ADS-B: UAT/978 vs Mode S / 1090ES

[helitim]

On April 2, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Gary0747 said:

I have Navworx UAT.  Internal WAAS.  Anomonous mode when squaking 1200. Wifi to my Ipads running WingX or FlyQ. It took no front or back panel space since we mounted it on the back wall of the hat shelf. Kept my Mode C transponder and there were no connections to be made to it, just a simple pick up probe that clamps around the coax going to the mode c antenna. They claim you can fly above 18,000 as long as you do not do it routinely. Avoiding mode S saves money and simpifies IFR recertification.  Simple install.  Low price.  No business connection. 

Gary,

I really like the NavWorx solution except for the inability to receive 1090 In.  Have they solved this problem yet? This is the only reason I haven't already installed the 600.

Tim

[gsengle]

You won't be very anonymous. Transponders are still required, and they all squawk discrete, assigned codes.

That's part of my beef with ADSB--it doesn't replace anything I already have to run under radar, it simply adds more large, expensive boxes that I have no panel space for. Let it replace the freaking transponder! And so far, no one makes a panel mount ADSB box with weather and traffic display. But it will display in the nice new Garmin GPS, which I can spend $15-20K to replace my perfectly good Garmin GPS box I already have . . .

You'd think since it's how govt is reducing their massive radar budget by making aircraft owners install equipment to broadcast our positions instead, that a portion of the govt savings could be used to offset our costs . . . But no, the evil, rich airplane owners should pay for their equipment so the govt can save a halfpenny. Get rid of one piece of Congressional pork and the entire GA fleet could have free ADSB. Zap one piece per month and every airplane in the world could have free ADSB . . . But then some Senator or Representative would be in fear of losing a couple of votes in their district . . .

Screw 'em all. Deviate your traffic around my 1200 signal. I'll talk to you after 1/1/20 when and if I feel like it (or mathematically speaking, IFF I feel like it). If ADSB ever reaches a reasonable installed price and comes with a display on something other than uncertified electronics that I also have to buy, through uncertified software that is a third cost, I'll think about opting in. Right now, though, it's a game and I'm not playing. Ya'll look outside sometime, I'll be passing by and really don't want you to run into me. I always look outside when not IMC.

"That's part of my beef with ADSB--it doesn't replace anything I already have to run under radar, it simply adds more large, expensive boxes that I have no panel space for. Let it replace the freaking transponder! And so far, no one makes a panel mount ADSB box with weather and traffic display."

1) that's not a function of ads-b, that's a function of what the avionics manufacturers are giving us.

2) where have you been, the L3 Lynx is exactly that, a dual band, transponder in panel replacing, traffic and weather displaying all in one unit, which is being heavily advertised and even discussed on mooneyspace. Winner of flying magazines editors choice award. I highly recommend considering it, here is a photo of my install over on the right.

ps better yet I got ten lbs useful load back by getting rid of the skywatch box in the tail (included at higher power in the ngt9000+)

http://l-3lynx.com/phone/index.html

[Gary0747]

really like the NavWorx solution except for the inability to receive 1090 In.  Have they solved this problem yet? This is the only reason I haven't already installed the 600.

I have never understood why one would need to recieve 1090mhz if the FAA ground stations are working properly and retransmitting on 978 mhz?

[Bob - S50]

8 hours ago, Gary0747 said:

really like the NavWorx solution except for the inability to receive 1090 In.  Have they solved this problem yet? This is the only reason I haven't already installed the 600.

I have never understood why one would need to recieve 1090mhz if the FAA ground stations are working properly and retransmitting on 978 mhz?

The only time it is nice to receive both 978 and 1090 is when you are flying outside ground station coverage.  That could be due to low altitude or terrain.  Flying in the midwest might not be much of a problem, but flying anyplace west of the Rockies will likely have several dead zones at altitudes we fly.  Granted, there might not be much traffic in those areas, but it only takes one other plane to ruin your day.

[Marauder]

I saw this morning that Garmin signed a letter of agreement to allow the NavWorx 6000 to interface with the GNS and GTN series. I'm still going to wait...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kellym]

On 3/6/2016 at 10:39 AM, Godfather said:

So even transponders set on 1200 each have a unique code that is associated with the N number?

No. UAT  boxes have anonymous mode that is the same as Mode C today...it gives ATC your 1200 code and altitude, period.  When you are issued a discrete code to work with ATC IFR or flight following, it will be same as today, with your code and altitude. Your N number may be transmitted while you are on discrete code, but not in anonymous mode.

[Andy95W]

On March 5, 2016 at 0:39 PM, Godfather said:

So even transponders set on 1200 each have a unique code that is associated with the N number?

Mode S transponders always send out a unique code that corresponds to that specific N number. Mode C transponders do not.

This is the primary reason I'm not going with 1090 ES (Mode S).  Also I won't be flying above 18,000 ft. and thus far Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas aren't planning to require ADS-B out for the foreseeable future.

[mike_elliott]

19 minutes ago, N1395W said:

Mode S transponders always send out a unique code that corresponds to that specific N number. Mode C transponders do not.

This is the primary reason I'm not going with 1090 ES (Mode S).  Also I won't be flying above 18,000 ft. and thus far Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas aren't planning to require ADS-B out for the foreseeable future.

Which begs the question why do those of us that have 1090ES even need to set the transponder code now? They already know who we are.

[Gary0747]

I saw this morning that Garmin signed a letter of agreement to allow the NavWorx 6000 to interface with the GNS and GTN series. I'm still going to wait...

 

It is in the current software update version 4.10 that you can down load off the Navworx website and load yourself.   It allows you to turn off the internal WAAS GPS in the Navworx transciver and input the 429 output from the Garmin GNS or GTN units.   I dont have a Garmin WAAS unit yet but may in the future so it would be a simple switch. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Gary0747

[sdflysurf]

I was about to install a 978 UAT in/out unit.  But I might like to fly my plane from San Diego down to Ensenada or Cabo San Lucas.

Can anyone here help me figure out it this is doable with a 978?

For example - I see that 1090ES is required for A, B, C, D, and E over 10K.  But I have no idea of Mexico's airspace system rules...  I cannot tell from Skyvector if Ensenada MMES or Cabo MMSL is a Class D airport, but it LOOKS like I could fly in E all the way down, just not sure if I'm allowed to land!

Would someone who has knowledge of Mexico let me know?  I'd like to go ahead and install the UAT 978 if I'd be able to pull off a trip or two down to Mexico in the coming years.

THANKS!

[carusoam]

Mr. @kortopates probably knows this answer... (transponder requirements for Mexico)

Best regards,

-a-

[Yetti]

16 hours ago, sdflysurf said:

I was about to install a 978 UAT in/out unit.  But I might like to fly my plane from San Diego down to Ensenada or Cabo San Lucas.

Can anyone here help me figure out it this is doable with a 978?

For example - I see that 1090ES is required for A, B, C, D, and E over 10K.  But I have no idea of Mexico's airspace system rules...  I cannot tell from Skyvector if Ensenada MMES or Cabo MMSL is a Class D airport, but it LOOKS like I could fly in E all the way down, just not sure if I'm allowed to land!

Would someone who has knowledge of Mexico let me know?  I'd like to go ahead and install the UAT 978 if I'd be able to pull off a trip or two down to Mexico in the coming years.

THANKS!

The price difference between going whole hog vs a limited solution does not really make sense.   Just do it right and be done with it.

[OR75]

23 minutes ago, Yetti said:

The price difference between going whole hog vs a limited solution does not really make sense.   Just do it right and be done with it.

if you want to travel internationally and not worry go the 1090ES route . It will also get you TIS-A (so you get traffic where it matters most -  congested airspace)

weather an other traffic, portable route is usually the cheapest 

 

 

[Marauder]

30 minutes ago, OR75 said:

if you want to travel internationally and not worry go the 1090ES route . It will also get you TIS-A (so you get traffic where it matters most -  congested airspace)

weather an other traffic, portable route is usually the cheapest 

 

 

I agree. The cost difference between the two is insignificant. BTW - TIS-A is starting to go away. 

[OR75]

2 hours ago, Marauder said:

I agree. The cost difference between the two is insignificant. BTW - TIS-A is starting to go away. 

TIS-A will remain at least in and near class B airspace and that's really where you need traffic (actually where you need traffic most is where aircrafts  are skirting class B under and near)

   

[MikeOH]

11 hours ago, Yetti said:

The price difference between going whole hog vs a limited solution does not really make sense.   Just do it right and be done with it.

You know, I think I did it right: I went with 978 and it cost, all in, $2200.

What's the cheapest, installed, with tax, 1090 solution?  If that price difference is more than $1000, that's an amount that "makes dollars" to me!  It is NOT insignificant to spend an extra $1000, or more, on something I am forced to buy in the first place!  Also, I've never flown out of the country and it's my understanding Canada and Mexico are NOT yet requiring ADSB-out, anyway.

I already had a Scout for ADSB-in, and have been quite happy with it.  I believe it was $200.

[Yetti]

6 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You know, I think I did it right: I went with 978 and it cost, all in, $2200.

What's the cheapest, installed, with tax, 1090 solution?  If that price difference is more than $1000, that's an amount that "makes dollars" to me!  It is NOT insignificant to spend an extra $1000, or more, on something I am forced to buy in the first place!  Also, I've never flown out of the country and it's my understanding Canada and Mexico are NOT yet requiring ADSB-out, anyway.

I already had a Scout for ADSB-in, and have been quite happy with it.  I believe it was $200.

Trig ADSB bundle with certified GPS receiver is $2800   Should not be that many hours to install.

I think I am still under $150 for my STratux

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Trig ADSB bundle with certified GPS receiver is $2800   Should not be that many hours to install.

I think I am still under $150 for my STratux

Hmm, I suspect that $2800 is without tax...so, roughly another $250 in the People's Republik of Kalifornia.

And, "should not be that many hours to install" is a bit vague, don't you think?  Would that be only 3 hours at, what, $150/hour...or could that really be 5 hours?  Either way I'm seeing well over $1000 difference for an installed and working system.  Again, for a system that the government has FORCED me to install.

[Yetti]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Hmm, I suspect that $2800 is without tax...so, roughly another $250 in the People's Republik of Kalifornia.

And, "should not be that many hours to install" is a bit vague, don't you think?  Would that be only 3 hours at, what, $150/hour...or could that really be 5 hours?  Either way I'm seeing well over $1000 difference for an installed and working system.  Again, for a system that the government has FORCED me to install.

So in Texas Aircraft training and components are tax exempt.

Installation would depend on if you run wires to the back of the plane for a remote install or mount the transciever up under the dash.  And if you already have a WAAS GPS source.   and where your antenna is located.   

It's only $1700 if you don't need the GPS receiver.  That would be if you have a WAAS GPS already.

If you live in CA, then you are choosing to be forced to do alot of stuff other states don't force people to do.  

But since we are on that the government tells you how much you can save for retirement, when you have to start taking that money out, and when you have to retire in some industries.   So our freedom was lost a long time ago.

 

[MikeOH]

9 hours ago, Yetti said:

So in Texas Aircraft training and components are tax exempt.

Installation would depend on if you run wires to the back of the plane for a remote install or mount the transciever up under the dash.  And if you already have a WAAS GPS source.   and where your antenna is located.   

It's only $1700 if you don't need the GPS receiver.  That would be if you have a WAAS GPS already.

If you live in CA, then you are choosing to be forced to do alot of stuff other states don't force people to do.  

But since we are on that the government tells you how much you can save for retirement, when you have to start taking that money out, and when you have to retire in some industries.   So our freedom was lost a long time ago.

 

Which Trig model for certified aircraft is $1700?  Does it require an airspeed switch to be purchased and installed? Cost of cable to hook it to a 430W, or other WAAS source?

Glad to hear moving to Texas would save tax on aircraft parts, but I think most would agree that including taxes Is part of the total cost for most people.

Edited January 18, 2020 by MikeOH

[Yetti]

Trig T22 for remote mount.

https://www.trig-avionics.com/product/compact-transponder/

Trig T33 for panel mount

It is a serial input so just one wire between the 430 and trig unit.

The price I saw was without the display head which has an altitude encoder.   More Like $2200.00  Which is kind of nice since you are upgrading lots of components that will break at some point.   My transponder was dying so no skybeacon for me.   And I don't have to worry about the transponder dying. 

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/trigtt22.php

If y'all would open your coast to offshore drilling you could fix your sales tax issues.

 

[MikeOH]

Yes, $2300 was what I was seeing with the pigtail.  Thanks for confirming it is not $1700.

Looks like the airspeed switch is another $125.  Plus install.

I believe the T22 is two boxes that need to be mounted separately and a harness run between them.  Labor for the whole install?

So, I'm still not seeing this as less than $1000 more than the Sky/TailBeacon solution.

 

[Yetti]

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Yes, $2300 was what I was seeing with the pigtail.  Thanks for confirming it is not $1700.

Looks like the airspeed switch is another $125.  Plus install.

I believe the T22 is two boxes that need to be mounted separately and a harness run between them.  Labor for the whole install?

So, I'm still not seeing this as less than $1000 more than the Sky/TailBeacon solution.

 

The airspeed switch takes about 15 minutes to install.   It is one more wire that can go with the wiring harness for the head to the transciever box.    It installs in between the pitot and static system and grounds out when activated.

The T22 has a head unit and a transceiver box.  You could mount the transceiver behind the panel if you like and have room.   But still needs antennas connection and such.  If you mount it in the radio bay, then you have run wires back there Which is not that hard.  Just pull the lower panel. 

The T33 would replace your current Transponder in the panel.   Just depends if you need the space for the next step.

The tailbeacon makes sense till it does not.  When the transponder or altitude encoder dies, and they will, then you are more $$$ than replacing everything with new.

 

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, Yetti said:

The airspeed switch takes about 15 minutes to install.   It is one more wire that can go with the wiring harness for the head to the transciever box.    It installs in between the pitot and static system and grounds out when activated.

The T22 has a head unit and a transceiver box.  You could mount the transceiver behind the panel if you like and have room.   But still needs antennas connection and such.  If you mount it in the radio bay, then you have run wires back there Which is not that hard.  Just pull the lower panel. 

The T33 would replace your current Transponder in the panel.   Just depends if you need the space for the next step.

The tailbeacon makes sense till it does not.  When the transponder or altitude encoder dies, and they will, then you are more $$$ than replacing everything with new.

 

Then the install of the airspeed switch is going to require a re-cert of the static system.  That runs a couple hundred bucks, I believe.

Hmm, using the logic of your last sentence we can conclude, "When <insert any piece of equipment> dies, and it(they) will, then you are more $$$ than replacing everything with new."  Thanks, but I'll wait until there's a reason to replace everything in the plane

We can go back and forth forever, but you have failed to prove that the install of even the lowest cost 1090 system is not going to be at least $1000 more, all in, than a Sky/TailBeacon.

Your earlier comment implies that putting in Sky/TailBeacon is somehow not "doing it right" is just not true.  This thread is about 978 vs. 1090 and both solutions are "doing it right" for different groups of pilots.  To imply it is NOT any more expensive to put in a 1090 system is also NOT true.

[Steve W]

58 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Then the install of the airspeed switch is going to require a re-cert of the static system.  That runs a couple hundred bucks, I believe.

Installing an entirely new transponder is going to require a certification anyway.