today. I started with a very expensive position sensor, but moved to Garmin 20A that works very well in a glider, the cost $845 plus antenna. This position sensor works with Trig 22 transponder. If I had a choice between a transponder and PowerFlarm I would always pick a transponder. Anyway, the cost is not huge. My ADS-B in is a dual band Stratus 2s paired to ForeFlight.

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:41:58 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

> Kirk, you are flying an experimental glider so you can install ADS-B out now. You can install a reasonably priced system today. I started with a very expensive position sensor, but moved to Garmin 20A that works very well in a glider, the cost $845 plus antenna. This position sensor works with Trig 22 transponder. If I had a choice between a transponder and PowerFlarm I would always pick a transponder. Anyway, the cost is not huge. My ADS-B in is a dual band Stratus 2s paired to ForeFlight.

Andrej, I have to disagree with you on priorities. Given the choice between a transponder and PF, I chose PF. Meets my current needs better. If I was still flying out west, I would probably find a way to squeeze a Trig into my panel.

What do you fly and how do you display your ADS-B in? In my LS6 I really don't have room for another display - and having a ipad mini strapped to my leg is less than ideal.

And again, cost wise, you are talking TT22 ($2600?) plus GPS ($845) plus dual band Stratus ($900) plus iPad ($500) plus Foreflight ($100). Thats damn near $5000 BEFORE installation.

Thanks, I'll stick to my PF (which cost me about $1100) and do clearing turns when the PCAS function alerts me to a transponder threat co-altitude.

Kirk
66

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 6:20:27 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:41:58 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> > Kirk, you are flying an experimental glider so you can install ADS-B out now. You can install a reasonably priced system today. I started with a very expensive position sensor, but moved to Garmin 20A that works very well in a glider, the cost $845 plus antenna. This position sensor works with Trig 22 transponder. If I had a choice between a transponder and PowerFlarm I would always pick a transponder. Anyway, the cost is not huge. My ADS-B in is a dual band Stratus 2s paired to ForeFlight.
>
> Andrej, I have to disagree with you on priorities. Given the choice between a transponder and PF, I chose PF. Meets my current needs better. If I was still flying out west, I would probably find a way to squeeze a Trig into my panel.
>
> What do you fly and how do you display your ADS-B in? In my LS6 I really don't have room for another display - and having a ipad mini strapped to my leg is less than ideal.
>
> And again, cost wise, you are talking TT22 ($2600?) plus GPS ($845) plus dual band Stratus ($900) plus iPad ($500) plus Foreflight ($100). Thats damn near $5000 BEFORE installation.
>
> Thanks, I'll stick to my PF (which cost me about $1100) and do clearing turns when the PCAS function alerts me to a transponder threat co-altitude.
>
> Kirk
> 66

ForeFlight runs on iPhone. I can't fit anything else in my panel either and I have a regular glider cockpit so no space for anything else.

[Dan Marotta]

Kirk,

I agree with most of what you say, however the PCAS (only) equipped
gliders in your area will not see you unless you have a transponder. I
also noted to my great satisfaction that, after installing a
transponder, I didn't see other aircraft up close any more, except for
that one guy who had a flarm only. Neither ATC nor I ever saw him
(except visually).

Dan

On 12/9/2016 4:20 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:41:58 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
>> Kirk, you are flying an experimental glider so you can install ADS-B out now. You can install a reasonably priced system today. I started with a very expensive position sensor, but moved to Garmin 20A that works very well in a glider, the cost $845 plus antenna. This position sensor works with Trig 22 transponder. If I had a choice between a transponder and PowerFlarm I would always pick a transponder. Anyway, the cost is not huge. My ADS-B in is a dual band Stratus 2s paired to ForeFlight.
> Andrej, I have to disagree with you on priorities. Given the choice between a transponder and PF, I chose PF. Meets my current needs better. If I was still flying out west, I would probably find a way to squeeze a Trig into my panel.
>
> What do you fly and how do you display your ADS-B in? In my LS6 I really don't have room for another display - and having a ipad mini strapped to my leg is less than ideal.
>
> And again, cost wise, you are talking TT22 ($2600?) plus GPS ($845) plus dual band Stratus ($900) plus iPad ($500) plus Foreflight ($100). Thats damn near $5000 BEFORE installation.
>
> Thanks, I'll stick to my PF (which cost me about $1100) and do clearing turns when the PCAS function alerts me to a transponder threat co-altitude.
>
> Kirk
> 66

--
Dan, 5J

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 5:35:10 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Kirk,
>
> I agree with most of what you say, however the PCAS (only) equipped
> gliders in your area will not see you unless you have a transponder. I
> also noted to my great satisfaction that, after installing a
> transponder, I didn't see other aircraft up close any more, except for
> that one guy who had a flarm only. Neither ATC nor I ever saw him
> (except visually).
>
> Dan
>

Not a problem for me, since the ONLY other glider with a transponder also has PowerFLARM. We see each other fine!

Chances of the other gliders equipping with $5000 worth of ADS-B?

Not bloody likely! Well, one new glider might...

Chance of more PF installs, for just under $2K? Maybe...

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

Not talking about the other glider at your club, nor am I talking about
ADS-B (despite the subject line). I'm talking about Joe Farmer bopping
along in his 172 and staring at his new-fangled GPS. Remember that guy
that got run over by an F-16 a few months back...? Now admittedly, you
wouldn't expect either of them to have FLARM (in this country), and
ATC's warnings didn't convey the urgency to the F-16 pilot.

I recall leading a visitor to Colorado on a flight southwest from Black
Forest back in the 90s when an A-7 blasted by on our left about the time
we were crossing Pike's Peak. I told him to watch out as they didn't
travel alone. The other one went by on our right. That wouldn't have
happened if either one of us had had a transponder but it /_would_/ have
happened nonetheless even had both of us been FLARM equipped.

Just sayin'

On 12/9/2016 8:02 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 5:35:10 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Kirk,
>>
>> I agree with most of what you say, however the PCAS (only) equipped
>> gliders in your area will not see you unless you have a transponder. I
>> also noted to my great satisfaction that, after installing a
>> transponder, I didn't see other aircraft up close any more, except for
>> that one guy who had a flarm only. Neither ATC nor I ever saw him
>> (except visually).
>>
>> Dan
>>
> Not a problem for me, since the ONLY other glider with a transponder also has PowerFLARM. We see each other fine!
>
> Chances of the other gliders equipping with $5000 worth of ADS-B?
>
> Not bloody likely! Well, one new glider might...
>
> Chance of more PF installs, for just under $2K? Maybe...
>
> Kirk
> 66

--
Dan, 5J

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:21:25 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Not talking about the other glider at your club, nor am I talking
> about ADS-B (despite the subject line).Â* I'm talking about Joe
> Farmer bopping along in his 172 and staring at his new-fangled GPS.Â*
> Remember that guy that got run over by an F-16 a few months
> back...?Â* Now admittedly, you wouldn't expect either of them to have
> FLARM (in this country), and ATC's warnings didn't convey the
> urgency to the F-16 pilot.


Actually - your scenario is EXACTLY why I prefer PF (remember, it's basically FLARM plus PCAS plus ADS-B from 1090ES) to a transponder, in MY low alt environment. Joe Farmer VFR may be squawking 1200 and talking to nobody, and doesn't have ADS-B. I'll get a warning on PF (PCAS). Or, Joe Doctor is VFR in his Cirrus with fancy ADS-B (mode S). I'll see him on my PF.

Now, if I replace my PF with a nice TT-21 (for about the same price): Joe Farmer doesn't see me, and Joe Doctor might get me via TIS-B. I don't get ANY warning about EITHER of them.

I like my way better - because in the air, I don't trust ANYONE!

And sure, it would be nice to have a cheap simple ADS-B out...BUT RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!! Thank you FAA for completely blowing off the small guy.

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:21:25 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:

> I recall leading a visitor to Colorado on a flight southwest from
> Black Forest back in the 90s when an A-7 blasted by on our left
> about the time we were crossing Pike's Peak.Â* I told him to watch
> out as they didn't travel alone.Â* The other one went by on our
> right.Â* That wouldn't have happened if either one of us had had a
> transponder but it would have happened nonetheless
> even had both of us been FLARM equipped.

Wait, how would you having a transponder have prevented a VFR A-7 (not talking to center) from hitting you at low level? Unless A-7s had IFF interrogators, he wouldn't see you. When I used to fly low levels in F-4s the only way we knew about low level traffic was by using our radar and IFF interrogator - we were on a tactical freq and not talking to anyone.

But yes, if you fly where there is a lot of airline/bizjet traffic, a transponder is a REALLY GOOD THING TO HAVE, no argument there. I just disagree that in all environments it's more valuable than a PF.

Kirk

[Dan Marotta]

Starting another thread, Transponders and FLARM, so as not to pollute
this one any more. And I'm still interested in a low cost ADS-B.

Dan

On 12/10/2016 10:36 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:21:25 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Not talking about the other glider at your club, nor am I talking
>> about ADS-B (despite the subject line). I'm talking about Joe
>> Farmer bopping along in his 172 and staring at his new-fangled GPS.
>> Remember that guy that got run over by an F-16 a few months
>> back...? Now admittedly, you wouldn't expect either of them to have
>> FLARM (in this country), and ATC's warnings didn't convey the
>> urgency to the F-16 pilot.
>
> Actually - your scenario is EXACTLY why I prefer PF (remember, it's basically FLARM plus PCAS plus ADS-B from 1090ES) to a transponder, in MY low alt environment. Joe Farmer VFR may be squawking 1200 and talking to nobody, and doesn't have ADS-B. I'll get a warning on PF (PCAS). Or, Joe Doctor is VFR in his Cirrus with fancy ADS-B (mode S). I'll see him on my PF.
>
> Now, if I replace my PF with a nice TT-21 (for about the same price): Joe Farmer doesn't see me, and Joe Doctor might get me via TIS-B. I don't get ANY warning about EITHER of them.
>
> I like my way better - because in the air, I don't trust ANYONE!
>
> And sure, it would be nice to have a cheap simple ADS-B out...BUT RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!! Thank you FAA for completely blowing off the small guy.
>
> Kirk
> 66

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I'm all for cheap but I think of the glider as pretty much a stationary
target for a fast mover. Sure, you'll see the other-equipped aircraft,
but he won't see you, mainly because he's got his head inside the
cockpit (or somewhere else...).

Time for another "There I Was" story... I was climbing over Black
Forest at around 12,000' MSL, directly on a line between Colorado
Springs and Denver International. Looking south, I saw a speck in the
distance. Following 360 degrees of turn, I saw the 767 banking sharply
to avoid me. Had I had a transponder, they would have seen me. At the
time, neither PCAS nor FLARM were on the market. Glad the copilot was
looking outside!

I'm not bashing FLARM but I only bought mine because of a smoking good
deal on it. Now that I have it, I like it but I still think that, if
you can only afford one thing, the transponder is the way to go.

Yesterday, returning from my wave flight and passing over Moriarty to
add miles to my triangle, I got an ADS-B hit on my PF portable. It was
2,500' below me at 12 o'clock. Counting on my fingers, I calculated he
was at 12,000' MSL crossing over home plate. Must be IFR, must be an
airliner, turn a few degrees to the right and look down and there he
is! Had I been lower, and had I not had a transponder, it could have
been a completely different story.

On 12/10/2016 10:36 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:21:25 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Not talking about the other glider at your club, nor am I talking
>> about ADS-B (despite the subject line). I'm talking about Joe
>> Farmer bopping along in his 172 and staring at his new-fangled GPS.
>> Remember that guy that got run over by an F-16 a few months
>> back...? Now admittedly, you wouldn't expect either of them to have
>> FLARM (in this country), and ATC's warnings didn't convey the
>> urgency to the F-16 pilot.
> Actually - your scenario is EXACTLY why I prefer PF (remember, it's basically FLARM plus PCAS plus ADS-B from 1090ES) to a transponder, in MY low alt environment. Joe Farmer VFR may be squawking 1200 and talking to nobody, and doesn't have ADS-B. I'll get a warning on PF (PCAS). Or, Joe Doctor is VFR in his Cirrus with fancy ADS-B (mode S). I'll see him on my PF.
>
> Now, if I replace my PF with a nice TT-21 (for about the same price): Joe Farmer doesn't see me, and Joe Doctor might get me via TIS-B. I don't get ANY warning about EITHER of them.
>
> I like my way better - because in the air, I don't trust ANYONE!
>
> And sure, it would be nice to have a cheap simple ADS-B out...BUT RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!! Thank you FAA for completely blowing off the small guy.
>
> Kirk
> 66

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

Nope. Looks like you tried renaming the existing thread to "Transponders and FLARM" which is likely the worse thing to do and not what you intended.

On USENET/Google Groups you need to create a whole new thread, they are tracked by embedded IDs not the title.

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 7:54:59 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Starting another thread, Transponders and FLARM, so as not to pollute
> this one any more. And I'm still interested in a low cost ADS-B.
>
> Dan

[Dan Marotta]

Actually I started a new thread, Transponders and FLARM, maybe I
mistakenly used the "Followup" button rather than the "Write" button in
Thunderbird, gave it my new title, and copied/pasted Kirk's last reply.

My main point in continuing the discussion is that a non FLARM equipped
aircraft which has some other collision avoidance device, e.g., PCAS,
will not "see" a FLARM but no transponder aircraft. I have experienced
just that here at Moriarty. The other guy could see my transponder but
I could not see him (except visually).

Dan

On 12/11/2016 12:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Nope. Looks like you tried renaming the existing thread to "Transponders and FLARM" which is likely the worse thing to do and not what you intended.
>
> On USENET/Google Groups you need to create a whole new thread, they are tracked by embedded IDs not the title.
>
> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 7:54:59 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Starting another thread, Transponders and FLARM, so as not to pollute
>> this one any more. And I'm still interested in a low cost ADS-B.
>>
>> Dan

--
Dan, 5J

[son_of_flubber]

Can TABS (Experimental Glider + TT21 + TN72) be used legally above 10,000 MSL?

I surmise, 'Yes it can', because gliders are (for now) exempt from the 2020 ADS-B Mandate.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:58:11 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Can TABS (Experimental Glider + TT21 + TN72) be used legally above 10,000 MSL?
>
> I surmise, 'Yes it can', because gliders are (for now) exempt from the 2020 ADS-B Mandate.

'Yes it can' because gliders are (for now) exempt from the 2020 ADS-B Mandate. :-)

I'm also not clear why you are specifically worried about 10,000'.

But can you install TABS at all? In this case yes you can because its an experimental glider. You can't today AFAIK in a *certified* glider (because any ADS-B Out installation has to comply with the 2020 Mandate even if not required).

Any questions on the install I would ask a Trig dealer or go straight to Trig, they are usually very responsive.

And one corner case: There are still airspace areas where gliders are not exempt from ADS-B Out carriage and you cannot use TABS to meet those requirements.

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:42:14 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> I'm also not clear why you are specifically worried about 10,000'.

Because 'Class E 10,000-18,000' is the only airspace, where I plan to fly, where I would need the 'glider exemption' to legally use TABS.

https://generalaviationnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/AC_90-114.jpg

I'm narrowing my focus to the issues/regs that affect me. I'm not planning on flying in airspace where a glider would be be required to have something more than TABS.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:09:53 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:42:14 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > I'm also not clear why you are specifically worried about 10,000'.
>
> Because 'Class E 10,000-18,000' is the only airspace, where I plan to fly, where I would need the 'glider exemption' to legally use TABS.
>
> https://generalaviationnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/AC_90-114.jpg
>
> I'm narrowing my focus to the issues/regs that affect me. I'm not planning on flying in airspace where a glider would be be required to have something more than TABS.

I kinda see why you are asking but the exact things you are saying are not quite correct, and I don't want to argue semantics but I just want to be clear about there are just no carriage/use regulations that control this use of TABS devices.

As you know, your glider is not required to have ADS-B Out because of the glider exemption. If you however voluntarily decide to install a TABS device in the glider there is nothing that kicks in for you at 10,000. Just nothing relevant at all about 10,000'. In fact there is no regulation that exists at all concerning TABS installation, carriage or use, and certainly nothing magic about 10,000' once you voluntarily decide to install that TABS device. And in no situation does a TABS device meet any of the 2020 mandate requirements, not for non-exempt aircraft, or dealing with those corner cases of exempt aircraft like gliders. All the magic of what TABS will do for you come from the TSO-C199 specs of the devices.

[son_of_flubber]

Okay. What threw me off was the Trig website where it says:

"The TN72 GPS receiver is a fully certified product (FAA TSO-C199) designed for voluntary equipage and use in areas OUTSIDE of designated or mandated ADS-B airspace."

I took that to mean that TABS could NOT be used INSIDE 'designated or mandated ADS-B airspace' and took the marketing statement as a distillation of applicable FAR. Class E airspace above 10,000 is INSIDE ADS-B airspace. (It is perfectly clear that TABS does not satisfy the ADS-B 2020 mandate.)

[Darryl Ramm]

I can see how that can be confusing. But Trig are talking about power aircraft that don't have an ADS-B exemption.