A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 7th 20, 06:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Bick (DY)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

TRIG shows a new product on their website - TN72 X GPS Receiver (which couples with a cheaper GPS antenna than the TA70 WAAS antenna). They now show 2 TN72 versions - one with label TABS (SIL=1) and one with label X (SIL=3) on the face of the box. The TABS can be installed on experimental or certified gliders giving ADS-B, but not 2020 compliant (which is what TABS was intended for originally). They say the X version, set at SIL=3, for LSA, homebuilt, and experimental gliders, has been flown in rule airspace and meets full 2020 compliance, per the FAA automated test flight software. The specs for the TABS and X versions in their brochure are identical (and TRIG says they are identical) - the only difference is one is set to TABS (SIL=1) and the other, X version, set to SIL=3, which means 2020 compliance for ruled airspace. Anyone know what is going on? And, more importantly, are they moving toward demonstrating a more cost effective solution to 2020 compliant ADS-B for certified gliders (as well as experimental), enabling them to use the TN72 and X with standard GPS antenna at about 1/4 the cost of the TN70 GPS receiver and TA70 WAAS antenna?
  #2  
Old January 7th 20, 09:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:38:47 PM UTC-8, Eric Bick (DY) wrote:
TRIG shows a new product on their website - TN72 X GPS Receiver (which couples with a cheaper GPS antenna than the TA70 WAAS antenna). They now show 2 TN72 versions - one with label TABS (SIL=1) and one with label X (SIL=3) on the face of the box. The TABS can be installed on experimental or certified gliders giving ADS-B, but not 2020 compliant (which is what TABS was intended for originally). They say the X version, set at SIL=3, for LSA, homebuilt, and experimental gliders, has been flown in rule airspace and meets full 2020 compliance, per the FAA automated test flight software. The specs for the TABS and X versions in their brochure are identical (and TRIG says they are identical) - the only difference is one is set to TABS (SIL=1) and the other, X version, set to SIL=3, which means 2020 compliance for ruled airspace. Anyone know what is going on? And, more importantly, are they moving toward demonstrating a more cost effective solution to 2020 compliant ADS-B for certified gliders (as well as experimental), enabling them to use the TN72 and X with standard GPS antenna at about 1/4 the cost of the TN70 GPS receiver and TA70 WAAS antenna?


I've covered this all before on r.a.s. There is nothing new, this is all old news, the "different models" TN72 were launched around one to two years ago. Trig make great products but unfortunately have tripped up here on basic marketing, and are just confusing customers... all in an effort that was intended to make things clearer. Not sure how that was ever supposed to work. I suggested they not use this confusing naming, but they did. Nothing has changed recently with GPS antennas either, the TA50 has been available for a long time.

The TN72 GPS never unchanged, it's the same box it has always been. Wether an installer can claim it is SIL=3 or SIL=1 depends on whether the install is in an experimental aircraft (you can claim SIL=3/2020 compliant) possible) or a type certified (you can't claim SIL=3 so do SIL=1/TABS).

No difference in these TN72 GPS device models at all. It's just what you tell the transponder is attached. ... and uh no don't try to cheat and set SIL=3 in a type certified aircraft... you are flying around broadcasting the SIL=3 flag, and the FAA has a database of type certified aircraft that have "real" ADS-B out installs from A&P IA submitting Form 337s for ADS-B out installs in type certified aircraft... and yours won't be there. Are you athletic enough to squeeze out of the bathroom window while the feds are knocking on your front door? :-) I'm not. All pretty frustrating , specially for gliders, but hey I did not invent the regulations.

What *exactly* would it take under current regulations and FAA policy to be able to use a low-cost (say non-TSO-C145c) GPS to do full 91.227/2020 Complaint ADS-B Out in a type certified aircraft? I don't know. But the core step there would be to develop an installation STC. And that's likely to need a lot more work than with a already approved say TSO-C145c GPS, and I suspect that is not economically justifiable given a likely small total increase in market made possible. That the TN72 is separately TSO-C199 approved has no bearing at all on 91.227/2002 compliance. It might as well be TSO-ed as an aviation cigarette lighter adapter (TSO-C71 for those playing along at home).

  #3  
Old January 8th 20, 05:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
5Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

And of course there's the joke of Standard vs Experimental gliders, such as the ASW-27. Looking on the FAA database, first thing is that there are 3 manufacturer/model codes containing 3, 5, and 73 gliders for a total of 81. Of these, there are 47 Standard, 21 Experimental, and 14 Unknown (Experimental?).

Beyond paperwork, there's no difference between Standard and Experimental (except for a few customized ones). Gotta love FAA and consistency.
  #4  
Old January 8th 20, 02:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

5Z wrote on 1/7/2020 8:53 PM:
And of course there's the joke of Standard vs Experimental gliders, such as the ASW-27. Looking on the FAA database, first thing is that there are 3 manufacturer/model codes containing 3, 5, and 73 gliders for a total of 81. Of these, there are 47 Standard, 21 Experimental, and 14 Unknown (Experimental?).

Beyond paperwork, there's no difference between Standard and Experimental (except for a few customized ones). Gotta love FAA and consistency.
Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA

allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #5  
Old January 8th 20, 08:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
5Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.


That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z
  #6  
Old January 8th 20, 10:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Scott Williams[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.


That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z


at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott
  #7  
Old January 9th 20, 12:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Craig Funston[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.


That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z


at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott

I have a brand new Trig TA70 antenna that's surplus to my needs. I ordered it prior to knowing that Experimental aircraft could use a smaller antenna. All reasonable offers entertained.

Craig Funston
  #8  
Old January 9th 20, 12:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

Craig Funston wrote on 1/8/2020 3:03 PM:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z


at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott

I have a brand new Trig TA70 antenna that's surplus to my needs. I ordered it prior to knowing that Experimental aircraft could use a smaller antenna. All reasonable offers entertained.

I believe if you use it with your TN72, you can be fully 2020 compliant - not just
TABS compliant.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #9  
Old January 9th 20, 12:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.


That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z


at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott


Please be careful how you say this. An experimental install done properly is fully 14 CFR 91.227/2020 Compliant. This keeps causing confusion, with people sometimes thinking they should pay more for say a TN70 because it's "better". There is absolutely nothing "non-2020 compliant" or any reduction in ADS-B functionality or reduction in performance implied in using a "meets 14 CFR 91.227 requirements" GPS source in an experimental install vs say a TSO-C145c GPS source in a type certified aircraft install. It's literally the formal requirements for 2020 Compliance you are meeting, so it's just wrong to describe that ever as not "full 2020" compliance.

What you likely meant to say is the FAA did not require us to meet that performance requirement with a TSO approved GPS source.... and initially they effectively actually did, although they claim that was an unintentional oversight, AOPA and the EAA and AOPA took them to task on that and the regulations were modified.
  #10  
Old January 9th 20, 01:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default TRIG TN72 X ADS-B GPS Receiver

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 3:50:25 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:55:57 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 5:29:50 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Consistent or not, or a bureaucratic stumble, aren't we better off with the FAA
allowing us to put our gliders in the Experimental category? I think we should
appreciate the opportunity instead of deriding them.

That part I like. What I don't is that they differentiate Std/Exp when it comes to ADS-B installation. Why does the certificate make the radio operate differently?

5Z


at least there is a less expensive option for experimental. FAA could have adopted the position That if it flies, 2020 full compliance required.
Cheers,
Scott


Please be careful how you say this. An experimental install done properly is fully 14 CFR 91.227/2020 Compliant. This keeps causing confusion, with people sometimes thinking they should pay more for say a TN70 because it's "better". There is absolutely nothing "non-2020 compliant" or any reduction in ADS-B functionality or reduction in performance implied in using a "meets 14 CFR 91.227 requirements" GPS source in an experimental install vs say a TSO-C145c GPS source in a type certified aircraft install. It's literally the formal requirements for 2020 Compliance you are meeting, so it's just wrong to describe that ever as not "full 2020" compliance.

What you likely meant to say is the FAA did not require us to meet that performance requirement with a TSO approved GPS source.... and initially they effectively actually did, although they claim that was an unintentional oversight, AOPA and the EAA and AOPA took them to task on that and the regulations were modified.


I think that it is fortunate that the FAA allows us a path to install non-TSO compliant GPS source, albeit in experimental category aircraft only (I did it on my new ASH31Mi). One should not be surprised that standard category aircraft are required to use TSO certified equipment. Perhaps someone out there has gone thru the hoops of switching from certificated to experimental. I would think that you would have to have some significant reason for doing this.

Tom
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TT21/TN72 power consumption jfitch Soaring 10 May 30th 18 09:19 PM
Trig TT21 + TN72 TABS ADS-B Out Install working great.... Darryl Ramm Soaring 38 April 1st 18 11:17 PM
Trig TN72 Antenna Andrew Ainslie Soaring 17 April 6th 17 04:21 AM
Trig TX-Too much sun? K m Soaring 1 June 7th 16 06:01 AM
Trig 1090ES ADS-B Receiver jcarlyle Soaring 1 July 21st 10 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.