ADSB visibility with non certified GPS

[[email protected]]

The following quote comes from the Trig web page for their TN72 GPS.

"Wherever ADS-B technology is used it is worth highlighting that most ADS-B In traffic receivers will only display aircraft traffic that generate a non-zero quality indicator, (also referred to as SIL 1). In contrast a zero quality indicator (referred to as SIL 0) ADS-B Out, is ignored and not displayed on a traffic display – rendering an aircraft invisible."


Does anyone have any first hand experience/information on how common it is for those with ADSB out that report a zero "quality" indicator to be ignored? Is every ATC or airliner actively excluding these targets?


Separately, it's interesting to learn that while the TN72 can provide the higher "quality" GPS information, it appears that some (most?) ADSB-Out Mode S transponders don't have the ability report that they are getting "quality" GPS info. In this case, the TN72 (or equivalent) is a moot point and one would be just as visible (or invisible) with GPS from a Flarm or other generic GPS unit.

So, it would be interesting to know just how prevalent it is that non "quality" units are being ignored.

[WaltWX[_2_]]

You make a very good observation...

So, what's the point of using a TABS TN72 with a Trig system if no one can see it?

Daryl... do you have any insights on this?

[[email protected]]

Clarification...

Trig TN72 with Trig TT22 WILL be seen as having a non-zero quality indicator. (good)

Trig TN72 with Brand X Mode S/ADSB out, almost certainly has a zero quality indicator (not good).



On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:34:34 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> You make a very good observation...
>
> So, what's the point of using a TABS TN72 with a Trig system if no one can see it?
>
> Daryl... do you have any insights on this?

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:34:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Clarification...
>
> Trig TN72 with Trig TT22 WILL be seen as having a non-zero quality indicator. (good)
>
> Trig TN72 with Brand X Mode S/ADSB out, almost certainly has a zero quality indicator (not good).
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:34:34 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> > You make a very good observation...
> >
> > So, what's the point of using a TABS TN72 with a Trig system if no one can see it?
> >
> > Daryl... do you have any insights on this?

This has been discussed here many times over. The GPS source alone is not approved. It is the combination of the GPS and the mode S transponder that is approved. Please read up on the FAA website first about approved combinations, then search through this forum for additional information.

[[email protected]]

What hasn't been discussed is how often non-approved ADSB out sources are actually being ignored.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:23:14 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:34:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Clarification...
> >
> > Trig TN72 with Trig TT22 WILL be seen as having a non-zero quality indicator. (good)
> >
> > Trig TN72 with Brand X Mode S/ADSB out, almost certainly has a zero quality indicator (not good).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:34:34 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> > > You make a very good observation...
> > >
> > > So, what's the point of using a TABS TN72 with a Trig system if no one can see it?
> > >
> > > Daryl... do you have any insights on this?
>

Yes discussed many times over. But aw heck lets go over that and some other stuff again. Well because this stuff is better than dietary fiber...

> This has been discussed here many times over. The GPS source alone is not approved. It is the combination of the GPS and the mode S transponder that is approved. Please read up on the FAA website first about approved combinations, then search through this forum for additional information.

Well the GPS sources are approved in they may meet say meet TSO-C145 or TSO-C199 or "meets requirements of TSO-C145", or maybe meet none of those of a COTS GPS etc. and that stuff is important to understand.

Trig is correct in what they say. Certified ADS-B In receivers and the ADS-B ground infrastructure will ignore all ADS-B out systems using COTS GPS. Airliners, fast jets, etc. not receiving any of that crap. (that does not stop TCAS seeing the aircraft via transponder interrogation).

The Trig TT22 with 1090ES Out driven by a TN72 GPS source, all properly installed, will be seen by all aircraft with 1090ES In, both portable and certified/fixed install systems. It will also be seen by all aircraft with UAT In if within ADS-R service coverage. However you can only install a TN72 in an experimental aircraft. Certified aircraft, including gliders, requires you use a TN70 as all ADS-B Out installs in certified aircraft must meet 2020 compliance requirements (which effectively require an actual TSO'ed TSO-C145 GPS source in a certified aircraft, including glider).

An ADS-B Out 2020 complaint install (which sticking with Trig, requires a TN70 not a TN72 GPS source) will be seen by all aircraft. Wether that is with a TSO-C145 GPS source (for certified aircraft), or a "meets performance requirements of a TSO-C145 source (an option for experimental aircraft).... as long as they are all properly installed of course. trig foes not have a lower cost "non-TSO but meets performance requirements of TSO-C145 GPS source".

In an experimental aircraft not intended to fly where the 2020 carriage mandate applies (pop quiz: where do gliders need ADS-B out even with the carriage exemption? No it's not above 10.000') can install any GPS source as long as the ADS-B Out sets the correct quality parameters, and any old COTS GPS will require SIL=0 to be set which will guarantee that is ignored by aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. It will still be seen by many portable ASD-B receivers, and certainly will be seen by PowerFLARM 1090ES In (assuming we are talking 1090ES Out).

The Trig TN72 is a TABS/TSO-C199 device, it is not TSO-C145, you can not install it in any certified aircraft (including gliders) and you can't use it to meet 2020 Carriage mandate requirements, but you can install it in an experimental aircraft for use outside ADS-B Out required carriage areas (including for gliders anywhere the 2020 carriage exemption lets you fly without compliant ADS-B out)...

And if your experimental glider is so equipped with a TN72 GPS source driving a Trig TT22 and it's properly installed then it *will* paint your glider on certified ADS-B In systems, both via direct 1090ES and via ADS-R for UAT In equipped aircraft. The TT22 importantly also ensures TCAS II systems can issue a RA (resolution advisory) against the glider, a pure UAT Out systems with no transponder cannot and will not cause TCAS to issue an RA. UAT Out equipped aircraft are also never visible to PowerFLARM (they can trigger PCAS if also transponder equipped), so for that reason avoid UAT Out use in gliders and towplanes.

A properly configured TT22 and TN72 GPS source will also trigger ADS-B ground services for your aircraft when in range of ADS-B ground stations (which won't help at all with PowerFLARM which can't decode any of those ground based services, to receive ADS-R, or TIS-B, or FIS-B ground services you also need a separate ADS-B In/non-PowerFLARM receiver as well as a suitable ADS-B Out system. And with reception on UAT to receive FIS-B).

---

On mixed installs with other potential ADS-B Out systems I would want to see the details of what exact ADS-B Out transponder is being used, but a TN72 in an experimental aircraft may well work with multiple different transponder options. TSO-C199 was intended to provide interoperability like that. And that will get you ground services and visibility on certified ADS-B In receivers. But be sure to ask the vendor if not Trig that they guarantee all that works... In practice the way to go today for ADS-B Out in gliders in the USA is to start with a Trig TT22 and use the TN-70 or TN72 and follow Trig's install documentation exactly.

---

Unfortunately Trig, who makes great stuff--their TT22 and associated GPS are great products, is saying some stuff that is a little sloppy again, their comment about triggering traffic services for gliders is made without the warning that a PowerFLARM can't receive those services. And they don't qualify TN72 is only for experimental gliders... I wish we had regulations that provided installs of that in certified gliders, as far as I understand we do not. I wish there were regulations (and maybe a STC) that allowed that. I'll talk to Trig and see if they can help be clearer here.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:20:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> What hasn't been discussed is how often non-approved ADSB out sources are actually being ignored.

Ah I think we've been over what matters here many times, but it is a mess.

100% of certified ADS-B in systems will ignore the ADS-B data from 100% of ADS-B Out systems that use a COTS/non-complaint GPS source 100% of the time..

So airliners, fast jets, regional jets, etc. which if they have ADS-B In at all will be a certified In system, definitely won't see some scabby ADS-B Out install using a COTS GPS source. Since many of those aircraft today have TCAS II they will be see the transponder via TCAS and be able to issue TCAS TA and RA fro that target. However the gap in the middle is with many high-end GA aircraft that have certified ADS-B In but no TCAS, they won't see a crappy COTS driven ADS-B Out. But at the low-end GA market non-certified portable ADS-B In systems will see those COTS powered targets. That is kinda brain dead but it's how it is and easy to work around.. don't use a COTS GPS source....

With the relatively low price of theTN72, if owners want to equip an experimental glider with ADS-B Out there is no excuse anymore for using a COTS GPS source. I really don't want to get into how many GA aircraft might or might not be affected, just do it properly and install a TN72 or TN70 system. COTS GPS is just the wrong thing.

[Darryl Ramm]

Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).

[[email protected]]

Darryl,

Thanks for the reply. Very helpful.

Gary

[Dan Marotta]

Jumping into the middle of this - what's the real reason to ignore an
ADS-B Out aircraft simply because the GPS source is "crappy"?Â* So what
if the position is off by 100 feet or so?Â* My PowerFLARM routinely
reports targets at 200 feet or more altitude difference, e.g., I may get
a report of a target 100 feet high and spot him a hundred feet or so
lower than I am.

It just seems ridiculous to ignore another aircraft which might be on a
collision course simply because his altitude or position may be reported
as a couple of hundred feet different from where he is. That's what
looking outside is for.Â* Following the same logic, of what use is a
non-TSO compliant GPS in an experimental aircraft if it will be ignored
by other aircraft?

Inquiring minds and all...Â* BTW, I plan on installing a TN70 to mate
with my TT22 in my certificated glider.

On 9/21/2017 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:20:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> What hasn't been discussed is how often non-approved ADSB out sources are actually being ignored.
> Ah I think we've been over what matters here many times, but it is a mess.
>
> 100% of certified ADS-B in systems will ignore the ADS-B data from 100% of ADS-B Out systems that use a COTS/non-complaint GPS source 100% of the time.
>
> So airliners, fast jets, regional jets, etc. which if they have ADS-B In at all will be a certified In system, definitely won't see some scabby ADS-B Out install using a COTS GPS source. Since many of those aircraft today have TCAS II they will be see the transponder via TCAS and be able to issue TCAS TA and RA fro that target. However the gap in the middle is with many high-end GA aircraft that have certified ADS-B In but no TCAS, they won't see a crappy COTS driven ADS-B Out. But at the low-end GA market non-certified portable ADS-B In systems will see those COTS powered targets. That is kinda brain dead but it's how it is and easy to work around.. don't use a COTS GPS source....
>
> With the relatively low price of theTN72, if owners want to equip an experimental glider with ADS-B Out there is no excuse anymore for using a COTS GPS source. I really don't want to get into how many GA aircraft might or might not be affected, just do it properly and install a TN72 or TN70 system. COTS GPS is just the wrong thing.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

This is very confusing.Â* So a TN72 is not a TSO device, but is compliant
and therefore can be mounted in an experimental aircraft which will be
seen by all compliant ADS-B In systems?Â* I feel cheated by having a
certificated aircraft!

On 9/21/2017 8:31 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

Looking into the TN70 a question comes to mind:Â* Can the GPS output be
split and used to feed the ClearNav, PowerFLARM, Dynon D10a, and
ClearNav Vario?Â* It seems such a shame to have FIVE GPS antennae on one
glider...Â* What about using one of those power splitters I've seen here
on RAS?

On 9/22/2017 10:06 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Jumping into the middle of this - what's the real reason to ignore an
> ADS-B Out aircraft simply because the GPS source is "crappy"?Â* So what
> if the position is off by 100 feet or so?Â* My PowerFLARM routinely
> reports targets at 200 feet or more altitude difference, e.g., I may
> get a report of a target 100 feet high and spot him a hundred feet or
> so lower than I am.
>
> It just seems ridiculous to ignore another aircraft which might be on
> a collision course simply because his altitude or position may be
> reported as a couple of hundred feet different from where he is.
> That's what looking outside is for.Â* Following the same logic, of what
> use is a non-TSO compliant GPS in an experimental aircraft if it will
> be ignored by other aircraft?
>
> Inquiring minds and all...Â* BTW, I plan on installing a TN70 to mate
> with my TT22 in my certificated glider.
>
> On 9/21/2017 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:20:54 PM UTC-7,
>> wrote:
>>> What hasn't been discussed is how often non-approved ADSB out
>>> sources are actually being ignored.
>> Ah I think we've been over what matters here many times, but it is a
>> mess.
>>
>> 100% of certified ADS-B in systems will ignore the ADS-B data from
>> 100% of ADS-B Out systems that use a COTS/non-complaint GPS source
>> 100% of the time.
>>
>> So airliners, fast jets, regional jets, etc. which if they have ADS-B
>> In at all will be a certified In system, definitely won't see some
>> scabby ADS-B Out install using a COTS GPS source. Since many of those
>> aircraft today have TCAS II they will be see the transponder via TCAS
>> and be able to issue TCAS TA and RA fro that target. However the gap
>> in the middle is with many high-end GA aircraft that have certified
>> ADS-B In but no TCAS, they won't see a crappy COTS driven ADS-B Out.
>> But at the low-end GA market non-certified portable ADS-B In systems
>> will see those COTS powered targets. That is kinda brain dead but
>> it's how it is and easy to work around.. don't use a COTS GPS source....
>>
>> With the relatively low price of theTN72, if owners want to equip an
>> experimental glider with ADS-B OutÂ* there is no excuse anymore for
>> using a COTS GPS source. I really don't want to get into how many GA
>> aircraft might or might not be affected, just do it properly and
>> install a TN72 or TN70 system. COTS GPS is just the wrong thing.
>>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> This is very confusing.Â* So a TN72 is not a TSO device, but is compliant
> and therefore can be mounted in an experimental aircraft which will be
> seen by all compliant ADS-B In systems?Â* I feel cheated by having a
> certificated aircraft!
>
> On 9/21/2017 8:31 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

You, and everybody else will continue to be confused if you keep talking about "TSO" and not specifying what TSO you are talking about. This caused lot of unneeded confusion and many posts on r.a.s. when the TN72 was announced. I don't know how many times I;ve already pointed this out.

The TN72 is a TSO-C199 Class B (aka TABS GPS source) device. Which from a regulation point of view makes no difference, since there are no installation or usage regulations that cover TSO-C199 devices. But since it is TSO-C199 we know important things about it's GPS quality, SIL parsameters, etc. and how it will interact with IFR GPS receivers and ground infrastructure.

The TN72 is Not TSO-C145 (requited for ADS-B Out in certified aircraft)

The TN72 does not meet TSO-C145 requirements (so can't be used for ADS-B Out in experimental aircraft where you want to us it to meet 2020 carriage requirements, in the case of gliders can't be used to meet requirements in the few areas where exemptions don't cover).

---

But yes I agree on the "feeling cheated" part in general, it points out the regulations are kinda stupid, especially when applied to gliders.

[John Carlyle]

Darryl,

You said "The TN72 does not meet TSO-C145 requirements (so can't be used for ADS-B Out in experimental aircraft where you want to use it to meet 2020 carriage requirements, in the case of gliders can't be used to meet requirements in the few areas where exemptions don't cover)."

For those of us who cannot keep up, would you kindly list the requirements where the exemptions don't cover?

Many thanks!
-John

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> Darryl,
>
> You said "The TN72 does not meet TSO-C145 requirements (so can't be used for ADS-B Out in experimental aircraft where you want to use it to meet 2020 carriage requirements, in the case of gliders can't be used to meet requirements in the few areas where exemptions don't cover)."
>
> For those of us who cannot keep up, would you kindly list the requirements where the exemptions don't cover?
>
> Many thanks!
> -John

John

Start thinking more like a lawyer. Since gliders have broad ADS-B Out carriage exemptions in the areas those exemptions apply they remove the need for you to have ADS-B Out so by definition there is no requirements specific to *those areas* that apply.

The regulatory issue is if you have a certified aircraft, regardless of where you intend to or actually fly it the install and equipment has to meet 2020 carriage mandate requirements. That brings in the requirements for a TSO-C145 GPS source (e.g. a TN70 not TN72), and other things like excludes using a Trig TT-21.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:01:13 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> > Darryl,
> >
> > You said "The TN72 does not meet TSO-C145 requirements (so can't be used for ADS-B Out in experimental aircraft where you want to use it to meet 2020 carriage requirements, in the case of gliders can't be used to meet requirements in the few areas where exemptions don't cover)."
> >
> > For those of us who cannot keep up, would you kindly list the requirements where the exemptions don't cover?
> >
> > Many thanks!
> > -John
>
> John
>
> Start thinking more like a lawyer. Since gliders have broad ADS-B Out carriage exemptions in the areas those exemptions apply they remove the need for you to have ADS-B Out so by definition there is no requirements specific to *those areas* that apply.
>
> The regulatory issue is if you have a certified aircraft, regardless of where you intend to or actually fly it the install and equipment has to meet 2020 carriage mandate requirements. That brings in the requirements for a TSO-C145 GPS source (e.g. a TN70 not TN72), and other things like excludes using a Trig TT-21.
>
> Darryl

14CFR 91.225 makes it mostly clear. Except I am hesitant to quote it again became it may yet again lead to lots of 10,000' confusion (just knock it off, gliders can operate above 10,000' without ADS-B Out).

But basically in a glider you can't fly without a compliant ADS-B out system in

Class B or C airspace, and

Anywhere below that top of Class B or Class C airspace or 10,000 feet MSL above that airspace, whichever is lower. Folks need to watch this, no clipping under or over (unless you are over 10,000' and above the airspace) corners of class B or C airspace.

This is the same as transponder requirements and you should really not be in those areas today without a transponder. Folks who fly gliders near controlled airspace should think about this.

And in all it's regulatory glory.... (yes OK gliders also need ADS-B Out in the Gulf of Mexico ADS-B surveillance area, if you out there in a sailplane you may have more problems than ADS-B Out compliance. But hey fly across the coastline in that area without a complaint ADS-B Out and you are violating 14CFR 91.225).


14CFR 91.225
....
(d) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the following airspace unless the aircraft has equipment installed that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Class B and Class C airspace areas;

(2) Except as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 to this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(3) Above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and

(5) Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.

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

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

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

[Darryl Ramm]

Dan

The reason to ignore ADS-B traffic data from non-conforming aircraft is because thats what the standards say to do. I think this comes in via TSO-C195 and the RTCA standards it incorproates but I'm not going to spend time chasing this down now.

And if you are an RTCA committee member focused on airlines and government regulators and and avionics manufactures... and care about critical IFR spacing, ground surface spacing, etc. and know that COTS GPS errors can be way more than a few hundred feet at times... then surely you would argue that is reasonable. And from their view surely nobody is going to want to fly around transmitting ADS-B Out using a crappy COTS GPS that don't have trusted reliability ( e.g. like RAIM).

The eventual come back on this was.... the development of TSO-C199/TABS which is a middle ground that leverages COTS type technology internally. Unfortunately the FAA never closed the loop to allow TSO-C199 GPS sources for ADS-B Out in certified gliders.

I also don't want to think lots of aircraft could have random COTS GOPS connected to an ADS-B Out and be flying around close to dense traffic areas. It's all frustrating as well since all this is inherently insecure, with no encryption or authentication and bad actors could already do a lot of harm injecting fake traffic into the ADS-B system. This non-compliant ADS-B traffic display hurdle does nothing to stop that. Why the designers of ADS-B did not implement authentication, encryption and some form of useful security is beyond me. Oh well we need to keep the NAS primary radar systems around anyhow.... for when all this goes tits up.

It might be time to get used to what the airlines and high-end users want. With FAA privatization there may be much more of that....


On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 9:07:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Jumping into the middle of this - what's the real reason to ignore an
> ADS-B Out aircraft simply because the GPS source is "crappy"?Â* So what
> if the position is off by 100 feet or so?Â* My PowerFLARM routinely
> reports targets at 200 feet or more altitude difference, e.g., I may get
> a report of a target 100 feet high and spot him a hundred feet or so
> lower than I am.
>
> It just seems ridiculous to ignore another aircraft which might be on a
> collision course simply because his altitude or position may be reported
> as a couple of hundred feet different from where he is. That's what
> looking outside is for.Â* Following the same logic, of what use is a
> non-TSO compliant GPS in an experimental aircraft if it will be ignored
> by other aircraft?
>
> Inquiring minds and all...Â* BTW, I plan on installing a TN70 to mate
> with my TT22 in my certificated glider.
>
> On 9/21/2017 7:41 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:20:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> What hasn't been discussed is how often non-approved ADSB out sources are actually being ignored.
> > Ah I think we've been over what matters here many times, but it is a mess.
> >
> > 100% of certified ADS-B in systems will ignore the ADS-B data from 100% of ADS-B Out systems that use a COTS/non-complaint GPS source 100% of the time.
> >
> > So airliners, fast jets, regional jets, etc. which if they have ADS-B In at all will be a certified In system, definitely won't see some scabby ADS-B Out install using a COTS GPS source. Since many of those aircraft today have TCAS II they will be see the transponder via TCAS and be able to issue TCAS TA and RA fro that target. However the gap in the middle is with many high-end GA aircraft that have certified ADS-B In but no TCAS, they won't see a crappy COTS driven ADS-B Out. But at the low-end GA market non-certified portable ADS-B In systems will see those COTS powered targets. That is kinda brain dead but it's how it is and easy to work around.. don't use a COTS GPS source....
> >
> > With the relatively low price of theTN72, if owners want to equip an experimental glider with ADS-B Out there is no excuse anymore for using a COTS GPS source. I really don't want to get into how many GA aircraft might or might not be affected, just do it properly and install a TN72 or TN70 system. COTS GPS is just the wrong thing.
> >
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

[John Carlyle]

Oh, Darryl - think like a lawyer? Can't - I'm a physicist, legal thinking "does not compute".

Many thanks for explaining, and then explaining even more in subsequent posts. Me and my experimental glider are going with a Trig TT22 and a TN 72...

-John

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 3:01:13 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> John
>
> Start thinking more like a lawyer. Since gliders have broad ADS-B Out carriage exemptions in the areas those exemptions apply they remove the need for you to have ADS-B Out so by definition there is no requirements specific to *those areas* that apply.
>
> The regulatory issue is if you have a certified aircraft, regardless of where you intend to or actually fly it the install and equipment has to meet 2020 carriage mandate requirements. That brings in the requirements for a TSO-C145 GPS source (e.g. a TN70 not TN72), and other things like excludes using a Trig TT-21.
>
> Darryl

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks for your patience.

On 9/22/2017 12:38 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> This is very confusing.Â* So a TN72 is not a TSO device, but is compliant
>> and therefore can be mounted in an experimental aircraft which will be
>> seen by all compliant ADS-B In systems?Â* I feel cheated by having a
>> certificated aircraft!
>>
>> On 9/21/2017 8:31 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>> Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> You, and everybody else will continue to be confused if you keep talking about "TSO" and not specifying what TSO you are talking about. This caused lot of unneeded confusion and many posts on r.a.s. when the TN72 was announced. I don't know how many times I;ve already pointed this out.
>
> The TN72 is a TSO-C199 Class B (aka TABS GPS source) device. Which from a regulation point of view makes no difference, since there are no installation or usage regulations that cover TSO-C199 devices. But since it is TSO-C199 we know important things about it's GPS quality, SIL parsameters, etc. and how it will interact with IFR GPS receivers and ground infrastructure.
>
> The TN72 is Not TSO-C145 (requited for ADS-B Out in certified aircraft)
>
> The TN72 does not meet TSO-C145 requirements (so can't be used for ADS-B Out in experimental aircraft where you want to us it to meet 2020 carriage requirements, in the case of gliders can't be used to meet requirements in the few areas where exemptions don't cover).
>
> ---
>
> But yes I agree on the "feeling cheated" part in general, it points out the regulations are kinda stupid, especially when applied to gliders.

--
Dan, 5J

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:

>
> Well the GPS sources are approved in they may meet say meet TSO-C145 or TSO-C199 or "meets requirements of TSO-C145", or maybe meet none of those of a COTS GPS etc. and that stuff is important to understand.
>
> Trig is correct in what they say. Certified ADS-B In receivers and the ADS-B ground infrastructure will ignore all ADS-B out systems using COTS GPS. Airliners, fast jets, etc. not receiving any of that crap. (that does not stop TCAS seeing the aircraft via transponder interrogation).
>
> The Trig TT22 with 1090ES Out driven by a TN72 GPS source, all properly installed, will be seen by all aircraft with 1090ES In, both portable and certified/fixed install systems. It will also be seen by all aircraft with UAT In if within ADS-R service coverage. However you can only install a TN72 in an experimental aircraft. Certified aircraft, including gliders, requires you use a TN70 as all ADS-B Out installs in certified aircraft must meet 2020 compliance requirements (which effectively require an actual TSO'ed TSO-C145 GPS source in a certified aircraft, including glider).
>
> An ADS-B Out 2020 complaint install (which sticking with Trig, requires a TN70 not a TN72 GPS source) will be seen by all aircraft. Wether that is with a TSO-C145 GPS source (for certified aircraft), or a "meets performance requirements of a TSO-C145 source (an option for experimental aircraft)..... as long as they are all properly installed of course. trig foes not have a lower cost "non-TSO but meets performance requirements of TSO-C145 GPS source".
>
> In an experimental aircraft not intended to fly where the 2020 carriage mandate applies (pop quiz: where do gliders need ADS-B out even with the carriage exemption? No it's not above 10.000') can install any GPS source as long as the ADS-B Out sets the correct quality parameters, and any old COTS GPS will require SIL=0 to be set which will guarantee that is ignored by aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. It will still be seen by many portable ASD-B receivers, and certainly will be seen by PowerFLARM 1090ES In (assuming we are talking 1090ES Out).
>
> The Trig TN72 is a TABS/TSO-C199 device, it is not TSO-C145, you can not install it in any certified aircraft (including gliders) and you can't use it to meet 2020 Carriage mandate requirements, but you can install it in an experimental aircraft for use outside ADS-B Out required carriage areas (including for gliders anywhere the 2020 carriage exemption lets you fly without compliant ADS-B out)...
>
> And if your experimental glider is so equipped with a TN72 GPS source driving a Trig TT22 and it's properly installed then it *will* paint your glider on certified ADS-B In systems, both via direct 1090ES and via ADS-R for UAT In equipped aircraft. The TT22 importantly also ensures TCAS II systems can issue a RA (resolution advisory) against the glider, a pure UAT Out systems with no transponder cannot and will not cause TCAS to issue an RA. UAT Out equipped aircraft are also never visible to PowerFLARM (they can trigger PCAS if also transponder equipped), so for that reason avoid UAT Out use in gliders and towplanes.
>
> A properly configured TT22 and TN72 GPS source will also trigger ADS-B ground services for your aircraft when in range of ADS-B ground stations (which won't help at all with PowerFLARM which can't decode any of those ground based services, to receive ADS-R, or TIS-B, or FIS-B ground services you also need a separate ADS-B In/non-PowerFLARM receiver as well as a suitable ADS-B Out system. And with reception on UAT to receive FIS-B).
>
> ---
>
> On mixed installs with other potential ADS-B Out systems I would want to see the details of what exact ADS-B Out transponder is being used, but a TN72 in an experimental aircraft may well work with multiple different transponder options. TSO-C199 was intended to provide interoperability like that. And that will get you ground services and visibility on certified ADS-B In receivers. But be sure to ask the vendor if not Trig that they guarantee all that works... In practice the way to go today for ADS-B Out in gliders in the USA is to start with a Trig TT22 and use the TN-70 or TN72 and follow Trig's install documentation exactly.
>
> ---
>
> Unfortunately Trig, who makes great stuff--their TT22 and associated GPS are great products, is saying some stuff that is a little sloppy again, their comment about triggering traffic services for gliders is made without the warning that a PowerFLARM can't receive those services. And they don't qualify TN72 is only for experimental gliders... I wish we had regulations that provided installs of that in certified gliders, as far as I understand we do not. I wish there were regulations (and maybe a STC) that allowed that. I'll talk to Trig and see if they can help be clearer here.


What changes in the above explanation if we substitute TT21 for TT22? I already have a TT21 installed in an Experimental glider.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:30:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> >
> > Well the GPS sources are approved in they may meet say meet TSO-C145 or TSO-C199 or "meets requirements of TSO-C145", or maybe meet none of those of a COTS GPS etc. and that stuff is important to understand.
> >
> > Trig is correct in what they say. Certified ADS-B In receivers and the ADS-B ground infrastructure will ignore all ADS-B out systems using COTS GPS. Airliners, fast jets, etc. not receiving any of that crap. (that does not stop TCAS seeing the aircraft via transponder interrogation).
> >
> > The Trig TT22 with 1090ES Out driven by a TN72 GPS source, all properly installed, will be seen by all aircraft with 1090ES In, both portable and certified/fixed install systems. It will also be seen by all aircraft with UAT In if within ADS-R service coverage. However you can only install a TN72 in an experimental aircraft. Certified aircraft, including gliders, requires you use a TN70 as all ADS-B Out installs in certified aircraft must meet 2020 compliance requirements (which effectively require an actual TSO'ed TSO-C145 GPS source in a certified aircraft, including glider).
> >
> > An ADS-B Out 2020 complaint install (which sticking with Trig, requires a TN70 not a TN72 GPS source) will be seen by all aircraft. Wether that is with a TSO-C145 GPS source (for certified aircraft), or a "meets performance requirements of a TSO-C145 source (an option for experimental aircraft)..... as long as they are all properly installed of course. trig foes not have a lower cost "non-TSO but meets performance requirements of TSO-C145 GPS source".
> >
> > In an experimental aircraft not intended to fly where the 2020 carriage mandate applies (pop quiz: where do gliders need ADS-B out even with the carriage exemption? No it's not above 10.000') can install any GPS source as long as the ADS-B Out sets the correct quality parameters, and any old COTS GPS will require SIL=0 to be set which will guarantee that is ignored by aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. It will still be seen by many portable ASD-B receivers, and certainly will be seen by PowerFLARM 1090ES In (assuming we are talking 1090ES Out).
> >
> > The Trig TN72 is a TABS/TSO-C199 device, it is not TSO-C145, you can not install it in any certified aircraft (including gliders) and you can't use it to meet 2020 Carriage mandate requirements, but you can install it in an experimental aircraft for use outside ADS-B Out required carriage areas (including for gliders anywhere the 2020 carriage exemption lets you fly without compliant ADS-B out)...
> >
> > And if your experimental glider is so equipped with a TN72 GPS source driving a Trig TT22 and it's properly installed then it *will* paint your glider on certified ADS-B In systems, both via direct 1090ES and via ADS-R for UAT In equipped aircraft. The TT22 importantly also ensures TCAS II systems can issue a RA (resolution advisory) against the glider, a pure UAT Out systems with no transponder cannot and will not cause TCAS to issue an RA.. UAT Out equipped aircraft are also never visible to PowerFLARM (they can trigger PCAS if also transponder equipped), so for that reason avoid UAT Out use in gliders and towplanes.
> >
> > A properly configured TT22 and TN72 GPS source will also trigger ADS-B ground services for your aircraft when in range of ADS-B ground stations (which won't help at all with PowerFLARM which can't decode any of those ground based services, to receive ADS-R, or TIS-B, or FIS-B ground services you also need a separate ADS-B In/non-PowerFLARM receiver as well as a suitable ADS-B Out system. And with reception on UAT to receive FIS-B).
> >
> > ---
> >
> > On mixed installs with other potential ADS-B Out systems I would want to see the details of what exact ADS-B Out transponder is being used, but a TN72 in an experimental aircraft may well work with multiple different transponder options. TSO-C199 was intended to provide interoperability like that. And that will get you ground services and visibility on certified ADS-B In receivers. But be sure to ask the vendor if not Trig that they guarantee all that works... In practice the way to go today for ADS-B Out in gliders in the USA is to start with a Trig TT22 and use the TN-70 or TN72 and follow Trig's install documentation exactly.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Unfortunately Trig, who makes great stuff--their TT22 and associated GPS are great products, is saying some stuff that is a little sloppy again, their comment about triggering traffic services for gliders is made without the warning that a PowerFLARM can't receive those services. And they don't qualify TN72 is only for experimental gliders... I wish we had regulations that provided installs of that in certified gliders, as far as I understand we do not. I wish there were regulations (and maybe a STC) that allowed that. I'll talk to Trig and see if they can help be clearer here.
>
>
> What changes in the above explanation if we substitute TT21 for TT22? I already have a TT21 installed in an Experimental glider.

The TT-21 does not have enough output power to meet the 2020 carriage requirements, so you can't use it to do that (for those remaining areas like Class B or C airspace as mentioned above etc.).

While in an experimental glider you can connect any GPS source you want as long as the system is correctly configured to transmit the GPS parameters. But I'm not sure if the TT-21 firmware is updated to fully work with the TN-72. If it can be used and can transmit a SIL>0 quality indicator then it would trigger ADS-B ground services and be seen on certified ADS-B In systems.

You need to check in with Trig support and ask them about all this. Trig are usually very responsive. Swapping out/upgerading the TT-21 to a TT-22 may end up being the best way to go.

Anybody considering installing a transponder in a glider in the USA should be looking at a Trig TT-22 not a TT-21 (and all other brands are really non-starters ). I've talked about this with most USA glider equipment dealers that they should know this, and hopefully are advising purchasers. Trig was blindsided on this, the FAA created this issue with requiring higher 1090ES Output power after the TT-21 was already shipping in the USA.

---

And to keep making sure certified glider owners feel bad, doing ADS-B out with a TT-21 in a certified glider is not ever an option as it does not meet the 2020 mandate equipment requirements, regardless of what you want to use it for it must meet those requirement in a certified aircraft.

[Dan Marotta]

So glad I bought a TT22 in the first place.Â* I think it was only about
$150 more than a 21.

On 9/22/2017 5:53 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:30:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> Well the GPS sources are approved in they may meet say meet TSO-C145 or TSO-C199 or "meets requirements of TSO-C145", or maybe meet none of those of a COTS GPS etc. and that stuff is important to understand.
>>>
>>> Trig is correct in what they say. Certified ADS-B In receivers and the ADS-B ground infrastructure will ignore all ADS-B out systems using COTS GPS. Airliners, fast jets, etc. not receiving any of that crap. (that does not stop TCAS seeing the aircraft via transponder interrogation).
>>>
>>> The Trig TT22 with 1090ES Out driven by a TN72 GPS source, all properly installed, will be seen by all aircraft with 1090ES In, both portable and certified/fixed install systems. It will also be seen by all aircraft with UAT In if within ADS-R service coverage. However you can only install a TN72 in an experimental aircraft. Certified aircraft, including gliders, requires you use a TN70 as all ADS-B Out installs in certified aircraft must meet 2020 compliance requirements (which effectively require an actual TSO'ed TSO-C145 GPS source in a certified aircraft, including glider).
>>>
>>> An ADS-B Out 2020 complaint install (which sticking with Trig, requires a TN70 not a TN72 GPS source) will be seen by all aircraft. Wether that is with a TSO-C145 GPS source (for certified aircraft), or a "meets performance requirements of a TSO-C145 source (an option for experimental aircraft).... as long as they are all properly installed of course. trig foes not have a lower cost "non-TSO but meets performance requirements of TSO-C145 GPS source".
>>>
>>> In an experimental aircraft not intended to fly where the 2020 carriage mandate applies (pop quiz: where do gliders need ADS-B out even with the carriage exemption? No it's not above 10.000') can install any GPS source as long as the ADS-B Out sets the correct quality parameters, and any old COTS GPS will require SIL=0 to be set which will guarantee that is ignored by aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. It will still be seen by many portable ASD-B receivers, and certainly will be seen by PowerFLARM 1090ES In (assuming we are talking 1090ES Out).
>>>
>>> The Trig TN72 is a TABS/TSO-C199 device, it is not TSO-C145, you can not install it in any certified aircraft (including gliders) and you can't use it to meet 2020 Carriage mandate requirements, but you can install it in an experimental aircraft for use outside ADS-B Out required carriage areas (including for gliders anywhere the 2020 carriage exemption lets you fly without compliant ADS-B out)...
>>>
>>> And if your experimental glider is so equipped with a TN72 GPS source driving a Trig TT22 and it's properly installed then it *will* paint your glider on certified ADS-B In systems, both via direct 1090ES and via ADS-R for UAT In equipped aircraft. The TT22 importantly also ensures TCAS II systems can issue a RA (resolution advisory) against the glider, a pure UAT Out systems with no transponder cannot and will not cause TCAS to issue an RA. UAT Out equipped aircraft are also never visible to PowerFLARM (they can trigger PCAS if also transponder equipped), so for that reason avoid UAT Out use in gliders and towplanes.
>>>
>>> A properly configured TT22 and TN72 GPS source will also trigger ADS-B ground services for your aircraft when in range of ADS-B ground stations (which won't help at all with PowerFLARM which can't decode any of those ground based services, to receive ADS-R, or TIS-B, or FIS-B ground services you also need a separate ADS-B In/non-PowerFLARM receiver as well as a suitable ADS-B Out system. And with reception on UAT to receive FIS-B).
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> On mixed installs with other potential ADS-B Out systems I would want to see the details of what exact ADS-B Out transponder is being used, but a TN72 in an experimental aircraft may well work with multiple different transponder options. TSO-C199 was intended to provide interoperability like that. And that will get you ground services and visibility on certified ADS-B In receivers. But be sure to ask the vendor if not Trig that they guarantee all that works... In practice the way to go today for ADS-B Out in gliders in the USA is to start with a Trig TT22 and use the TN-70 or TN72 and follow Trig's install documentation exactly.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Unfortunately Trig, who makes great stuff--their TT22 and associated GPS are great products, is saying some stuff that is a little sloppy again, their comment about triggering traffic services for gliders is made without the warning that a PowerFLARM can't receive those services. And they don't qualify TN72 is only for experimental gliders... I wish we had regulations that provided installs of that in certified gliders, as far as I understand we do not. I wish there were regulations (and maybe a STC) that allowed that. I'll talk to Trig and see if they can help be clearer here.
>>
>> What changes in the above explanation if we substitute TT21 for TT22? I already have a TT21 installed in an Experimental glider.
> The TT-21 does not have enough output power to meet the 2020 carriage requirements, so you can't use it to do that (for those remaining areas like Class B or C airspace as mentioned above etc.).
>
> While in an experimental glider you can connect any GPS source you want as long as the system is correctly configured to transmit the GPS parameters. But I'm not sure if the TT-21 firmware is updated to fully work with the TN-72. If it can be used and can transmit a SIL>0 quality indicator then it would trigger ADS-B ground services and be seen on certified ADS-B In systems.
>
> You need to check in with Trig support and ask them about all this. Trig are usually very responsive. Swapping out/upgerading the TT-21 to a TT-22 may end up being the best way to go.
>
> Anybody considering installing a transponder in a glider in the USA should be looking at a Trig TT-22 not a TT-21 (and all other brands are really non-starters ). I've talked about this with most USA glider equipment dealers that they should know this, and hopefully are advising purchasers. Trig was blindsided on this, the FAA created this issue with requiring higher 1090ES Output power after the TT-21 was already shipping in the USA.
>
> ---
>
> And to keep making sure certified glider owners feel bad, doing ADS-B out with a TT-21 in a certified glider is not ever an option as it does not meet the 2020 mandate equipment requirements, regardless of what you want to use it for it must meet those requirement in a certified aircraft.
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Dan- You pretty much HAD to buy the TT22, as the 250 watt transmit is required for altitudes over 10,000 MSL. And out here in Moriarty, we are tempted to put the landing gear down if we get below that!

[kinsell]

On 09/23/2017 09:27 AM, wrote:
> Dan- You pretty much HAD to buy the TT22, as the 250 watt transmit is required for altitudes over 10,000 MSL. And out here in Moriarty, we are tempted to put the landing gear down if we get below that!
>

Trig says the TT21 is good to 15,000 msl, but yeah, the cost and average
current consumption of the TT22 are only slightly higher for the TT22.
I wouldn't consider a TT21 for a new installation, even forgetting about
the ADS-B issue.

[[email protected]]

My mistake- the 175 watt units are good to 15,000 MSL, 200+ watts necessary above that. So, Moriarty and most high altitude western US sites with potential flight altitudes to 17,999 MSL (and higher in ARTCC authorized airspace such as wave windows or SAGE II clearance in the Sierra Nevada Wave etc.) would imply utilization of the higher transmit power of the TT22 over the TT21.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 6:20:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> My mistake- the 175 watt units are good to 15,000 MSL, 200+ watts necessary above that. So, Moriarty and most high altitude western US sites with potential flight altitudes to 17,999 MSL (and higher in ARTCC authorized airspace such as wave windows or SAGE II clearance in the Sierra Nevada Wave etc.) would imply utilization of the higher transmit power of the TT22 over the TT21.

Yes but nobody really cares about this, and lots of lower power transponders have been flying in gliders for years and provide good visibility to ATC and TCAS etc.

The pressing reason to use a TT22 over a TT21 is for ADS-B Out compliance, especially in a certified glider the TT21 cannot be installed or used for ADS-B Out for any purpose.You will not get installation approval for it, and I don't want folks having tears when they discover that.

The important things are focusing in safety and installing and using a transponder at all if you are near busy airspace. Please install and use whatever transponder you have/can get/afford. For ADS-B future use reasons it is a good idea to install a TT-22.

[Dave White[_2_]]

If I read the Trig website correctly the tt21 is approved for adsb-out just about everywhere on the planet except the USA. So if someone brings their certified glider from their home country are they legal to fly in the USA or must they comply with USA requirements?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 7:33:27 PM UTC-7, Dave White wrote:
> If I read the Trig website correctly the tt21 is approved for adsb-out just about everywhere on the planet except the USA. So if someone brings their certified glider from their home country are they legal to fly in the USA or must they comply with USA requirements?

Is there light at the end of this rat hole? But the answer is going to be comply with US regulations. The more detailed answer of course is you are going to discuss this with an FAA representative.

And there is no such thing as just a TT-21 install for ADS-B out.What is the GPS source? I expect many gliders flying outside the USA who have ADS-B Out have a COTS GPS source, and that likely a worse issue, who knows what they set SIL etc. to. Not only will that not be valid in a certified equivalent aircraft in the USA but it may well get you noticed by the feds.

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).

Darryl,

OK, I'm clear now that a TN72 GPS Source from a Trig T22 will make me officially visible to all ADS-B in equipped aircraft.

I am still trying to figure out why I would want to equip with any kind of ADS-B out in my T22 equipped glider:

1) It would be great (but not necessary) to be seen by all ADS-B equipped aircraft. But, with ADS-R (rebroadcast) won't those other aircraft see me anyway since I'm equipped with a Mode-S Trig transponder? I suppose at low altitude where ADS-R is not available, direct receipt of my ADS-B out would be an advantage.

2) It sounds like with the TN72 GPS source, I will not be compliant if wanting to enter Class B, C, and a few other little used airspace. My question is this... If equipped with a TN72 GPS source, do you think that ATC will allow temporary access to Class B and C... such a for passing through their airspace? That was ONE reason for equipping with a transponder in the past.. I have no intention of OPERATING in Class B and C so as to use full ATC services. Also, do you think that controllers for restricted airspace MIGHT allow transiting that airspace without fully compliant ADS-B out?

If ATC uniformly will disallow temporary transiting of Class B, C and restricted airspace unless equipping with a fully compliant GPS source (i.e. TN70), then there is VERY LITTLE REASON TO EQUIP WITH A TN72.

I see small potential justification for equipping with a TN72:

A) visibility to all ADS-B official aircraft directly without rebroadcast (ADS-R) which means they can see me in the pattern a low altitude.

B) Potenially, a TN72 will also give me an alternative to a Satellite tracker if Flight Aware or Aerion makes tracking of ADS-B aircraft less expensive than the current vendors (Spot and Garmin Inreach).

comments...

Walt Rogers WX

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 11:59:19 AM UTC-7, WaltWX wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).
>
> Darryl,
>

Everybody need to stop saying "ADS-B Out" and say 109ES Out or UAT Out where it matters. I try to only say ADS-B where the link layer does not matter. Saying "ADS-B" where you need to be clear about 1090ES or UAT is as useful as saying "TSO" without being clear if we are talking about TSO-C145 or TSO-C199, and can cause much confusion.

> OK, I'm clear now that a TN72 GPS Source from a Trig T22 will make me officially visible to all ADS-B in equipped aircraft.

Well all aircraft with 1090ES In, or via ADS-R if they have UAT In (and it's properly set up with some type of ADS-B Out etc.) and in range of ADS-B ground stations.

> I am still trying to figure out why I would want to equip with any kind of ADS-B out in my T22 equipped glider:
>
> 1) It would be great (but not necessary) to be seen by all ADS-B equipped aircraft. But, with ADS-R (rebroadcast) won't those other aircraft see me anyway since I'm equipped with a Mode-S Trig transponder? I suppose at low altitude where ADS-R is not available, direct receipt of my ADS-B out would be an advantage.

ADS-R no, you are confusing ADS-R and TIS-B.

TIS-B broadcasts information for SSR targets, it requires
1. Your aircraft has a transponder
2. Your aircraft is within SSR coverage
3. The TIS-B client aircraft has ADS-B In
4. The TIS-B client aircraft has ADS-B Out that is correctly configured to describe it's ADS-B In capabilities.

TIS-B position reports are SSR based and should be expected to be less accurate than either ADS-B direct or ADS-R.

There are many places where gliders and gliders, or towplanes or GA aircraft that might have 1090ES In will be together that won't have TIS-B service coverage. Think of lots of GA airports that glider operations may tow out of or gliders may land at. And many busy airports I can think of where you lose SSR coverage as you decent to pattern height, they concern me as pilots may stop seeing TIS-B targets and be lulled into assurance the target is not longer a threat. Ditto for aircraft without properly configured ADS-B Out that are piggybacking on nearby aircraft to cause TIS-B (and ADS-R) message broadcasts, things going quiet on the traffic displays does no mean there is no traffic.

> 2) It sounds like with the TN72 GPS source, I will not be compliant if wanting to enter Class B, C, and a few other little used airspace. My question is this... If equipped with a TN72 GPS source, do you think that ATC will allow temporary access to Class B and C... such a for passing through their airspace? That was ONE reason for equipping with a transponder in the past. I have no intention of OPERATING in Class B and C so as to use full ATC services. Also, do you think that controllers for restricted airspace MIGHT allow transiting that airspace without fully compliant ADS-B out?

Don't know, talk to your local ATC folks.

> If ATC uniformly will disallow temporary transiting of Class B, C and restricted airspace unless equipping with a fully compliant GPS source (i.e. TN70), then there is VERY LITTLE REASON TO EQUIP WITH A TN72.

Again I talk to your local ATC folks. I would not want to ask any national authorities about uniform ATC treatment if any special situation. Work out things locally and use that to guide what you do.

> I see small potential justification for equipping with a TN72:
>
> A) visibility to all ADS-B official aircraft directly without rebroadcast (ADS-R) which means they can see me in the pattern a low altitude.

But you still won't be seen by aircraft in those situations. that only have UAT In. You *need* ADS-R ground service coverage for that.

> B) Potenially, a TN72 will also give me an alternative to a Satellite tracker if Flight Aware or Aerion makes tracking of ADS-B aircraft less expensive than the current vendors (Spot and Garmin Inreach).

The current Garmin InReach tracker is relatively low cost and already more capable (esp. two way messaging and reliable operation on the ground (as long as you have line of sight of satellites) than what ADS-B will be able to do. Having ADS-B Out is further information, that might be be very useful in a SAR situation. I would certainly include that in discussions with club members, FBOs, written down as part of your emergency information/plan that you have (everybody has one right?) make sure it is noted on your NOAA ELT/PLB registration, SPOT or InReach tracker registration, etc. But I'd not be upgrading to 1090ES Out for SAR reasons--I'd buy a Garmin InReach first if I did not already have one.

And the FAA/SAR organizations today can get to ADS-B flight traces, so if an ADS-B out equipped glider should go missing it's important to make sure SAR groups are aware that it was so equipped.

> comments...
>
> Walt Rogers WX

You may also want to have 109ES Out to provide better long-term visibility via PowerFLARM when buddy flying.

Many aircraft are going to equip with ADS-B Out by 2020. I'm anecdotally seeing a lot of GA aircraft equip with ADS-B In, with most new potable and fixed systems being dual-link receive. Given all that if you fly near busy GA aircraft areas I expect equipping with ADS-B Out to be interesting to consider, fast jets and airliners can see you today via TCAS, in all airspace at all times. 1090ES Out starts also providing that "all airspace and all time" capability to GA aircraft as they equip with (1090ES or dual-link) ADS-B In.

[Darryl Ramm]

Oops left off thing...

> TIS-B broadcasts information for SSR targets, it requires
> 1. Your aircraft has a transponder
> 2. Your aircraft is within SSR coverage
> 3. The TIS-B client aircraft has ADS-B In
> 4. The TIS-B client aircraft has ADS-B Out that is correctly configured to describe it's ADS-B In capabilities.
5. The TIS-B client aircraft is within ADS-B ground service coverage.


On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 3:32:38 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 11:59:19 AM UTC-7, WaltWX wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > Walt, I think you are misunderstanding what Trig wrote. A TN72 GPS Source will be seen by everybody. That is why anybody doing ADS-B Out in an experimental glider with a TT22 should be equipping with at least a TN72 (or TN70, TN70 required for certified gliders).
> >
> > Darryl,
> >
>
> Everybody need to stop saying "ADS-B Out" and say 109ES Out or UAT Out where it matters. I try to only say ADS-B where the link layer does not matter. Saying "ADS-B" where you need to be clear about 1090ES or UAT is as useful as saying "TSO" without being clear if we are talking about TSO-C145 or TSO-C199, and can cause much confusion.
>
> > OK, I'm clear now that a TN72 GPS Source from a Trig T22 will make me officially visible to all ADS-B in equipped aircraft.
>
> Well all aircraft with 1090ES In, or via ADS-R if they have UAT In (and it's properly set up with some type of ADS-B Out etc.) and in range of ADS-B ground stations.
>
> > I am still trying to figure out why I would want to equip with any kind of ADS-B out in my T22 equipped glider:
> >
> > 1) It would be great (but not necessary) to be seen by all ADS-B equipped aircraft. But, with ADS-R (rebroadcast) won't those other aircraft see me anyway since I'm equipped with a Mode-S Trig transponder? I suppose at low altitude where ADS-R is not available, direct receipt of my ADS-B out would be an advantage.
>
> ADS-R no, you are confusing ADS-R and TIS-B.
>
> TIS-B broadcasts information for SSR targets, it requires
> 1. Your aircraft has a transponder
> 2. Your aircraft is within SSR coverage
> 3. The TIS-B client aircraft has ADS-B In
> 4. The TIS-B client aircraft has ADS-B Out that is correctly configured to describe it's ADS-B In capabilities.
>
> TIS-B position reports are SSR based and should be expected to be less accurate than either ADS-B direct or ADS-R.
>
> There are many places where gliders and gliders, or towplanes or GA aircraft that might have 1090ES In will be together that won't have TIS-B service coverage. Think of lots of GA airports that glider operations may tow out of or gliders may land at. And many busy airports I can think of where you lose SSR coverage as you decent to pattern height, they concern me as pilots may stop seeing TIS-B targets and be lulled into assurance the target is not longer a threat. Ditto for aircraft without properly configured ADS-B Out that are piggybacking on nearby aircraft to cause TIS-B (and ADS-R) message broadcasts, things going quiet on the traffic displays does no mean there is no traffic.
>
> > 2) It sounds like with the TN72 GPS source, I will not be compliant if wanting to enter Class B, C, and a few other little used airspace. My question is this... If equipped with a TN72 GPS source, do you think that ATC will allow temporary access to Class B and C... such a for passing through their airspace? That was ONE reason for equipping with a transponder in the past. I have no intention of OPERATING in Class B and C so as to use full ATC services. Also, do you think that controllers for restricted airspace MIGHT allow transiting that airspace without fully compliant ADS-B out?
>
> Don't know, talk to your local ATC folks.
>
> > If ATC uniformly will disallow temporary transiting of Class B, C and restricted airspace unless equipping with a fully compliant GPS source (i.e. TN70), then there is VERY LITTLE REASON TO EQUIP WITH A TN72.
>
> Again I talk to your local ATC folks. I would not want to ask any national authorities about uniform ATC treatment if any special situation. Work out things locally and use that to guide what you do.
>
> > I see small potential justification for equipping with a TN72:
> >
> > A) visibility to all ADS-B official aircraft directly without rebroadcast (ADS-R) which means they can see me in the pattern a low altitude.
>
> But you still won't be seen by aircraft in those situations. that only have UAT In. You *need* ADS-R ground service coverage for that.
>
> > B) Potenially, a TN72 will also give me an alternative to a Satellite tracker if Flight Aware or Aerion makes tracking of ADS-B aircraft less expensive than the current vendors (Spot and Garmin Inreach).
>
> The current Garmin InReach tracker is relatively low cost and already more capable (esp. two way messaging and reliable operation on the ground (as long as you have line of sight of satellites) than what ADS-B will be able to do. Having ADS-B Out is further information, that might be be very useful in a SAR situation. I would certainly include that in discussions with club members, FBOs, written down as part of your emergency information/plan that you have (everybody has one right?) make sure it is noted on your NOAA ELT/PLB registration, SPOT or InReach tracker registration, etc. But I'd not be upgrading to 1090ES Out for SAR reasons--I'd buy a Garmin InReach first if I did not already have one.
>
> And the FAA/SAR organizations today can get to ADS-B flight traces, so if an ADS-B out equipped glider should go missing it's important to make sure SAR groups are aware that it was so equipped.
>
> > comments...
> >
> > Walt Rogers WX
>
> You may also want to have 109ES Out to provide better long-term visibility via PowerFLARM when buddy flying.
>
> Many aircraft are going to equip with ADS-B Out by 2020. I'm anecdotally seeing a lot of GA aircraft equip with ADS-B In, with most new potable and fixed systems being dual-link receive. Given all that if you fly near busy GA aircraft areas I expect equipping with ADS-B Out to be interesting to consider, fast jets and airliners can see you today via TCAS, in all airspace at all times. 1090ES Out starts also providing that "all airspace and all time" capability to GA aircraft as they equip with (1090ES or dual-link) ADS-B In.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:21:56 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> Oh, Darryl - think like a lawyer? Can't - I'm a physicist, legal thinking "does not compute".

- yeah, after all these years I still cannot make any sense of the wording "any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed". Had it said "nor" instead of "or", perhaps? (I do have a degree in physics.)

[son_of_flubber]

I asked Trig support this question:

"Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator?"

Here is their reply:

"The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22. Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance.

The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx

If you so choose, you can opt to have your TT21 upgraded to a TT22. For more information on this please contact our US service centre below;

Trig Avionics Technical Support
9400 East 34th Street North
Wichita
KS 67226
United States

Tel: Toll Free 800 821 1212
Tel: +1 316 630 0101
Email:
Web: www.mcico.com
"

The response to my inquiry with is:

"The cost to update the TT21 to the TT22 is $950.00. Turn around time is 3-4 days in house."

[kinsell]

Interesting that the information sent out from a 1090ES device doesn't
include enough to identify the model number. But of course an avionics
shop or A&P might spot the problem.



On 09/27/2017 11:24 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I asked Trig support this question:
>
> "Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator?"
>
> Here is their reply:
>
> "The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22. Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance.
>
> The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx
>
> If you so choose, you can opt to have your TT21 upgraded to a TT22. For more information on this please contact our US service centre below;
>
> Trig Avionics Technical Support
> 9400 East 34th Street North
> Wichita
> KS 67226
> United States
>
> Tel: Toll Free 800 821 1212
> Tel: +1 316 630 0101
> Email:
> Web: www.mcico.com
> "
>
> The response to my inquiry with is:
>
> "The cost to update the TT21 to the TT22 is $950.00. Turn around time is 3-4 days in house."
>

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I asked Trig support this question:
>
> "Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator?"
>
> Here is their reply:
>
> "The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22. Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance.
>
> The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx
>
> If you so choose, you can opt to have your TT21 upgraded to a TT22. For more information on this please contact our US service centre below;
>
> Trig Avionics Technical Support
> 9400 East 34th Street North
> Wichita
> KS 67226
> United States
>
> Tel: Toll Free 800 821 1212
> Tel: +1 316 630 0101
> Email:
> Web: www.mcico.com
> "
>
> The response to my inquiry with is:
>
> "The cost to update the TT21 to the TT22 is $950.00. Turn around time is 3-4 days in house."

That is some very useful information right there. Two questions:

Does the receiver (FAA) have any way to tell more information about the GPS source? If it is transmitting an SIL of 3 (required for carriage requirements), other than physical inspection can a receiver discriminate between a 70 and a 72?

What does Powerflarm do with a glider having both ADSB out and Flarm? Does it deambiguize?

[Ramy[_2_]]

Now that the TN72 is available and relatively low cost, is there a reason for those of us with TT21/TT22 in experimental gliders to wait till 2020 to install the TN72 vs installing now to become more visible to more aircrafts?
I am curious to hear from folks who already done that.

Ramy

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:12:56 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > I asked Trig support this question:
> >
> > "Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator?"
> >
> > Here is their reply:
> >
> > "The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22. Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance.
> >
> > The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx
> >
> > If you so choose, you can opt to have your TT21 upgraded to a TT22. For more information on this please contact our US service centre below;
> >
> > Trig Avionics Technical Support
> > 9400 East 34th Street North
> > Wichita
> > KS 67226
> > United States
> >
> > Tel: Toll Free 800 821 1212
> > Tel: +1 316 630 0101
> > Email:
> > Web: www.mcico.com
> > "
> >
> > The response to my inquiry with is:
> >
> > "The cost to update the TT21 to the TT22 is $950.00. Turn around time is 3-4 days in house."
>
> That is some very useful information right there. Two questions:
>
> Does the receiver (FAA) have any way to tell more information about the GPS source? If it is transmitting an SIL of 3 (required for carriage requirements), other than physical inspection can a receiver discriminate between a 70 and a 72?

There is no GPS Source vendor ID. No Mode-S transponder or UAT Out vendor ID, no serial numbers, no encryption signature, etc. allowed for in the design of ADS-B. The lack of signature is a much more serious shortcoming IMNSHO that any of the others. ADS-B Out systems do transmit SIL, NIC and NAC GPS quality parameters and interestingly CC (capability code) that describe if the aircraft has 1090ES In and/or UAT In.

> What does Powerflarm do with a glider having both ADSB out and Flarm? Does it deambiguize?

Yes it deduplicates them, based in aircraft ICAO address. Presumably PowerFLARM gives priority to the FLARM signal but somebody like Dave would have to confirm that.

I believe FLARM also deduplicates Mode S PCAS alerts based on ICAO ID. It can't do that to Mode C PCAS alerts because there is no ICAO address broadcast on Mode C.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:51:13 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Now that the TN72 is available and relatively low cost, is there a reason for those of us with TT21/TT22 in experimental gliders to wait till 2020 to install the TN72 vs installing now to become more visible to more aircrafts?

None at all. And there is nothing magic about 2020 that should affect your decision here. Please get started and go do it. We are talking the incremental costs of a few long aerotows.

(since I know you fly near SFO Class B at times) keep in mind doing that will not give you access to those areas where the glider exemption does not remove ADS-B Out requirements after 2020 (Class B and C and related, read the regs for details). For that you would need a TN70 based install.

> I am curious to hear from folks who already done that.
>
> Ramy

[Tom BravoMike]

How does this offer fit into our discussion? For experimental gliders, and from the price point of view?

http://grtavionics.com/home/ads-b-solutions/uavionix-echouat/

[jfitch]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:33:56 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:12:56 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > I asked Trig support this question:
> > >
> > > "Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator?"
> > >
> > > Here is their reply:
> > >
> > > "The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22. Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell.. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance.
> > >
> > > The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx
> > >
> > > If you so choose, you can opt to have your TT21 upgraded to a TT22. For more information on this please contact our US service centre below;
> > >
> > > Trig Avionics Technical Support
> > > 9400 East 34th Street North
> > > Wichita
> > > KS 67226
> > > United States
> > >
> > > Tel: Toll Free 800 821 1212
> > > Tel: +1 316 630 0101
> > > Email:
> > > Web: www.mcico.com
> > > "
> > >
> > > The response to my inquiry with is:
> > >
> > > "The cost to update the TT21 to the TT22 is $950.00. Turn around time is 3-4 days in house."
> >
> > That is some very useful information right there. Two questions:
> >
> > Does the receiver (FAA) have any way to tell more information about the GPS source? If it is transmitting an SIL of 3 (required for carriage requirements), other than physical inspection can a receiver discriminate between a 70 and a 72?
>
> There is no GPS Source vendor ID. No Mode-S transponder or UAT Out vendor ID, no serial numbers, no encryption signature, etc. allowed for in the design of ADS-B. The lack of signature is a much more serious shortcoming IMNSHO that any of the others. ADS-B Out systems do transmit SIL, NIC and NAC GPS quality parameters and interestingly CC (capability code) that describe if the aircraft has 1090ES In and/or UAT In.
>
> > What does Powerflarm do with a glider having both ADSB out and Flarm? Does it deambiguize?
>
> Yes it deduplicates them, based in aircraft ICAO address. Presumably PowerFLARM gives priority to the FLARM signal but somebody like Dave would have to confirm that.
>
> I believe FLARM also deduplicates Mode S PCAS alerts based on ICAO ID. It can't do that to Mode C PCAS alerts because there is no ICAO address broadcast on Mode C.

So hypothetically, an install of a TT21/TN72 in a certified glider is undetectable as such without a physical ground inspection? It looks to the receiver identical to a TT22/TN70 installation? (Ignoring here the regulatory consequences of such an inspection).

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> How does this offer fit into our discussion? For experimental gliders, and from the price point of view?
>
> http://grtavionics.com/home/ads-b-solutions/uavionix-echouat/

It does not fit anywhere. As discussed on r.a.s. many times in the past.

It is a UAT Out device. Invisible to PowerFLARM, invisible to TCAS.

And most importantly, It's not a transponder.... which the bulk of this conversation should be focused on.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:35:19 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:33:56 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:12:56 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > > I asked Trig support this question:
> > > >
> > > > "Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator?"
> > > >
> > > > Here is their reply:
> > > >
> > > > "The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22. Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance.
> > > >
> > > > The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output.. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx
> > > >
> > > > If you so choose, you can opt to have your TT21 upgraded to a TT22. For more information on this please contact our US service centre below;
> > > >
> > > > Trig Avionics Technical Support
> > > > 9400 East 34th Street North
> > > > Wichita
> > > > KS 67226
> > > > United States
> > > >
> > > > Tel: Toll Free 800 821 1212
> > > > Tel: +1 316 630 0101
> > > > Email:
> > > > Web: www.mcico.com
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > The response to my inquiry with is:
> > > >
> > > > "The cost to update the TT21 to the TT22 is $950.00. Turn around time is 3-4 days in house."
> > >
> > > That is some very useful information right there. Two questions:
> > >
> > > Does the receiver (FAA) have any way to tell more information about the GPS source? If it is transmitting an SIL of 3 (required for carriage requirements), other than physical inspection can a receiver discriminate between a 70 and a 72?
> >
> > There is no GPS Source vendor ID. No Mode-S transponder or UAT Out vendor ID, no serial numbers, no encryption signature, etc. allowed for in the design of ADS-B. The lack of signature is a much more serious shortcoming IMNSHO that any of the others. ADS-B Out systems do transmit SIL, NIC and NAC GPS quality parameters and interestingly CC (capability code) that describe if the aircraft has 1090ES In and/or UAT In.
> >
> > > What does Powerflarm do with a glider having both ADSB out and Flarm? Does it deambiguize?
> >
> > Yes it deduplicates them, based in aircraft ICAO address. Presumably PowerFLARM gives priority to the FLARM signal but somebody like Dave would have to confirm that.
> >
> > I believe FLARM also deduplicates Mode S PCAS alerts based on ICAO ID. It can't do that to Mode C PCAS alerts because there is no ICAO address broadcast on Mode C.
>
> So hypothetically, an install of a TT21/TN72 in a certified glider is undetectable as such without a physical ground inspection? It looks to the receiver identical to a TT22/TN70 installation? (Ignoring here the regulatory consequences of such an inspection).

Yes.

---

There also things here I am going to follow up on about my understanding of install regulations in certified gliders and the situation with TABS. I'd like to have that clearly clarified by the FAA.

[kinsell]

On 09/28/2017 12:50 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>> How does this offer fit into our discussion? For experimental gliders, and from the price point of view?
>>
>> http://grtavionics.com/home/ads-b-solutions/uavionix-echouat/
>
> It does not fit anywhere. As discussed on r.a.s. many times in the past.
>
> It is a UAT Out device. Invisible to PowerFLARM, invisible to TCAS.
>
> And most importantly, It's not a transponder.... which the bulk of this conversation should be focused on.
>

Seems a little harsh. It clearly states it's for use in conjunction
with a Mode C transponder. That will work fine with TCAS, and will give
PCAS type warnings on PF. If Tom already has Mode C, then it would be a
low cost option for making him more visible, and adding dual-band ADS-B
in at the same time.

-Dave

[Tom BravoMike]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 3:59:36 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 12:50 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> >> How does this offer fit into our discussion? For experimental gliders, and from the price point of view?
> >>
> >> http://grtavionics.com/home/ads-b-solutions/uavionix-echouat/
> >
> > It does not fit anywhere. As discussed on r.a.s. many times in the past..
> >
> > It is a UAT Out device. Invisible to PowerFLARM, invisible to TCAS.
> >
> > And most importantly, It's not a transponder.... which the bulk of this conversation should be focused on.
> >
>
> Seems a little harsh. It clearly states it's for use in conjunction
> with a Mode C transponder. That will work fine with TCAS, and will give
> PCAS type warnings on PF. If Tom already has Mode C, then it would be a
> low cost option for making him more visible, and adding dual-band ADS-B
> in at the same time.
>
> -Dave

That's exactly my case. I have the Microair T2000SFL and am willing to move toward ADS-B, without spending more than necessary, with the expected benefit of seeing and being seen electronically. At moments it sounds in the discussion here like one-sided visibility solves the problem: "you have the transponder - you are safe because they will see and fly around you". I would like to be seen by all practical means, and see possibly all traffic, so that I can react on my part, too.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:32:12 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 3:59:36 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> > On 09/28/2017 12:50 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > >> How does this offer fit into our discussion? For experimental gliders, and from the price point of view?
> > >>
> > >> http://grtavionics.com/home/ads-b-solutions/uavionix-echouat/
> > >
> > > It does not fit anywhere. As discussed on r.a.s. many times in the past.
> > >
> > > It is a UAT Out device. Invisible to PowerFLARM, invisible to TCAS.
> > >
> > > And most importantly, It's not a transponder.... which the bulk of this conversation should be focused on.
> > >
> >
> > Seems a little harsh. It clearly states it's for use in conjunction
> > with a Mode C transponder. That will work fine with TCAS, and will give
> > PCAS type warnings on PF. If Tom already has Mode C, then it would be a
> > low cost option for making him more visible, and adding dual-band ADS-B
> > in at the same time.
> >
> > -Dave
>
> That's exactly my case. I have the Microair T2000SFL and am willing to move toward ADS-B, without spending more than necessary, with the expected benefit of seeing and being seen electronically. At moments it sounds in the discussion here like one-sided visibility solves the problem: "you have the transponder - you are safe because they will see and fly around you". I would like to be seen by all practical means, and see possibly all traffic, so that I can react on my part, too.

Tom

Sorry, yes the product info clearly states for use with a Mode C, but I did not want to assume that use was implied in your question. Your question just said experiential glider, and I want to be very clear what it will or will not do.

When it comes to airlines and fast jets visibility to them, and ATC, should always be the first goal, visibility of them is also useful of course, and in other situations visibility of other traffic become more important (e.g. you can respond more effectively to avoid slower the traffic, that traffic is less likely to have TCAS, or any traffic display system etc.)

You already have a transponder, which is great. Next question is do you have a PowerFLARM? I am guessing not, but I'll touch in that below.

First, please don't adopt UAT Out in the glider community, it is a poor choice given so many gliders have PowerFLARM and will not see your UAT position data, they will see your transponder via PCAS as long as it is being interrogated, but of course that's much less precise that FLARM or ADS-B. If you do have PowerFLARM already, OK that traffic will see you by FLARM. But 1090ES Out is still a better choice, including because it provides longer range visbility of you to all the PowerFLARM users.

Because of compatibility with PowerFLARM if you have a Mode C transponder in a glider and want to go to ADS-B Out then the much better path is to upgrade your transponder to Mode S and a suitable GPS source. Please sell or give your current Mode C transponders to another pilot or club to use.

When considering the cost of things, remember older Mode C transponder will eventually die and need to be replaced, and so why not just replace it now with a Mode S?

And that device asked about does have a dual-link UAT and 1090ES receiver which is great, but there is no way to get that data to display on common soaring flight computers, PDAs etc. You could add a dedicated display for that.

If you do want to add PowerFLARM in future that is likely to be a mess with no way to dedupe traffic from your UAT and ADS-B In system. Again, discussed a lot on r.a.s. and more info can be found by searching, I hope that problem gets solved over time.

If you do want a complete separate dual-link ADS-B In system then products like the Status S2, Statux, and uAvionix Scout, and more are options. (I don't have any personal reports of Scout use). A dual-link ADS-B In system will receive all line of sight 1090ES and UAT Out traffic. It will not receive TIS-B ground service (ADS-B data based on SSR radar) without a compliant ADS-B out system to make your aircraft an ADS-B client. (the UAT system you ask about would do that, but again your ADS-B Out won't ever be seen by PowerFLARM).

GRT avionics and uAvionix targets experimental aircraft, and your question was clearly about experimental. And no surprise that the UAT device is non-TSO. But I do get frustrated with both vendors here not providing really clear specs on their website of what the RTCA and TSO standards the product actually meet. The leading bold "meets 2020 claim" is only true for experimental aircraft, that should be even clearer.

[Tom BravoMike]

Darryl,

Thank you for your extensive explanation. It basically confirms what I have understood so far about the system. Funny as it may sound, and contrary to the points you bring up, I seem to be even more convinced now that the relatively cheaper UAT system is the way to go.

1. I do have a Stratux with AHRS (on a second display, the first being XCSoar)and I'm subscribed to the iFlyGPS which has great screens with ADS-B traffic, plus includes photos of outlanding airfields with beautifully marked runways). I haven't tried it out extensively yet, but the little I have flown showed quite good visibility of the towers soon after launching.

2. I don't have PowerFlarm and don't think will go for it (but never say never). My doubt arises from the fact that it is so expensive while being limited to the soaring world. IMO, a better way to go is: forget FLARM, let everybody be equipped with ADS-B and let software apps calculate the collision avoidance with other gliders in soaring (BTW, I don't know what the probing/transmission frequency is for both systems). You state "so many gliders have PowerFLARM" - do we actually know how many? Percentagewise? So many problems/discussions on r.a.s. about Flarm upgrades, lack of range, antennas placing, poor customer service, interference issues etc. are not very encouraging, to be honest.

3. Why do so many sources say: You fly above 18,000 ft? Go for 1090. You fly below? Go for 978 ? See in that respect e.g.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/978-uat-vs-1090-mhz-which-ads-b-solution-is-for-you/

but disregard the specific equipment suggested.

4. For me, the key term is: ALL PARTICIPANTS. Broadcast your information, receive as much information as you can (both with the help of the ground service centers/towers), use/tinker with what you get, adjusted to what you need for safety and competition by proper software onboard. Common, massive use of ADS-B will drive prices down.

5. I fully agree with your advice to upgrade to Mode S, which would open new options. The depth of the pocket will have the final say.


On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 5:24:01 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:32:12 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 3:59:36 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> > > On 09/28/2017 12:50 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > > >> How does this offer fit into our discussion? For experimental gliders, and from the price point of view?
> > > >>
> > > >> http://grtavionics.com/home/ads-b-solutions/uavionix-echouat/
> > > >
> > > > It does not fit anywhere. As discussed on r.a.s. many times in the past.
> > > >
> > > > It is a UAT Out device. Invisible to PowerFLARM, invisible to TCAS.
> > > >
> > > > And most importantly, It's not a transponder.... which the bulk of this conversation should be focused on.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Seems a little harsh. It clearly states it's for use in conjunction
> > > with a Mode C transponder. That will work fine with TCAS, and will give
> > > PCAS type warnings on PF. If Tom already has Mode C, then it would be a
> > > low cost option for making him more visible, and adding dual-band ADS-B
> > > in at the same time.
> > >
> > > -Dave
> >
> > That's exactly my case. I have the Microair T2000SFL and am willing to move toward ADS-B, without spending more than necessary, with the expected benefit of seeing and being seen electronically. At moments it sounds in the discussion here like one-sided visibility solves the problem: "you have the transponder - you are safe because they will see and fly around you". I would like to be seen by all practical means, and see possibly all traffic, so that I can react on my part, too.
>
> Tom
>
> Sorry, yes the product info clearly states for use with a Mode C, but I did not want to assume that use was implied in your question. Your question just said experiential glider, and I want to be very clear what it will or will not do.
>
> When it comes to airlines and fast jets visibility to them, and ATC, should always be the first goal, visibility of them is also useful of course, and in other situations visibility of other traffic become more important (e.g. you can respond more effectively to avoid slower the traffic, that traffic is less likely to have TCAS, or any traffic display system etc.)
>
> You already have a transponder, which is great. Next question is do you have a PowerFLARM? I am guessing not, but I'll touch in that below.
>
> First, please don't adopt UAT Out in the glider community, it is a poor choice given so many gliders have PowerFLARM and will not see your UAT position data, they will see your transponder via PCAS as long as it is being interrogated, but of course that's much less precise that FLARM or ADS-B. If you do have PowerFLARM already, OK that traffic will see you by FLARM. But 1090ES Out is still a better choice, including because it provides longer range visbility of you to all the PowerFLARM users.
>
> Because of compatibility with PowerFLARM if you have a Mode C transponder in a glider and want to go to ADS-B Out then the much better path is to upgrade your transponder to Mode S and a suitable GPS source. Please sell or give your current Mode C transponders to another pilot or club to use.
>
> When considering the cost of things, remember older Mode C transponder will eventually die and need to be replaced, and so why not just replace it now with a Mode S?
>
> And that device asked about does have a dual-link UAT and 1090ES receiver which is great, but there is no way to get that data to display on common soaring flight computers, PDAs etc. You could add a dedicated display for that.
>
> If you do want to add PowerFLARM in future that is likely to be a mess with no way to dedupe traffic from your UAT and ADS-B In system. Again, discussed a lot on r.a.s. and more info can be found by searching, I hope that problem gets solved over time.
>
> If you do want a complete separate dual-link ADS-B In system then products like the Status S2, Statux, and uAvionix Scout, and more are options. (I don't have any personal reports of Scout use). A dual-link ADS-B In system will receive all line of sight 1090ES and UAT Out traffic. It will not receive TIS-B ground service (ADS-B data based on SSR radar) without a compliant ADS-B out system to make your aircraft an ADS-B client. (the UAT system you ask about would do that, but again your ADS-B Out won't ever be seen by PowerFLARM).
>
> GRT avionics and uAvionix targets experimental aircraft, and your question was clearly about experimental. And no surprise that the UAT device is non-TSO. But I do get frustrated with both vendors here not providing really clear specs on their website of what the RTCA and TSO standards the product actually meet. The leading bold "meets 2020 claim" is only true for experimental aircraft, that should be even clearer.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:53:44 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
/snip/
> 3. Why do so many sources say: You fly above 18,000 ft? Go for 1090. You fly below? Go for 978 ? See in that respect e.g.
>
> https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/978-uat-vs-1090-mhz-which-ads-b-solution-is-for-you/
>
> but disregard the specific equipment suggested.
/snip/

Tom

Sounds like you have a great handle on stuff here to help make the right decisions for you.

I would not give too much weight too much to the UAT argument in that blog. it's from several years ago, and suspect it is coming at a time where there actually started to be more 1090ES out installs in GA. Garmin might have had a sales reason around that time to mention UAT product upgrades (on the GLD88) and also may have in part just been echoing the FAAs vision for how ADS-B dual-link was going to be deployed. Today below 18,000' I think it is a good mix of UAT and 1090ES.

Some comments in the strange gymnastics behind dual-link in the USA: Originally the FAA has a view that UAT would be used for all lower altitude aircraft (then below FL240, later lowered to 18,000'), driven by concerns about 1090 MHz congestion, and likely expected costs of Mode S transponders, and likely a desire to create a user base of UAT to make FIS-B successful (and have FIS-B successful to encourage UAT adoption..). And organizations like AOPA and EAA liked the idea of keeping Mode C transponders so liked the idea of UAT, and so on.

.... but much of it is probably not true, Mode S transponders are not hugely expensive (for what they do), the rest of the word ignored UAT and went 1090ES only, so economies of there helped lower prices and will continue to, lots of folks "cheated" and got free FIS-B with portable devices without playing in ADS-B proper, ADS-B Out for many install its easier to upgrade older transponders with plug in replacements (and use existing antenna and wiring etc.) , or do a Mode S transponder firmware upgrade , etc., etc. It's a very complex system and I don't think played out as envisioned early on, really complex systems rarely do.

It seems that lots of GA folks are installing lots of different ADS-B Out stuff, in the mid-high end GA market I see people going with 1090ES Out and Dual-Link In. And not just for people who might fly in class A airspace. Much of that is driven by easy upgrades/add on to their transponders

As for PowerFLARM adoption, glider ports and operations that I know have strong adoption, most people flying cross country have it. The thing that matters is where you fly, if PowerFLARM usage is very low (and not likely to increase) then its a non-issue.

I'm not sure there us somebody else able to develop the software equivalent for ADS-B to what makes FLARM useful between gliders, usable at all in thermals etc. I've seen the issues with PowerFLARM, it was very frustrating, but I think we are on a stable/usable system now.

[Tim Taylor]

It is too bad we don't have an organization that would be willing to lobby the FAA to allow lower powered or experimental approved transponders and ADS-B out solutions in Certified gliders that do not have an electrical generator. Wouldn't that have been a reasonable approach for the last ten years? Why does the power requirements for transponders change at 15k rather than 18k? All things that working with the FAI might have helped the glider community in the long run.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:14:46 PM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> It is too bad we don't have an organization that would be willing to lobby the FAA to allow lower powered or experimental approved transponders and ADS-B out solutions in Certified gliders that do not have an electrical generator. Wouldn't that have been a reasonable approach for the last ten years? Why does the power requirements for transponders change at 15k rather than 18k? All things that working with the FAI might have helped the glider community in the long run.

Being honest, the power argument is a specious excuse, at least in any serious cross country glider. The panel is full of battery powered stuff and even with old LA batteries it was not a problem to power them for 8 hours. With a single LFP mine will run about 14 hours. Including the transponder. In an old club 2-33 maybe there is an argument. It comes down to expense and installation suitability. The 145 gps units seem to require a huge wart antenna and the installation nonsense that goes with it.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:14:46 AM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> It is too bad we don't have an organization that would be willing to lobby the FAA to allow lower powered or experimental approved transponders and ADS-B out solutions in Certified gliders that do not have an electrical generator. Wouldn't that have been a reasonable approach for the last ten years? Why does the power requirements for transponders change at 15k rather than 18k? All things that working with the FAI might have helped the glider community in the long run.

Because half azzed transponder solutions are worse than no transponders. A bunch of pilots flying low power transponders powered by a hobby battery wired by an amateur and everyone assuming everything up there will be on everyone's TV is far more dangerous than knowing that there are things up there not beeping.

[kinsell]

On 09/28/2017 11:14 PM, Tim Taylor wrote:
> It is too bad we don't have an organization that would be willing to lobby the FAA to allow lower powered or experimental approved transponders and ADS-B out solutions in Certified gliders that do not have an electrical generator. Wouldn't that have been a reasonable approach for the last ten years? Why does the power requirements for transponders change at 15k rather than 18k? All things that working with the FAI might have helped the glider community in the long run.
>

Some day, driven by requirements for drones, we'll have really low cost
collision avoidance. It will look absolutely nothing like a 250 watt
mode S transponder, hooked to an outrageously overengineered and
overpriced GPS, topped off with a $300 antenna.

For air-air avoidance, you'd need a watt or so of transmit power. Not
the low milliwatt power of PowerFlarm, that was driven by the
constraints of using unlicensed spectrum. Not 250 watts, that's the
legacy requirement of the FAA seeing you 200 miles away. Just something
that's reasonable to get the job done.

Technically, it would be easy build such a thing. Whether it would ever
be approved for use in gliders, that's highly debatable.

[[email protected]]

These transponders are being installed in aircraft that receive an annual inspection by AI or A&P. That person ensures that the aircraft and all systems meet manufacturer and FAA specifications. If the aircraft doesn't then it's no longer airworthy and won't be flying.
If you are aware of such gliders, then maybe a friendly talk with whoever signed their logbook is in order. If that doesn't resolve the problem, a call to the local FSDO might be required.

Perhaps someone should be taking a close look at your glider? :-)

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 8:54:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Because half azzed transponder solutions are worse than no transponders. A
> bunch of pilots flying low power transponders powered by a hobby battery wired
> by an amateur and everyone assuming everything up there will be on everyone's
> TV is far more dangerous than knowing that there are things up there not beeping.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:54:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> These transponders are being installed in aircraft that receive an annual inspection by AI or A&P. That person ensures that the aircraft and all systems meet manufacturer and FAA specifications. If the aircraft doesn't then it's no longer airworthy and won't be flying.
> If you are aware of such gliders, then maybe a friendly talk with whoever signed their logbook is in order. If that doesn't resolve the problem, a call to the local FSDO might be required.
>
> Perhaps someone should be taking a close look at your glider? :-)
The glider in the Minden midair had a transponder installed, it wasn't legal, yet the glider still flew.
We all know how much owner maintenance/improvement goes on. Some of it legal some less so. Some of it better than you could hire a pro to do, some of it... meh. I'm willing to not talk about it as long as no one is trying to force me to install an expensive ball roasting beeper.
PS The electrical system in my glider is perfect.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:54:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > These transponders are being installed in aircraft that receive an annual inspection by AI or A&P. That person ensures that the aircraft and all systems meet manufacturer and FAA specifications. If the aircraft doesn't then it's no longer airworthy and won't be flying.
> > If you are aware of such gliders, then maybe a friendly talk with whoever signed their logbook is in order. If that doesn't resolve the problem, a call to the local FSDO might be required.
> >
> > Perhaps someone should be taking a close look at your glider? :-)
> The glider in the Minden midair had a transponder installed,
> it wasn't legal, yet the glider still flew.

My understanding is that it was inoperable due to not yet tested, so legal, since it's not a required instrument.

> ... an expensive ball roasting beeper.

Unless you put the antenna in your pants, there should be no problem with the radiation emitted by a transponder. Here's a good read on the subject. If you mount the antenna on the bottom of the fuselage behind the main wheel, it's more than far enough from your precious parts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/340117/HpaRpd031.pdf

> PS The electrical system in my glider is perfect.

5Z

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:54:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > These transponders are being installed in aircraft that receive an annual inspection by AI or A&P. That person ensures that the aircraft and all systems meet manufacturer and FAA specifications. If the aircraft doesn't then it's no longer airworthy and won't be flying.
> > If you are aware of such gliders, then maybe a friendly talk with whoever signed their logbook is in order. If that doesn't resolve the problem, a call to the local FSDO might be required.
> >
> > Perhaps someone should be taking a close look at your glider? :-)
> The glider in the Minden midair had a transponder installed, it wasn't legal, yet the glider still flew.
> We all know how much owner maintenance/improvement goes on. Some of it legal some less so. Some of it better than you could hire a pro to do, some of it... meh. I'm willing to not talk about it as long as no one is trying to force me to install an expensive ball roasting beeper.
> PS The electrical system in my glider is perfect.

So to recap your safety position. You start by childishly made fun of risks involving a near mid-air collision with an airliner, then talk about knowing about gliders with problem wring, but are willing to trade off staying silent about that as long as your privilege is never harmed by any possibility of being forced to install a transponder. No apparent consideration if a transponder is or is not actually an important safety tool where you fly. Just the privilege to do whatever you want and a threat to talking about problems if you don't get you way? You sure see to be doing whatever you can to invite examination of gliders where you fly.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 9:01:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:53:44 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> /snip/
> > 3. Why do so many sources say: You fly above 18,000 ft? Go for 1090. You fly below? Go for 978 ? See in that respect e.g.
> >
> > https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/978-uat-vs-1090-mhz-which-ads-b-solution-is-for-you/
> >
> > but disregard the specific equipment suggested.
> /snip/
>
> Tom
>
> Sounds like you have a great handle on stuff here to help make the right decisions for you.
>
> I would not give too much weight too much to the UAT argument in that blog. it's from several years ago, and suspect it is coming at a time where there actually started to be more 1090ES out installs in GA. Garmin might have had a sales reason around that time to mention UAT product upgrades (on the GLD88) and also may have in part just been echoing the FAAs vision for how ADS-B dual-link was going to be deployed. Today below 18,000' I think it is a good mix of UAT and 1090ES.
>
> Some comments in the strange gymnastics behind dual-link in the USA: Originally the FAA has a view that UAT would be used for all lower altitude aircraft (then below FL240, later lowered to 18,000'), driven by concerns about 1090 MHz congestion, and likely expected costs of Mode S transponders, and likely a desire to create a user base of UAT to make FIS-B successful (and have FIS-B successful to encourage UAT adoption..). And organizations like AOPA and EAA liked the idea of keeping Mode C transponders so liked the idea of UAT, and so on.
>
> ... but much of it is probably not true, Mode S transponders are not hugely expensive (for what they do), the rest of the word ignored UAT and went 1090ES only, so economies of there helped lower prices and will continue to, lots of folks "cheated" and got free FIS-B with portable devices without playing in ADS-B proper, ADS-B Out for many install its easier to upgrade older transponders with plug in replacements (and use existing antenna and wiring etc.) , or do a Mode S transponder firmware upgrade , etc., etc. It's a very complex system and I don't think played out as envisioned early on, really complex systems rarely do.
>
> It seems that lots of GA folks are installing lots of different ADS-B Out stuff, in the mid-high end GA market I see people going with 1090ES Out and Dual-Link In. And not just for people who might fly in class A airspace. Much of that is driven by easy upgrades/add on to their transponders
>
> As for PowerFLARM adoption, glider ports and operations that I know have strong adoption, most people flying cross country have it. The thing that matters is where you fly, if PowerFLARM usage is very low (and not likely to increase) then its a non-issue.
>
> I'm not sure there us somebody else able to develop the software equivalent for ADS-B to what makes FLARM useful between gliders, usable at all in thermals etc. I've seen the issues with PowerFLARM, it was very frustrating, but I think we are on a stable/usable system now.

BTW I was talking with the ADS-B contact at a FSDO today and he sort of confirmed my feeling. ADS-B Out installs in GA are incredibly busy, shops backed up. Most GA installs there seem to be 1090ES Out, with UAT Out used in lower-end aircraft like flight school 150/152. Stats may be skewed in major metro area/more high-end aircraft?

Looking for the usage split with a dual-link receiver would be interesting.... Andy Blackburn you got any observations for GA?

[Dan Marotta]

I resisted installing a transponder for a long time both due to cost and
the remote areas where I normally fly.Â* Despite the relatively light
traffic in my area, I got a very close up look at a large twin GA
aircraft one day and decided it was time.Â* Knowing that Mode 3A/C was on
the downhill slide to oblivion, I chose a Mode S Trig.Â* Since the TT22
was not that much more expensive than the TT21 and certainly less than a
descent soaring computer, I also went that way.Â* I haven't seen another
aircraft up close (gliders excepted) since.Â* That makes me really happy.

On 9/29/2017 2:12 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:54:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> These transponders are being installed in aircraft that receive an annual inspection by AI or A&P. That person ensures that the aircraft and all systems meet manufacturer and FAA specifications. If the aircraft doesn't then it's no longer airworthy and won't be flying.
>>> If you are aware of such gliders, then maybe a friendly talk with whoever signed their logbook is in order. If that doesn't resolve the problem, a call to the local FSDO might be required.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should be taking a close look at your glider? :-)
>> The glider in the Minden midair had a transponder installed, it wasn't legal, yet the glider still flew.
>> We all know how much owner maintenance/improvement goes on. Some of it legal some less so. Some of it better than you could hire a pro to do, some of it... meh. I'm willing to not talk about it as long as no one is trying to force me to install an expensive ball roasting beeper.
>> PS The electrical system in my glider is perfect.
> So to recap your safety position. You start by childishly made fun of risks involving a near mid-air collision with an airliner, then talk about knowing about gliders with problem wring, but are willing to trade off staying silent about that as long as your privilege is never harmed by any possibility of being forced to install a transponder. No apparent consideration if a transponder is or is not actually an important safety tool where you fly. Just the privilege to do whatever you want and a threat to talking about problems if you don't get you way? You sure see to be doing whatever you can to invite examination of gliders where you fly.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[George Haeh]

The Flarm folks have teamed up with TBS to enable Flarm on dronesje.
Possibly
the big iron operators will be more motivated by drones than gliders to
adopt
Flarm.

https://flarm.com/flarm-market-leader-for-uav/

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 8:45:07 AM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
> The Flarm folks have teamed up with TBS to enable Flarm on dronesje.
> Possibly
> the big iron operators will be more motivated by drones than gliders to
> adopt
> Flarm.
>
> https://flarm.com/flarm-market-leader-for-uav/


This is the European Flarm. So not the same frequency as the US and not approved by the FCC.

Richard

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
> The Flarm folks have teamed up with TBS to enable Flarm on dronesje.
> Possibly
> the big iron operators will be more motivated by drones than gliders to
> adopt
> Flarm.
>
> https://flarm.com/flarm-market-leader-for-uav/

The big iron will never install flarm.
There are better solutions for UAVs. Look at this company and the tiny Mod S transponder with ADS-B out. This Mod S transponder will be visible to TCAS and it is so small that it can be installed in an UAV.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:34:39 PM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
> > The Flarm folks have teamed up with TBS to enable Flarm on dronesje.
> > Possibly
> > the big iron operators will be more motivated by drones than gliders to
> > adopt
> > Flarm.
> >
> > https://flarm.com/flarm-market-leader-for-uav/
>
> The big iron will never install flarm.
> There are better solutions for UAVs. Look at this company and the tiny Mod S transponder with ADS-B out. This Mod S transponder will be visible to TCAS and it is so small that it can be installed in an UAV.

No link
Thx
UH

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:34:39 PM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
> > The Flarm folks have teamed up with TBS to enable Flarm on dronesje.
> > Possibly
> > the big iron operators will be more motivated by drones than gliders to
> > adopt
> > Flarm.
> >
> > https://flarm.com/flarm-market-leader-for-uav/
>
> The big iron will never install flarm.
> There are better solutions for UAVs. Look at this company and the tiny Mod S transponder with ADS-B out. This Mod S transponder will be visible to TCAS and it is so small that it can be installed in an UAV.

and the link is:
http://www.rcubedengineering.com/ecommerce/echoesx.html

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> Looking for the usage split with a dual-link receiver would be interesting... Andy Blackburn you got any observations for GA?

My observations are anecdotal and based on living 15 miles from SFO. I need to take my rig out away from a major airport to where it's mostly GA. With that disclaimer, here's what I saw sitting near the San Carlos, CA airport..

The targets shown on linked screenshots (link below) are from a version of Stratux that shows the type of ADS-B traffic by appending two characters to the beginning of the aircraft ID - e=1090ES, u=UAT for the link frequency; a=ADS-B direct, t=TIS-B, r=ADS-R. The screenshots are from earlier in the summer.

Observations:
1) Most of the ADS-B direct traffic is 1090ES, even for non-airline traffic.. I haven't done a lot of looking up of aircraft IDs to sort out type of aircraft. I'm presuming a bias towards high-end aircraft based on my location..
2) There is some UAT traffic, because something is asking for ADS-R and TIS-B over UAT and it's not me.
3) There seems to still a lot of transponder-only traffic as evidenced by all the TIS-B traffic. I am assuming that if this traffic had an ADS-B direct signal it would take display precedence over TIS-B.
4) A lot of aircraft appear to not have their ADS-B aircraft type set properly as jets seem to pretty regularly show up as pistons. Still trying to figure that one out.
5) Lots of traffic flips between ADS-B direct and ADS-R. I'm assuming this is based on whichever signal is stronger or some de-duplicating logic in Stratux.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw1ChKkWEYLNNEg5ME8zZmNJWGs

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 12:12:11 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
/snip/
> 3) There seems to still a lot of transponder-only traffic as evidenced by all the TIS-B traffic. I am assuming that if this traffic had an ADS-B direct signal it would take display precedence over TIS-B.

Yep. The aircraft has UAT or 1090ES Out then you generally won't see TIS-B reports for it as all the client aircraft should have that data satisfied by ASD-B direct or ADS-R. There must be some cases where SSR targets are not deduplicated with Mode C transponders and broadcast anyhow. That should be a pretty low, but I don't know any numbers. I suspect you are really seeing all the folks who have yet to go ASD-B Out at all.

[[email protected]]

So is it possible that UAT will be abandoned and everybody move to 1090ES? And then the FAA will stop mirroring the info as ADS-R to the UAT frequency? If that happens, will the existing PowerFLARM devices become useless (other than flarm-to-flarm warnings)?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 2:23:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> So is it possible that UAT will be abandoned and everybody move to 1090ES? And then the FAA will stop mirroring the info as ADS-R to the UAT frequency? If that happens, will the existing PowerFLARM devices become useless (other than flarm-to-flarm warnings)?

UAT won't be abandoned, there is clearly significant use out there. And the FAA/and its' contractors and owners have already invested a huge amount in all this infrastructure. This discussion went off on talking about the relative adoption of 1090ES and UAT vs older assumptions that it would be largely UAT at lower-altitudes, and that is not what appears to be happening. And UAT receiver technology allows FIS-B data display for weather and TFRs etc. which is a nice benefit and nobody will want that taken away.

I don't understand why you think existing PowerFLARM devices are related to UAT. The only ADS-B thing a PowerFLARM can do is receive 190ES In, and only that direct from the 1090ES Out aircraft. They come out of Europe were there is no UAT and are completely incompatible with UAT. If UAT never existed PowerFLARM would be *more* useful in the USA because you would see all ADS-B Out traffic. PowerFLARM does not transmit on UAT, can't see UAT, and can't receive ADS-R relay of UAT traffic (even if you have a suitable ADS-B Out system to cause your glider to become an ADS-R client).

[SoaringXCellence]

Andy,

What hardware/software are you running to display the Stratux data stream?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:03:10 PM UTC-7, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> Andy,
>
> What hardware/software are you running to display the Stratux data stream?

Here's a list of compatible apps.

http://stratux.me

Andy

[kinsell]

On 09/30/2017 01:12 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> 4) A lot of aircraft appear to not have their ADS-B aircraft type set properly as jets seem to pretty regularly show up as pistons. Still trying to figure that one out.


I've been watching 1090ES traffic on a FlightAware (Piaware) receiver
for several years. 60 Miles N of Denver International, so see lots of
jets headed up to Seattle area. I don't ever remember seeing a jet
misidentify as a piston plane on my system.

There used to be some occasional errors, like a heading always showing N
regardless of actual track over the ground, and position reports wildly
bouncing all over the place, but those seem to be cleaned up now.

-Dave

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

FlightAware may be using the ICAO ID to look up aircraft type. I'm talking about the aircraft type embedded in the ADS-B transmission itself. It's also possible Stratux has some sort of glitch, but I was looking at the individual data packets and something wasn't right on some. I've heard similar reports from industry insiders - aircraft IDd as AC type "balloon". Go figure..

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

All off subject but around the year 2000, I flew a MD 500, mode C transponder, over the LA class bravo airspace. Listening to ATC there was some discussion about what I was and why I was there, one of the theories floated was is it a weather ballon, or hot air ballon. Come on, I was flying 110 knots indicated.

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 11:10:36 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> FlightAware may be using the ICAO ID to look up aircraft type. I'm talking about the aircraft type embedded in the ADS-B transmission itself. It's also possible Stratux has some sort of glitch, but I was looking at the individual data packets and something wasn't right on some. I've heard similar reports from industry insiders - aircraft IDd as AC type "balloon". Go figure.

[Ramy[_2_]]

While we at it, will be good to know if we can connect any non TSO amplified GPS antenna to the TN72 and save an additional $300, and if anyone has a recommendation.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:39:42 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> I don't understand why you think existing PowerFLARM devices are related to UAT. The only ADS-B thing a PowerFLARM can do is receive 190ES In, and only that direct from the 1090ES Out aircraft. They come out of Europe were there is no UAT and are completely incompatible with UAT. If UAT never existed PowerFLARM would be *more* useful in the USA because you would see all ADS-B Out traffic. PowerFLARM does not transmit on UAT, can't see UAT, and can't receive ADS-R relay of UAT traffic (even if you have a suitable ADS-B Out system to cause your glider to become an ADS-R client).

- thanks Darryl. So I had the ADS-B frequency that PowerFLARM uses backwards. So is ADS-R one-way only, relaying 1090ES traffic to UAT and not the other way around? Doesn't that limit the usefulness of UAT for GA aircraft, if it does not make them directly visible to the heavies? Or is there some other reason why PF won't receive ADS-R? (This over-complicated system makes my head hurt.)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:09:40 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:39:42 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > I don't understand why you think existing PowerFLARM devices are related to UAT. The only ADS-B thing a PowerFLARM can do is receive 190ES In, and only that direct from the 1090ES Out aircraft. They come out of Europe were there is no UAT and are completely incompatible with UAT. If UAT never existed PowerFLARM would be *more* useful in the USA because you would see all ADS-B Out traffic. PowerFLARM does not transmit on UAT, can't see UAT, and can't receive ADS-R relay of UAT traffic (even if you have a suitable ADS-B Out system to cause your glider to become an ADS-R client).
>
> - thanks Darryl. So I had the ADS-B frequency that PowerFLARM uses backwards. So is ADS-R one-way only, relaying 1090ES traffic to UAT and not the other way around? Doesn't that limit the usefulness of UAT for GA aircraft, if it does not make them directly visible to the heavies? Or is there some other reason why PF won't receive ADS-R? (This over-complicated system makes my head hurt.)

It might help to remember PowerFLARM does 1090ES In (ie. the 1090 MHz transponder reply frequency) because PowerFLARM also uses that same 1090 MHz receiver to provide PCAS detection. (UAT operates on 978 MHz).

ADS-R goes both ways. The ADS-B Out system in an aircraft has "CC" capability code flags that describe if the Aircraft has ADS-B In on UAT or 1090ES (and obviously if neither flag set then no ADS-B In). The FAA ADS-B Ground systems looks at that "client" aircraft and "target" aircraft nearby it (within 15 naut. mile radius +/- 3,500' "hockey puck") and transmits data from the ADS-B link layer it knows the client can't receive to the one it can. If the client has no or both link layers (as many the systems do now) it won't be an ADS-R client at all. A properly configured dual link layer receiver aircraft may still be a TIS-B client (if the target does not have ADS-B Out at all).

ADS-B In systems may not operate fully/as expected unless the ADS-B Out transmitter for that aircraft has the CC flags set correctly. This incorrect setup is especially likely with portable ADS-B In system. Luckily most portable and fixed (GA focused) ADS-B receivers are now dual-link which makes this less of an issue... but you might still not receive TIS-B. Make sure you understand how your setup in your specific aircraft will work.

The actual retransmission data message via ADS-R, is very slightly different than the message it is retransmitting... the FAA system could not work it it was exactly the same. PowerFLARM coming out of Europe was apparently never developed to handle those slightly different USA focused ADS-R messages..

Remember outside of gliders all UAT Out equipped aircraft that are expected to get near an airliner are also going to have a transponder. That transponder is going to always be seen by the airliners TCAS II system. The ultimate magic of a TCAS II RA (resolution advisory) where TCAS directs the pilot (and the pilot must follow) what to do, only ever happens via transponder interrogation. A TCAS II system will fly into a UAT only equipped target with no RA. Airliners may also have 1090ES In and Out and will be ADS-R clients, that can be used to paint traffic on displays etc. It does not drive a TCAS RA. The needs for transponders in areas of busy airliner and fast jet traffic for TCAS compatibility is a very important issue. That ASG29 vs. Hawker 800 middair... yep the Hawker 800 had full TCAS II, glider had its transponder (recently installed but not yet tested/signed off) turned off.....

[Dan Marotta]

/snip/ yep the Hawker 800 had full TCAS II, glider had its transponder
(recently installed but not yet tested/signed off) turned off..../snip/
>

So...Â* Had the glider simply turned on the transponder, the collision
likely would not have happened?Â* Sounds a lot like being "dead right".Â*
What harm could have come from turning on the transponder before it was
signed off?

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:43:54 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> /snip/ yep the Hawker 800 had full TCAS II, glider had its transponder
> (recently installed but not yet tested/signed off) turned off..../snip/
> >
>
> So...Â* Had the glider simply turned on the transponder, the collision
> likely would not have happened?Â* Sounds a lot like being "dead right".Â*
> What harm could have come from turning on the transponder before it was
> signed off?
>
> --
> Dan, 5J
This is why the FAA has left gliders alone. They'd rather have no beepers in gliders than beepers that are not working properly or not all the time.

[Dan Marotta]

Didn't answer the question.

What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?

On 10/2/2017 8:51 AM, wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:43:54 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> /snip/ yep the Hawker 800 had full TCAS II, glider had its transponder
>> (recently installed but not yet tested/signed off) turned off..../snip/
>> So...Â* Had the glider simply turned on the transponder, the collision
>> likely would not have happened?Â* Sounds a lot like being "dead right".
>> What harm could have come from turning on the transponder before it was
>> signed off?
>>
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> This is why the FAA has left gliders alone. They'd rather have no beepers in gliders than beepers that are not working properly or not all the time.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Has anyone completed a fully compliant ADSB install in a glider that is willing to share who did it and the cost?

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Didn't answer the question.
>
> What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?

Violation of FAR 91.413.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Darryl Ramm]

Andrzej Kobus has done at least one ADS-B out install in a glider and posted about it before on r.a.s. You can search for previous posts on that. Trig TT22 transponder and TN70 TSO-C145 GPS.

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).

BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
proper logbook entry.

On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Didn't answer the question.
>>
>> What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
> Violation of FAR 91.413.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

[Ramy[_2_]]

Dan, the only risk would have been if the transponder was reporting wrong altitude. Of course in this case it would have been better to turn it on, and make a simple radio call to Reno approach for a transponder check.

Ramy

[Dan Marotta]

That's what I thought.Â* Had I been in the same situation (untested
transponder), I would have turned it on, asked Reno if they saw me, and
what was my reported altitude.

On 10/2/2017 11:35 AM, Ramy wrote:
> Dan, the only risk would have been if the transponder was reporting wrong altitude. Of course in this case it would have been better to turn it on, and make a simple radio call to Reno approach for a transponder check.
>
> Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:16:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
> might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
> not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
> been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
> it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
> just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).
>
> BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
> preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
> proper logbook entry.
>
> On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> Didn't answer the question.
> >>
> >> What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
> > Violation of FAR 91.413.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Dan

Evan is pointing out what is believed to be the pilot's concern here.

My pragmatic safety focused answer is there was little reason not to turn that transponder on, and I would have. The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.

One thing to note is Appendix F to Part 43 does not check altitude encoder accuracy. And that transponder reported altitude is key to interoperation with TCAS. It's a good idea to check the encoder altitude displayed on your transponder against the altimeter and other sources, or check in with ATC if the transponder does not have an encoder altitude display.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
> might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
> not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
> been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
> it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
> just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).
>
> BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
> preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
> proper logbook entry.
>
> On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> Didn't answer the question.
> >>
> >> What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
> > Violation of FAR 91.413.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

More information along with the link to the report.

1.3.2 Glider Information

The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio, global positioning system (GPS) unit, a Cambridge 302, and a Mode C transponder; however, the pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was unsure of the remaining charge in the battery.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297&ntsbno=LAX06FA277A&akey=1

Best. Tom #711.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:50:48 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:16:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
> > might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
> > not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
> > been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
> > it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
> > just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse)..
> >
> > BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
> > preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
> > proper logbook entry.
> >
> > On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >> Didn't answer the question.
> > >>
> > >> What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
> > > Violation of FAR 91.413.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> Dan
>
> Evan is pointing out what is believed to be the pilot's concern here.
>
> My pragmatic safety focused answer is there was little reason not to turn that transponder on, and I would have. The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.
>
> One thing to note is Appendix F to Part 43 does not check altitude encoder accuracy. And that transponder reported altitude is key to interoperation with TCAS. It's a good idea to check the encoder altitude displayed on your transponder against the altimeter and other sources, or check in with ATC if the transponder does not have an encoder altitude display.

Oh sorry my bad. brain fart, this was a first install so Appendix E to Part 43 applies, which *does* include an altitude encoder test.

I was rushing to try to make a point that regular biannual transponder tests that folks will have done on their glider transponders do not check the encoder accuracy.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:02:05 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> ...
>
> The actual retransmission data message via ADS-R, is very slightly different than the message it is retransmitting... the FAA system could not work it it was exactly the same. PowerFLARM coming out of Europe was apparently never developed to handle those slightly different USA focused ADS-R messages.

Wow. If this is a just a software tweak, it would make sense to request the FLARM team to do it. They would then likely sell more units in the USA, where GA traffic on UAT is definitely part of the traffic glider pilots are trying to "see". And even some small GA plane owners may buy it, like some do in Europe. And the more units sold, the lower the price me eventually be, thus yet more sold...

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 2 October 2017 11:50:48 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.
>

My story - I bought a Ventus 2CX that is registered experimental with a installed transponder and appropriate log book entries and bi-annual checks. I checked the antenna and it was a L2 antenna, http://wingsandwheels.com/l2-aae.html, that was mounted behind the pilot seat on the floor of the fuselage. Seemed a bit odd to me as the fuselage is carbon but with all the signoffs, and I know the A&P that installed it, I assumed I was uninformed. I flew for a couple of months, including a number of wave flights around the Salt Lake Class B and over, through multiple arrival and departure lanes, and then put it away for the winter.

Next spring before flying I did the transponder bi-annual check, different company than one used previously, and the guy went about his business. Measured output inside the cockpit, measured output at the wingtip and measured output 100 yards away. He then asked for the log book, went through it and then placed his sticker in the book and signed it.

He called me over to the cockpit and asked me to show him the antenna setup which I did and he just shook his head and smiled. He then gave me the logbook and asked 'Do your testicles tingle or glow after a long flight?'

He went to explain that he measured 250 watts in the cockpit, ~125 watts at the wingtip and <50 watts at 100 yards. Basically I was just bombarding my body.

He *did* signoff on the bi-annual test as the transponder was operating correctly!

Yes I quickly got a external shark fin antenna installed and verified it was operating correctly with SLC ATC during the next flight.

Yes we all must understand how our equipment works and use common sense when needed.

Ron Gleason

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:22:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:02:05 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > The actual retransmission data message via ADS-R, is very slightly different than the message it is retransmitting... the FAA system could not work it it was exactly the same. PowerFLARM coming out of Europe was apparently never developed to handle those slightly different USA focused ADS-R messages.
>
> Wow. If this is a just a software tweak, it would make sense to request the FLARM team to do it. They would then likely sell more units in the USA, where GA traffic on UAT is definitely part of the traffic glider pilots are trying to "see". And even some small GA plane owners may buy it, like some do in Europe. And the more units sold, the lower the price me eventually be, thus yet more sold...

FLARM would also need to do TIS-B support (more complex), and actually provide UAT In and support FIS-B data displays, etc. to be competitive in the USA GA market. And that is a lot of work for a market that already has lots of other options.

Assuming things are as I believe, adding ADS-R support should be a relatively simple change in PowerFLARM. A slight decreases in position accuracy need to be thought through. But my handwaving is easy, reality is always more complex. Right now with no real significant adoption of TABS or ADS-B Out in gliders in the USA its not an immediate issue, but I would encourage folks to let FLARM know they want this support. And include in that if/when your glider will have ADS-B or TABS out. I've been trying to encourage FLARM to do this this for years now.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:24:46 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> While we at it, will be good to know if we can connect any non TSO amplified GPS antenna to the TN72 and save an additional $300, and if anyone has a recommendation.
>
> Ramy


I wondered about this too because the TA70 is HUGE and really designed for external mounting.

I also found this quote online related to the TN72. "Where a non-TSO antenna is used, the antenna must include an integral amplifier with gain of not less than 20dB."

Below are some code definitions, and then one data set each from a TN70 Antenna and then a GPS antenna borrowed from a CAI 302. I replaced my specific coordinates with "z", but the rest of the data looks to be there. I googled $RAIM, but didn't find anything on that other than it's related to GPS accuracy, etc.



$GPGGA - Global Positioning System Fix Data
$GPVTG - Track made good and ground speed
$GPGSA - GPS DOP and active satellites
$GPZDA - Date & Time
$GPGLL - Geographic position, latitude / longitude
$GPGSV - GPS Satellites in view
$GPRMC - Recommended minimum specific GPS/Transit data


TA70 Antenna
$RAIM,128443,103224,012335,012471,020000,020000,00 0887,000896,111,5,11111111*36
$GPGGA,202757.00,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2 .44,-8.2,M,,M,,*73
$ACVT,1,W,000012,N,000004,U,000014*53
$GPVTG,291.94,T,,M,0.026,N,0.048,K,A*32
$GPGSA,A,3,13,15,20,21,18,10,,,,,,,3.47,2.44,2.47, 1*13
$GPZDA,202757.00,02,10,2017,,*64
$GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,202757.00,A,A*7B
$GPGSV,2,1,06,13,35,048,33,15,68,069,49,20,50,033, 48,21,52,330,47,1*6D
$GPGSV,2,2,06,18,44,285,47,10,17,264,38,1*6B
$GPRMC,202758.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.04 4,261.96,021017,,,A,V*08

CAI 302 Antenna
$RAIM,150175,112197,013718,013213,020000,020000,00 2021,001947,111,5,11111111*31
$GPGGA,203009.00,zzzz.zzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2. 54,-10.0,M,,M,,*4E
$ACVT,1,E,000001,N,000004,U,000074*45
$GPVTG,14.73,T,,M,0.008,N,0.015,K,A*00
$GPGSA,A,3,20,13,15,18,21,10,,,,,,,3.53,2.54,2.45, 1*15
$GPZDA,203009.00,02,10,2017,,*69
$GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,203009.00,A,A*7C
$GPGSV,2,1,06,20,49,034,46,13,35,048,28,15,67,067, 46,18,44,286,48,1*66
$GPGSV,2,2,06,21,53,331,41,10,17,265,30,1*66
$GPRMC,203010.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.06 7,267.22,021017,,,A,V*0E

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:24:46 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> > While we at it, will be good to know if we can connect any non TSO amplified GPS antenna to the TN72 and save an additional $300, and if anyone has a recommendation.
> >
> > Ramy
>
>
> I wondered about this too because the TA70 is HUGE and really designed for external mounting.
>
> I also found this quote online related to the TN72. "Where a non-TSO antenna is used, the antenna must include an integral amplifier with gain of not less than 20dB."
>
> Below are some code definitions, and then one data set each from a TN70 Antenna and then a GPS antenna borrowed from a CAI 302. I replaced my specific coordinates with "z", but the rest of the data looks to be there. I googled $RAIM, but didn't find anything on that other than it's related to GPS accuracy, etc.
>
>
>
> $GPGGA - Global Positioning System Fix Data
> $GPVTG - Track made good and ground speed
> $GPGSA - GPS DOP and active satellites
> $GPZDA - Date & Time
> $GPGLL - Geographic position, latitude / longitude
> $GPGSV - GPS Satellites in view
> $GPRMC - Recommended minimum specific GPS/Transit data
>
>
> TA70 Antenna
> $RAIM,128443,103224,012335,012471,020000,020000,00 0887,000896,111,5,11111111*36
> $GPGGA,202757.00,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2 .44,-8.2,M,,M,,*73
> $ACVT,1,W,000012,N,000004,U,000014*53
> $GPVTG,291.94,T,,M,0.026,N,0.048,K,A*32
> $GPGSA,A,3,13,15,20,21,18,10,,,,,,,3.47,2.44,2.47, 1*13
> $GPZDA,202757.00,02,10,2017,,*64
> $GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,202757.00,A,A*7B
> $GPGSV,2,1,06,13,35,048,33,15,68,069,49,20,50,033, 48,21,52,330,47,1*6D
> $GPGSV,2,2,06,18,44,285,47,10,17,264,38,1*6B
> $GPRMC,202758.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.04 4,261.96,021017,,,A,V*08
>
> CAI 302 Antenna
> $RAIM,150175,112197,013718,013213,020000,020000,00 2021,001947,111,5,11111111*31
> $GPGGA,203009.00,zzzz.zzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2. 54,-10.0,M,,M,,*4E
> $ACVT,1,E,000001,N,000004,U,000074*45
> $GPVTG,14.73,T,,M,0.008,N,0.015,K,A*00
> $GPGSA,A,3,20,13,15,18,21,10,,,,,,,3.53,2.54,2.45, 1*15
> $GPZDA,203009.00,02,10,2017,,*69
> $GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,203009.00,A,A*7C
> $GPGSV,2,1,06,20,49,034,46,13,35,048,28,15,67,067, 46,18,44,286,48,1*66
> $GPGSV,2,2,06,21,53,331,41,10,17,265,30,1*66
> $GPRMC,203010.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.06 7,267.22,021017,,,A,V*0E

Is this from an NMEA data from a TN72? All the stuff you are looking at comes from whatever the antennas was connected to and you should not see any change there if both antennas are in the same nominal ballpark (i.e. can receive enough satellites for a fix etc.). But that won't totally prove the antenna is suitable or acceptable to the FAA.

As you point out "where a non-TSO antenna is used, the antenna must include an integral amplifier with gain of not less than 20dB." I expect a TSO antenna is required for install in certified gliders. That big blister hopefully can be hidden under a glareshield, or maybe not. Lots of stuff here needs clarity.

[[email protected]]

RAIM is Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring. It is supported by GBS, GRS, GST etc. $RAIM isn't part of the NMEA 0183 spec, at least at v4.00.

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks Darryl.Â* I do compare my TT22's reported altitude with my
altimeter allowing for the local altimeter setting.

On 10/2/2017 11:50 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:16:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Thanks, Evan, but that does not answer the question, either.Â* Sure there
>> might be certificate action, should a pilot get caught turning on a
>> not-yet-tested/certified transponder, but it seems to me it would have
>> been better if the Hawker had gotten a RA from its TCAS box.Â* I know
>> it's a rhetorical question but then so are a lot of the FARs...Â* I'd
>> just prefer receiving a letter from the FAA over bailing out (or worse).
>>
>> BTW, my transponder was checked by a certified technician within the
>> preceding 24 calendar months and complies with 91.413(c) and has a
>> proper logbook entry.
>>
>> On 10/2/2017 10:26 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> Didn't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> What harm could have come from turning on a not-yet-approved transponder?
>>> Violation of FAR 91.413.
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Evan Ludeman / T8
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> Dan
>
> Evan is pointing out what is believed to be the pilot's concern here.
>
> My pragmatic safety focused answer is there was little reason not to turn that transponder on, and I would have. The 14 CFR Appendix F to Part 43, ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections required by 14 CFR 91.413(c) only test RF properties of the transponder. There are unlikely to be undetected problems with modern transponders that causes errors in operation or impact other airspace users. And a call to Reno Approach for a transponder check would have been good assurance that the basic transponder operations are working, a good idea on any new install. In some ways Appendix F seems to address concerns of older generation less reliable transponder technology, and specifically to look for know faults that do could impact operation and other users, so still useful to know that stuff is working, and still a 14CFR requirement and should be done.
>
> One thing to note is Appendix F to Part 43 does not check altitude encoder accuracy. And that transponder reported altitude is key to interoperation with TCAS. It's a good idea to check the encoder altitude displayed on your transponder against the altimeter and other sources, or check in with ATC if the transponder does not have an encoder altitude display.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I saw one of those big "blisters" mounted on a shelf under the turtle
deck of a Stemme.Â* That's likely where mine will go, just aft of the
solar panels.

On 10/2/2017 4:12 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:24:46 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
>>> While we at it, will be good to know if we can connect any non TSO amplified GPS antenna to the TN72 and save an additional $300, and if anyone has a recommendation.
>>>
>>> Ramy
>>
>> I wondered about this too because the TA70 is HUGE and really designed for external mounting.
>>
>> I also found this quote online related to the TN72. "Where a non-TSO antenna is used, the antenna must include an integral amplifier with gain of not less than 20dB."
>>
>> Below are some code definitions, and then one data set each from a TN70 Antenna and then a GPS antenna borrowed from a CAI 302. I replaced my specific coordinates with "z", but the rest of the data looks to be there. I googled $RAIM, but didn't find anything on that other than it's related to GPS accuracy, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> $GPGGA - Global Positioning System Fix Data
>> $GPVTG - Track made good and ground speed
>> $GPGSA - GPS DOP and active satellites
>> $GPZDA - Date & Time
>> $GPGLL - Geographic position, latitude / longitude
>> $GPGSV - GPS Satellites in view
>> $GPRMC - Recommended minimum specific GPS/Transit data
>>
>>
>> TA70 Antenna
>> $RAIM,128443,103224,012335,012471,020000,020000,00 0887,000896,111,5,11111111*36
>> $GPGGA,202757.00,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2 .44,-8.2,M,,M,,*73
>> $ACVT,1,W,000012,N,000004,U,000014*53
>> $GPVTG,291.94,T,,M,0.026,N,0.048,K,A*32
>> $GPGSA,A,3,13,15,20,21,18,10,,,,,,,3.47,2.44,2.47, 1*13
>> $GPZDA,202757.00,02,10,2017,,*64
>> $GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,202757.00,A,A*7B
>> $GPGSV,2,1,06,13,35,048,33,15,68,069,49,20,50,033, 48,21,52,330,47,1*6D
>> $GPGSV,2,2,06,18,44,285,47,10,17,264,38,1*6B
>> $GPRMC,202758.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.04 4,261.96,021017,,,A,V*08
>>
>> CAI 302 Antenna
>> $RAIM,150175,112197,013718,013213,020000,020000,00 2021,001947,111,5,11111111*31
>> $GPGGA,203009.00,zzzz.zzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2. 54,-10.0,M,,M,,*4E
>> $ACVT,1,E,000001,N,000004,U,000074*45
>> $GPVTG,14.73,T,,M,0.008,N,0.015,K,A*00
>> $GPGSA,A,3,20,13,15,18,21,10,,,,,,,3.53,2.54,2.45, 1*15
>> $GPZDA,203009.00,02,10,2017,,*69
>> $GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,203009.00,A,A*7C
>> $GPGSV,2,1,06,20,49,034,46,13,35,048,28,15,67,067, 46,18,44,286,48,1*66
>> $GPGSV,2,2,06,21,53,331,41,10,17,265,30,1*66
>> $GPRMC,203010.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.06 7,267.22,021017,,,A,V*0E
> Is this from an NMEA data from a TN72? All the stuff you are looking at comes from whatever the antennas was connected to and you should not see any change there if both antennas are in the same nominal ballpark (i.e. can receive enough satellites for a fix etc.). But that won't totally prove the antenna is suitable or acceptable to the FAA.
>
> As you point out "where a non-TSO antenna is used, the antenna must include an integral amplifier with gain of not less than 20dB." I expect a TSO antenna is required for install in certified gliders. That big blister hopefully can be hidden under a glareshield, or maybe not. Lots of stuff here needs clarity.

--
Dan, 5J

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 4:24:46 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> > While we at it, will be good to know if we can connect any non TSO amplified GPS antenna to the TN72 and save an additional $300, and if anyone has a recommendation.
> >
> > Ramy
>
>
> I wondered about this too because the TA70 is HUGE and really designed for external mounting.
>
> I also found this quote online related to the TN72. "Where a non-TSO antenna is used, the antenna must include an integral amplifier with gain of not less than 20dB."
>
> Below are some code definitions, and then one data set each from a TN70 Antenna and then a GPS antenna borrowed from a CAI 302. I replaced my specific coordinates with "z", but the rest of the data looks to be there. I googled $RAIM, but didn't find anything on that other than it's related to GPS accuracy, etc.
>
>
>
> $GPGGA - Global Positioning System Fix Data
> $GPVTG - Track made good and ground speed
> $GPGSA - GPS DOP and active satellites
> $GPZDA - Date & Time
> $GPGLL - Geographic position, latitude / longitude
> $GPGSV - GPS Satellites in view
> $GPRMC - Recommended minimum specific GPS/Transit data
>
>
> TA70 Antenna
> $RAIM,128443,103224,012335,012471,020000,020000,00 0887,000896,111,5,11111111*36
> $GPGGA,202757.00,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2 .44,-8.2,M,,M,,*73
> $ACVT,1,W,000012,N,000004,U,000014*53
> $GPVTG,291.94,T,,M,0.026,N,0.048,K,A*32
> $GPGSA,A,3,13,15,20,21,18,10,,,,,,,3.47,2.44,2.47, 1*13
> $GPZDA,202757.00,02,10,2017,,*64
> $GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,202757.00,A,A*7B
> $GPGSV,2,1,06,13,35,048,33,15,68,069,49,20,50,033, 48,21,52,330,47,1*6D
> $GPGSV,2,2,06,18,44,285,47,10,17,264,38,1*6B
> $GPRMC,202758.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.04 4,261.96,021017,,,A,V*08
>
> CAI 302 Antenna
> $RAIM,150175,112197,013718,013213,020000,020000,00 2021,001947,111,5,11111111*31
> $GPGGA,203009.00,zzzz.zzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,1,06,2. 54,-10.0,M,,M,,*4E
> $ACVT,1,E,000001,N,000004,U,000074*45
> $GPVTG,14.73,T,,M,0.008,N,0.015,K,A*00
> $GPGSA,A,3,20,13,15,18,21,10,,,,,,,3.53,2.54,2.45, 1*15
> $GPZDA,203009.00,02,10,2017,,*69
> $GPGLL,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,203009.00,A,A*7C
> $GPGSV,2,1,06,20,49,034,46,13,35,048,28,15,67,067, 46,18,44,286,48,1*66
> $GPGSV,2,2,06,21,53,331,41,10,17,265,30,1*66
> $GPRMC,203010.00,A,zzzz.zzzzz,N,zzzzz.zzzzz,W,0.06 7,267.22,021017,,,A,V*0E



I recently setup a system for a customer and tested on the bench. Trig TT22, TN72, tested with both TA70 antenna and a PowerFlarm GPS antenna it worked with either antenna and showed as a glider on a PowerFlarm in my shop.



Richard
www.craggyaero.com