iPad vs Garmin hand held round 4: ADSB

[M016576]

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the "way of the future" regarding hand held devices and just avionics software in general. Probably because I'm considering buying a GDL-39 for my Aera 560 so I can have access to inflight weather ( as the FAA has recently finished building towers in the north west... Although parts of southern Idaho and eastern Oregon are still lacking).

I've come to the conclusion that XM WX's days are numbered unless they change their business model, at least for the GA side of the house (I cnx'ed my subscription a couple months back... I've been using my iphone for radar pictures when i have reception and just doing it the old fashioned way: calling the FSS's via VHF for wx along the way).

BUT... With Foreflight, Garmin, WingX and even AOPA building usable navigators for iDevices, are the days of the dedicated Aviation GPS over? The only reason I say "no" right now is the outrageous cost of the accessories that make the iDevices usable: 800 bucks for a ADSB Reciever? 800 more for an AHRS/WAAS GPS? That plus the iPad gets you up to $2200... Then add another $150 a year for foreflight.. And guess what, you've already spent double what you could spend for a Aera 560. BUT- you do have more capability with that ipad- synthetic vision, and usability AFTER and BETWEEN flights.

I guess my point is that the software advances are great, but there is no "lower cost" replacement: the manufacturers of all this equipment seem to be in cahoots and 800 bucks a container seems to be the agreed upon price... Wish we could see a sub-500 solution though...

[bnicolette]

Just one correction on that.  The new Stratus 2 is $900 and includes ADS-B (wx & traffic), AHRS, GPS (WAAS), Ipad mini $430 and the Foreflight subscription $150.

Total:

$1480

 

In addition software updates and advances in Foreflight are "free"......... at the moment anyhow.  The Aera 560 is not a good comparison IMO as it is very dedicated to in flight navigation and wx.  The iPad's go WAY beyond that and the advancements keep coming in with new features.

 

Sorry, I drank the "koolaid" a long time ago.

[M016576]

Valid corrections- the reason I opened up this can o' worms was to solicite other people's opinions on this! I'm on the cusp of figuring out how my money will be spent going forward, so I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts, opinions and justifications.

The thing that bugs me about foreflight, wingX, garmin and AOPA are those pesky subscription fees. I also feel like we're at the end of the line as far as major software upgrades are concerned once Synthetic vision arrives... For those that keep paying the price (and all 4 developers are at about the same pricepoint, so obviously the market supports it), is it worth it?

[scottfromiowa]

Glad Garmin supported ADS-B on my existing 696. I love the 696 and being able to have weather on it as well as paying $99 for Garmin pilot, (loaded on iPad and iPhone is awesome. I can have instruments on 696 with screen and have VCR sectional on iPad. Garmin just added track up and auto load of safe taxi. Really nice ap. just wishGarmin updates were less$...

The blue tooth for pad with weather minimizes cables. (Just GDL-69 on glare screen). Free weather and blue tooth gps connect for iPad. All good...just fix glare issue on iPad...typing this on iPad as I surf and watch MASTERS. NICE

[Piloto]

You are assuming that the ADS-B/UAT ground infrastructure will be supported by the taxpayers forever. The fact is that it only benefit the piston engine segment, thus private flying public. None of the airlines or private jets need to euip for ADS-B in since all of them have onboard radar and TCAS systems already that outperforms ADS-B WX\traffic. If you look at Fightware traffic activity you will notice that the number of Boeings and Airbus flying overwhelm by more than 300% the number of pistons flying. When is time to realocate budget the congressmen will be more in favor of realocating the ADS-B money into more TSA personnel, snow plows, de-icing stations, ATC personnel and those items that benefit the general flying public. Most airlines delays are due to weather and lack of ground personnel. ADS-B will not improve this. Just mention one ADS-B item that will benefit the general airline flying public to justify an ADS-B infrastructure that is 20 times more expensive than that of LORAN.

 

José     

[bnicolette]

Just mention one ADS-B item that will benefit the general airline flying public

 

José     

 

1. ADS-B reduces the risk of runway incursions with cockpit and controller displays that show the location of aircraft and equipped ground vehicles on airport surfaces – even at night or during heavy rainfall. ADS-B applications being developed now will give pilots indications or alerts of potential collisions.
2. ADS-B also provides greater coverage since ground stations are so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas without radar coverage, like the Gulf of Mexico and parts of Alaska, now have surveillance with ADS-B.
3. Relying on satellites instead of ground navigational aids also means aircraft will be able to fly more directly from Point A to B, saving time and money, and reducing fuel burn and emissions. 
4. The improved accuracy, integrity and reliability of satellite signals over radar means controllers eventually will be able to safely reduce the minimum separation distance between aircraft and increase capacity in the nation’s skies.

[bd32322]

You are assuming that the ADS-B/UAT ground infrastructure will be supported by the taxpayers forever. The fact is that it only benefit the piston engine segment, thus private flying public. None of the airlines or private jets need to euip for ADS-B in since all of them have onboard radar and TCAS systems already that outperforms ADS-B WX\traffic. If you look at Fightware traffic activity you will notice that the number of Boeings and Airbus flying overwhelm by more than 300% the number of pistons flying. When is time to realocate budget the congressmen will be more in favor of realocating the ADS-B money into more TSA personnel, snow plows, de-icing stations, ATC personnel and those items that benefit the general flying public. Most airlines delays are due to weather and lack of ground personnel. ADS-B will not improve this. Just mention one ADS-B item that will benefit the general airline flying public to justify an ADS-B infrastructure that is 20 times more expensive than that of LORAN.

José

Like you said, the number of jets flying far outnumber the pistons. And ADSB precisely addresses that segment with more accurate positioning than ground radar, less separation and ultimately more flights in the air to cope with increased passenger traffic demand.

The ADSB in stuff like weather, traffic are the sweeteners for the piston populace to switch. The jet PILOTS do not care, but their BOSSES running the company do because they can launch more planes in the sky and make more money

[bd32322]

Valid corrections- the reason I opened up this can o' worms was to solicite other people's opinions on this! I'm on the cusp of figuring out how my money will be spent going forward, so I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts, opinions and justifications.

The thing that bugs me about foreflight, wingX, garmin and AOPA are those pesky subscription fees. I also feel like we're at the end of the line as far as major software upgrades are concerned once Synthetic vision arrives... For those that keep paying the price (and all 4 developers are at about the same pricepoint, so obviously the market supports it), is it worth it?

If you have a panel mount IFR GPS, I would be happy with paper charts if trying to fly while keeping expenditure under control.

For weather you can invest in one of the many boxes and you can get ADSB for free.

Expect to see a bunch of used stratus boxes on sale on ebay or barnstormers etc.

[bd32322]

Yeah I have had no issues with ADSB station coverage. I start getting stations pretty low to the ground too - about 300 feet AGL in the north east. Disclaimer - I mostly fly along the east coast Starting to go towards western PA, I get fewer stations (3 or so), but still enough.

My only gripe is that AWOS and ASOS reports are broadcast on an hourly basis. So if you want to see how the weather is changing on challenging weather days, you still have to call the FSS. And sometimes I am able to get the weather on the AWOS freq before the ADSB updates, because of its 1 hour update interval.

But faster updates of AWOS ASOS weather data is on the to do list for ADSB. Think the updates will be broadcast every minute or 10 minutes - forget which, but its quick enough.

[aviatoreb]

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the "way of the future" regarding hand held devices and just avionics software in general. Probably because I'm considering buying a GDL-39 for my Aera 560 so I can have access to inflight weather ( as the FAA has recently finished building towers in the north west... Although parts of southern Idaho and eastern Oregon are still lacking).

I've come to the conclusion that XM WX's days are numbered unless they change their business model, at least for the GA side of the house (I cnx'ed my subscription a couple months back... I've been using my iphone for radar pictures when i have reception and just doing it the old fashioned way: calling the FSS's via VHF for wx along the way).

BUT... With Foreflight, Garmin, WingX and even AOPA building usable navigators for iDevices, are the days of the dedicated Aviation GPS over? The only reason I say "no" right now is the outrageous cost of the accessories that make the iDevices usable: 800 bucks for a ADSB Reciever? 800 more for an AHRS/WAAS GPS? That plus the iPad gets you up to $2200... Then add another $150 a year for foreflight.. And guess what, you've already spent double what you could spend for a Aera 560. BUT- you do have more capability with that ipad- synthetic vision, and usability AFTER and BETWEEN flights.

I guess my point is that the software advances are great, but there is no "lower cost" replacement: the manufacturers of all this equipment seem to be in cahoots and 800 bucks a container seems to be the agreed upon price... Wish we could see a sub-500 solution though...

 

I have been thinking about a GDL-39 to talk to my panel mounted Garmin Aero 510.  Does anyone know the answer to the following.  My Aera is already hard wired for panel power and also to receive crossfills from my 430W.  Can it also receive a wire from a GDL-39?

 

A crossfill cable is the primary reason an Garmin aera 796/696/560/550/510/500 still has a great deal of worth over simply using an ipad.  I also have an ipad on the yoke but I consider it to be an EFB and not a navigator in my own cockpit.

[Piloto]

 

1. ADS-B reduces the risk of runway incursions with cockpit and controller displays that show the location of aircraft and equipped ground vehicles on airport surfaces – even at night or during heavy rainfall. ADS-B applications being developed now will give pilots indications or alerts of potential collisions.
2. ADS-B also provides greater coverage since ground stations are so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas without radar coverage, like the Gulf of Mexico and parts of Alaska, now have surveillance with ADS-B.
3. Relying on satellites instead of ground navigational aids also means aircraft will be able to fly more directly from Point A to B, saving time and money, and reducing fuel burn and emissions. 
4. The improved accuracy, integrity and reliability of satellite signals over radar means controllers eventually will be able to safely reduce the minimum separation distance between aircraft and increase capacity in the nation’s skies.

 

My comment are to ADS-B\UAT ground infrastructure not to ADS-B position report on 1090MHz.

 

In reference to your points:

 

1. ADS-B\UAT only works in-flight. So it will not help for taxing on the ground. You may be refering to ADS-B out position reports. You do not need the UAT ground infrastructure for this, it is a plane to plane or to tower link like TCAS.

 

2. Just look at the number (400+) of UAT stations required to cover the US only vs present radar installations (about 100) already paid for. A radar site has a 200nm range vs 50nm for a UAT ground stations. And if you are TCAS equipped you do not need a ground UAT station to detect traffic.

 

3. Point to point navigation has nothing to do with ADS-UAT. There is no ADS-B\UAT over the Atlantic. Before GPS airliners relied on IRS and still do in addition to GPS. Besides with weather and all airspace restrictions in the US how can you fly direct without circunavigating either.

 

4. Accuracy? Not for TCAS. ADS-B broadcast is once per second and thats assuming it does not get garble by another ADS-B traffic. TCAS interrogation rate is 1000 per second. And unlike ADS-B\UAT it works anywhere, on the ground and in the air anywhere in the world.

 

Integrity & Reliabilty? Not for TCAS or ATC. ADS-B relies on GPS. Jam GPS over an airport and you lost all your ADS-B traffic reports. And if the ground UAT goes kaput because of a tornado there goes your reliability.

 

Minimum separation? Have you seen the line at O'Hare or Atlanta of plane landings. You can not make the separation shorter because you would have two planes on the runway at the same time. On takeoff wake turbulence limits your minimum separation. This why adding runways benefits more than UAT stations.

 

José

[bd32322]

My comment are to ADS-B\UAT ground infrastructure not to ADS-B position report on 1090MHz.

 

In reference to your points:

 

1. ADS-B\UAT only works in-flight. So it will not help for taxing on the ground. You may be refering to ADS-B out position reports. You do not need the UAT ground infrastructure for this, it is a plane to plane or to tower link like TCAS.

 

2. Just look at the number (400+) of UAT stations required to cover the US only vs present radar installations (about 100) already paid for. A radar site has a 200nm range vs 50nm for a UAT ground stations. And if you are TCAS equipped you do not need a ground UAT station to detect traffic.

 

3. Point to point navigation has nothing to do with ADS-UAT. There is no ADS-B\UAT over the Atlantic. Before GPS airliners relied on IRS and still do in addition to GPS. Besides with weather and all airspace restrictions in the US how can you fly direct without circunavigating either.

 

4. Accuracy? Not for TCAS. ADS-B broadcast is once per second and thats assuming it does not get garble by another ADS-B traffic. TCAS interrogation rate is 1000 per second. And unlike ADS-B\UAT it works anywhere, on the ground and in the air anywhere in the world.

 

Integrity & Reliabilty? Not for TCAS or ATC. ADS-B relies on GPS. Jam GPS over an airport and you lost all your ADS-B traffic reports. And if the ground UAT goes kaput because of a tornado there goes your reliability.

 

Minimum separation? Have you seen the line at O'Hare or Atlanta of plane landings. You can not make the separation shorter because you would have two planes on the runway at the same time. On takeoff wake turbulence limits your minimum separation. This why adding runways benefits more than UAT stations.

 

José

You seem to love TCAS over ADSB and rightly so. You get the TCAS units jointly negotiating avoidance, interrogating faster etc. However, in the ADSB era TCAS will still exist. So your argument about "TCAS" is better does not detract from ADSB when it comes to ground controllers figuring out the traffic situation. TCAS does not tell controllers on the ground where aircraft are. I know thats an obvious statement, but thats the point I am trying to make. ADSB is for airspace control and not a traffic/weather detection tool for pilots. Those are just incentives for the non radar and TCAS equipped folk.

And the point to point navigation being referred to is again your aircraft centric view. Yes you can fly point to point with GPS and INS over the ocean. But you forget to mention the humongous service volume trans oceanic flights employ because they are not radar observable. With aircraft to aircraft ADSB self separation - yes two ADSB aircraft can talk to each other and form their own minimum separation volume - you can fit a lot more trans oceanic flights at the same jet efficient altitudes, saving fuel for the operators, flight time for passengers.

So the system is able to handle more aircraft. The benefit to TCAS and radar equipped aircraft in terms of weather and traffic avoidance is exactly 0. The benefit in terms of saving fuel, ticket prices etc - some substantial value.

These direct flight plans in any kind of weather also will ease my IFR clearance situation in the north east, which gets rather convoluted. The chief problem of going direct is not whether you aircraft can navigate direct, but whether the computer issuing your clearance can provide you a minimum safe volume across some crowded V, J, T routes.

Your point about increasing the number of runways is certainly valid, but again thats orthogonal to ADSB. You need to do both, allow more planes in the sky and consequently exit them from the airspace with more runways or more airports. Right now traffic going to JFK can still affect my clearance to my home airport near boston, I get routed 100 or more miles west! So even if you provide a thousand runways at JFK it doesnt help me in the present radar and V, J, T route system. ADSB infrastructure allows the possibility of my flight plan going much closer to JFK on my own GPS derived route and not affecting or not being affected by other traffic to JFK.

As for UAT stations bein taken out by a tornado, there are multiple UAT stations that one receives from. Yes you need more stations, but has to be balanced with the cost to maintain radar installations. I have no data on that.

As for accuracy - radar beams get wider and wider the further you go. Accuracy of aircraft positions suffers as a result. Also it takes more time to establish an aircraft's velocity (multiple sweeps). For aircraft that translates to higher minimum separations again.

GPS jamming is a concern, however, I am not sure any Tom, Dick or Harry can go and jam a GPS signal. Usually its the work of some military in some country. I am not sure.

[Piloto]

You seem to love TCAS over ADSB and rightly so. You get the TCAS units jointly negotiating avoidance, interrogating faster etc. However, in the ADSB era TCAS will still exist. So your argument about "TCAS" is better does not detract from ADSB when it comes to ground controllers figuring out the traffic situation. TCAS does not tell controllers on the ground where aircraft are. I know thats an obvious statement, but thats the point I am trying to make. ADSB is for airspace control and not a traffic/weather detection tool for pilots. Those are just incentives for the non radar and TCAS equipped folk.

And the point to point navigation being referred to is again your aircraft centric view. Yes you can fly point to point with GPS and INS over the ocean. But you forget to mention the humongous service volume trans oceanic flights employ because they are not radar observable. With aircraft to aircraft ADSB self separation - yes two ADSB aircraft can talk to each other and form their own minimum separation volume - you can fit a lot more trans oceanic flights at the same jet efficient altitudes, saving fuel for the operators, flight time for passengers.

So the system is able to handle more aircraft. The benefit to TCAS and radar equipped aircraft in terms of weather and traffic avoidance is exactly 0. The benefit in terms of saving fuel, ticket prices etc - some substantial value.

These direct flight plans in any kind of weather also will ease my IFR clearance situation in the north east, which gets rather convoluted. The chief problem of going direct is not whether you aircraft can navigate direct, but whether the computer issuing your clearance can provide you a minimum safe volume across some crowded V, J, T routes.

Your point about increasing the number of runways is certainly valid, but again thats orthogonal to ADSB. You need to do both, allow more planes in the sky and consequently exit them from the airspace with more runways or more airports. Right now traffic going to JFK can still affect my clearance to my home airport near boston, I get routed 100 or more miles west! So even if you provide a thousand runways at JFK it doesnt help me in the present radar and V, J, T route system. ADSB infrastructure allows the possibility of my flight plan going much closer to JFK on my own GPS derived route and not affecting or not being affected by other traffic to JFK.

As for UAT stations bein taken out by a tornado, there are multiple UAT stations that one receives from. Yes you need more stations, but has to be balanced with the cost to maintain radar installations. I have no data on that.

As for accuracy - radar beams get wider and wider the further you go. Accuracy of aircraft positions suffers as a result. Also it takes more time to establish an aircraft's velocity (multiple sweeps). For aircraft that translates to higher minimum separations again.

GPS jamming is a concern, however, I am not sure any Tom, Dick or Harry can go and jam a GPS signal. Usually its the work of some military in some country. I am not sure.

All good points. Noticed that you did not mention any added benefit of the UAT service (WX\Traffic) provided by the ground stations.   Which they are already available by onboard WX radar, WX\XM and TCAS. All of these with greater performance than what UAT can provide. 

 

José

[jlunseth]

On XM WX, I have kept mine because I do long cross country flights over the western Midwest (ND, SD, etc.) and am concerned about not being able to get ADS-B weather there.  Not acceptable to me.  Need it for many things, but particularly Tstorm avoidance in the summer.  No reason to think panel GPS is going away however.  GPS IFR nav. is not possible without it.  Among other things, how are you going to legally fly an RNAV to LPV minimums with no certified GPS?  Or for that matter, how are you going to legally navigate enroute unless you are /G (and you are not /G with an iPad).

[M016576]

On XM WX, I have kept mine because I do long cross country flights over the western Midwest (ND, SD, etc.) and am concerned about not being able to get ADS-B weather there. Not acceptable to me. Need it for many things, but particularly Tstorm avoidance in the summer. No reason to think panel GPS is going away however. GPS IFR nav. is not possible without it. Among other things, how are you going to legally fly an RNAV to LPV minimums with no certified GPS? Or for that matter, how are you going to legally navigate enroute unless you are /G (and you are not /G with an iPad).

Yep- I don't think anyone believes panel mount GPS's are going anywhere: if anything, they will most likely just be further integrated into a single solution (think aspen-like w/AHRS + GPS fully integrated into a single display/cockpit/solution

[bd32322]

FWIW, I just discovered that Radenna LLC. is currently running some Sun-n-Fun specials on their ADS-B receivers and that their new UAT only models are only $349, which is less than I paid for my used one. I guess I should have waited a bit longer. The price wars are beginning. That's a pretty small investment to receive free weather, especially if you are already a WingX user but have not yet taken the ADS-B plunge.

Jim

Gonna switch to wingx because at least they allow price wars versus locking into a single solution like stratus

[bd32322]

I went ahead and ordered a new Sky Radar UAT receiver in order to take advantage of this sale, which expired today. The new model has built in GPS and ADS-B antennas and is designed to be more portable and to just sit on the glareshield, whereas my current Sky Radar UAT receiver has an external GPS antenna and is really optimized for remote mounting, although it, too, could be placed on the glareshield.

I decided that I prefer the simplicity of the newer design, but if you want one for remote mounting let me know and I'll pass along the savings. Otherwise I'll sell it on eBay in a couple of weeks after I receive the new one.

Jim

Thanks, but I am in the middle of moving up to another Mooney. Will buy one later when I buy the next Mooney

[yvesg]

I went ahead and ordered a new Sky Radar UAT receiver in order to take advantage of this sale, which expired today.

Jim

FYI

I went to their web site to learn about their stuff and the sale is extended until April 22nd.

Yves

[Hondo]

A good source for ADS-B http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/programs/adsb/media/arcReport2008.pdf

 

Two issues are frequency congestion on 1090 Mhz and almost total dependence on GPS. The GPS system is extremely expensive to maintain.  Clocks have to be constantly adjusted to the nanosecond. If this weren't done the system would be useless within two weeks.  Government claimed they stopped LORAN to save a mere 6,000,000/yr.  ALPA supports retention of Mode A/C/S transponders in addition to ADS-B OUT requirements.  Secondary surveillance radar is the chosen backup for ADS-B and ACAS, which rely on transponders for collision avoidance.  

 

I'm delaying purchase of a 406 ELT because the article above (pg 93) specifically mentions the possibility of tracking an aircraft to  its last transmission with automatic notification of abnormal termination, like off airport.  This could eliminate the need for an ELT.

 

Europe is going with 1090 exclusively. Did user fees eliminate the little guys?

[jetdriven]

I've been happy with the GDL-39 and aera 500 /iPad solution. It sits on the glareshield and is powered by the airplane, and feeds ADS-B data to the aera, plus bluetooth to the iPad. It is the size of a pack of cigarettes.  Like Jim I always receive several stations at once and have had no data dropouts from Houston to Sedona, Dallas, and almost to the Bahamas.

[aviatoreb]

Byron, Do you have a cross fill setup to your aera as well?  I have been wondering if the GDL-39 feed to the aera will also allow the cross fill to my aera I already have wired in.

[jetdriven]

Eric, IDK.  The GDL comes with a cable that interfaces with the Aera, check Garmin literature to see if the cable has a wire pair to send to the Garmin GPS to crossfill data to the unit.

[SkyBound]

Another vote for SkyRadar.  I've been using the SkyRadar D-2 ADS-B receiver for over two years now and have been very happy with it.  It works great with numerous apps including WingX and has been very reliable.  I have it neatly hidden off the glareshield (found great spots in both my current M20K and my previous M20C) and using external suction cup antennas on the windshield.

 

www.skyradar.net

 

Please PM me if you'd like more information, screenshots from previous flights, and if interested I can get you a discount through the referral.

 

--Alex

[bnicolette]

Alex, does the Skyradar box awaken the ADS-B ground stations so you will be able to see all the traffic or is it still dependent on other airplanes in the area that have that capability?

[SkyBound]

It does not, unfortunately.  The challenge is that in order to "awaken" the ground stations the aircraft needs to transmit its own position. In order to accomplish that with proper accuracy to FAA standards, since this position report could be used for air traffic control separation, it is not possible with the portable device like the SkyRadar. 

 

I am going to be upgrading my GTX330 with ADS-B Out capability (it's a $1,200 upgrade at the moment) in the next few months to get the traffic more reliably on my iPad with the SkyRadar receiver.