Portable ADS-B Solutions -- Moment of Truth!

[bnicolette]

Continue to be impressed with the SkyguardTWX ADS-B out box: The traffic off my left was spot on as he passed by me.  I was descending to pattern altitude and still pinging the ground stations to send me my traffic picture.  Check out the traffic coming down the ILS in KLBE.

[wishboneash]

Continue to be impressed with the SkyguardTWX ADS-B out box: The traffic off my left was spot on as he passed by me.  I was descending to pattern altitude and still pinging the ground stations to send me my traffic picture.  Check out the traffic coming down the ILS in KLBE.

 

I understand they this company is trying to get approval. Is this legal to use now? If it were, it would indeed be an inexpensive solution to get all traffic.

[bnicolette]

I understand they this company is trying to get approval. Is this legal to use now? If it were, it would indeed be an inexpensive solution to get all traffic.

 

It is most assuredly legal to use now.  It is also most assuredly not going to gain approval for the 2020 mandate (6 years away).  However, in my humble opinion it is a great/cheap solution to having the entire mode C traffic picture made just for me and centered around my airplane. (+/- 3500' and 15nm)

[mike_elliott]

It is most assuredly legal to use now.  It is also most assuredly not going to gain approval for the 2020 mandate (6 years away).  However, in my humble opinion it is a great/cheap solution to having the entire mode C traffic picture made just for me and centered around my airplane. (+/- 3500' and 15nm)

 

Sometimes, in the name of safety, regulations prevent safety. We saw this with terrain displays on GPS's. Suddenly, pilots with handhelds that could display terrain warnings were not hitting cumulogranite clouds, while the "certified" only planes were still trying to move them out of their way. Was the lesson learned by the FAA? (hows that for an entry to the silly question of the day contest?)

[Piloto]

It is most assuredly legal to use now.  It is also most assuredly not going to gain approval for the 2020 mandate (6 years away).  However, in my humble opinion it is a great/cheap solution to having the entire mode C traffic picture made just for me and centered around my airplane. (+/- 3500' and 15nm)

SkyguardTWX does not appears on any of the FAA approval listings. To get an FAA approval as an ADS-B in the device needs to display the data on a panel mounted display not on a tablet. There is no FAA approval requirement to show data on a tablet. However to transmit on 978 MHz as an ADS-B out device a TSO and STC is required. This guarantees the device will not cause harmful interference to the UAT infrastructure.

 

José 

[N601RX]

I think you only need FCC approval to transmit on 978.  The testing necessary for FCC approval will make sure there is no harmful interference. You need FAA approval  to permanently mount it in a plane.

[Piloto]

I think you only need FCC approval to transmit on 978.  The testing necessary for FCC approval will make sure there is no harmful interference. You need FAA approval  to permanently mount it in a plane.

To get the FCC approval you only need to show no interference to other services outside the aviation L band. For ADS-B out you need to demonstrate compliances with FAA TSO C195a. Part of the compliance includes position and baro altitude accuracy. As a minimum an ADS-B out device would need to be tied to a baro altitude source a TSOd GPS WAAS antenna and a TSOd WAAS GPS sensor. In addition to compliance with the data exchange protocols in TSO C195a. Keep in mind that ATC would be using this data for traffic separation. This is why the FAA approval is required.

 

José 

[bnicolette]

To get the FCC approval you only need to show no interference to other services outside the aviation L band. For ADS-B out you need to demonstrate compliances with FAA TSO C195a. Part of the compliance includes position and baro altitude accuracy. As a minimum an ADS-B out device would need to be tied to a baro altitude source a TSOd GPS WAAS antenna and a TSOd WAAS GPS sensor. In addition to compliance with the data exchange protocols in TSO C195a. Keep in mind that ATC would be using this data for traffic separation. This is why the FAA approval is required.

 

José 

 

From SkyguardTWX:

 

 

We are working to gain FAA approval.  This will be a long

Process as there is a lot of documentation and testing required

By the FAA.   They are aware we have a transceiver and know

That we have passed FCC approval.  They are ok with it as long

As we continue to pursue TSO certification.

[mike_elliott]

just received this from Dan Houtz

 

Still working with the FAA.  We have a backup plan to use an already

>     Certified GPS if the FAA will not accept our GPS.  Of course this will

>     Certainly increase the price of our Transceivers.

[wishboneash]

I don't see how the FAA will allow a portable/built-in GPS to provide WAAS level information to this transmitter. The transmitter part is certainly doable from a portable unit since it is not providing an intelligence to the ADS-B out signal, but the position source will have to be from a panel installed WAAS certified GPS. If so, I would just replace my existing mode C transponder with a Mode-S /ADS-B out capability such as the BK KT-74.

[Marauder]

I may be a little slow on the uptake, but what is SkyGuard attempting to accomplish? To become the first non-panel mounted device approved for the 2020 compliance? If so, they will have a number of other things to contend with; continuous power requirements -- I don't think cigarette lighter receptacles are acceptable & antennae position/mounting -- part of the TSO for panel mounted WAAS GPS solutions to name a couple. Why do I have this funny feeling that their final approved product is going to look like a GDL-88 or an Aspen box?

[bnicolette]

Youre probably correct Chris. But i can tell you what they did accomplish. They brought to market a unit which will feed you all the mode C traffic in your circle of safety that is economically swallowable (for me). Ive spent more (twice to three times more) in the past for a new fangled portable GPS because it was color or had maps, plates, etc. so for less than a thousand bucks i can now have the added advantage of taking part in a new level of safety and situational awareness with regards to traffic. I already know the traffic is there before ATC calls my attention to it and if I haven't seen the traffic it is much easier to find it by looking on the ipad as opposed to getting that initial call saying traffic 2 oclock and ten miles 1000' above and then trying to guess where it might be a minute from now. I can watch the traffics progress on the ipad to make it easier to get a visual on them. I think of the unit as a beautiful interim device that works flawlessly until such time as I'm ready to upgrade my panel when i have many more choices in the market and buy what i see as a clear permanent setup. In the picture i was below 1000' AGL and i was still pinging the station to send me my traffic picture. Im not sure of the closest ADSB tower to LBE?

[Piloto]

I may be a little slow on the uptake, but what is SkyGuard attempting to accomplish? To become the first non-panel mounted device approved for the 2020 compliance? If so, they will have a number of other things to contend with; continuous power requirements -- I don't think cigarette lighter receptacles are acceptable & antennae position/mounting -- part of the TSO for panel mounted WAAS GPS solutions to name a couple. Why do I have this funny feeling that their final approved product is going to look like a GDL-88 or an Aspen box?

 

You are very right on your assessment. Not only it would need a TSOd WAAS GPS but a baro altimeter sensor connected to the aircraft static system, since altitude separation is based on baro altitude and not GPS altitude.

 

José 

[N601RX]

ADSB allows GPS altitude to be reported instead of Baro altitude.  There is a bit in the output  that states which one you are using.  There is also no requirement that it be Wass, only that it is IFR certfied and has a algorithm that implements integrity checking

[Marauder]

Hey Brett. Don't get me wrong, I would love to jump on this bandwagon. But if remembered correctly, your combined Stratus/SkyGuard costs were somewhere in the $1600 to $1800 range. For those of us who own Aspens, the ATX200 solution list for $4k, street prices will be in the $3.5k range plus installation. Since Aspen's solution is still waiting for release (will check again today), do I wait or do I do an interim solution that may not meet the mandate requirements. It would be nice to hear SkyGuard declare what they are trying to do. If they do get certified, will this meet the 2020 mandate? I think people also need to understand that the mandate is only for the "out" piece. The "in" component (weather and traffic) was the carrot for us to comply. The mandate is about traffic flow for air traffic control, not to supply us blips with Wx and traffic.

[Piloto]

In Summary:

 

1. About less than 5% of GA traffic has ADS-B out. 100% of GA traffic has Mode C.

2. To detect Mode C traffic that is a threat (less than 6nm <+1000ft) you will need ADS-B out.

3. All ADS-B out devices needs FAA approval and be installed. No portables.

4. To be effective a traffic sensor needs to provide an audio alert.

 

The only ADS-B out that satisfy the above is the GDL-88.

 

José

[bnicolette]

Chris I understand completely and if I had an Aspen or have started my upgrade process things would be different.  But I'm in stagnant land with avionics so it works well for me.  It sure shouldn't be something that one should expect to satisfy the mandate in 2020. 

 

 

 

In Summary:

 

1. About less than 5% of GA traffic has ADS-B out. 100% of GA traffic has Mode C.   100% of GA has mode C?  Definitely not true.

2. To detect Mode C traffic that is a threat (less than 6nm <+1000ft) you will need ADS-B out.  

3. All ADS-B out devices needs FAA approval and be installed. No portables.  True; to meet the mandate which comes into effect 6 years from now?  For me that's about $1 per hour of flight time to have traffic information.  That's a bargain IMO.

4. To be effective a traffic sensor needs to provide an audio alert.  ​Debatable.  I have found it to be very effective.  Sure, it's not optimum but changes may be just around the corner thanks to the fine folks at Foreflight.

 

 

José

[mike_elliott]

You are very right on your assessment. Not only it would need a TSOd WAAS GPS but a baro altimeter sensor connected to the aircraft static system, since altitude separation is based on baro altitude and not GPS altitude.

 

José 

Which begs the question now, with Technology what it is, why doesn't the FAA move to use true altitude vs Baro altitude? Same with heading and Track.

[Piloto]

Which begs the question now, with Technology what it is, why doesn't the FAA move to use true altitude vs Baro altitude? Same with heading and Track.

I think it is a matter of simplicity popularity and where it is used. Baro altimeters are much simpler and reliable than GPS but less accurate. But for relative altitude below 30,000 feet they are pretty good for altitude separation. A continent like South America, Africa or Australia does not need to rely on foreign satellite systems for their ATC when using baro altitude. Atmospheric pressure is avaliable everywhere.

 

Heading and Track are two different things. Heading is which way you are facing (no need to be moving) and Track is which way you are moving. True that in most cases Track is what matters most. But for Heading you only need a compass vs for track you need a GPS. But for same reason as above for Heading you do not need to rely on foreign satellite systems. The Earth Magnetic field is available everywhere.

 

From the safety point of view neither the baro altimeter or compass requires power to operate neither of a multibillion dollar satellite infrastructure to operate. For some nations having their ATC relying on foreign controlled systems is unacceptable and this is understandable. It would be like the US relying on Glonass (Russian Sat Nav) for its ATC.

 

José     

[Piloto]

1. About less than 5% of GA traffic has ADS-B out. 100% of GA traffic has Mode C.   100% of GA has mode C?  Definitely not true.

 

Notice that I said "traffic" not aircraft. ATC radar interacts with transponder equipped aircraft. All transponders are Mode C capable. The only instance where ATC does not interact with transponders is in the oceanic environment, where voice position reports are used.

 

José 

[carusoam]

So without adsb- out, my sky radar has questionable value for traffic for the following reason.

(1) I don't know if I am receiving all the traffic hazards in my area.

I have used it to help identify traffic that has been called out by ATC.

I bought it for the weather aspect, traffic could be a bonus, but...

(1) there is no audible warning to draw the proper attention. Otherwise the pilot would need to continuously monitor each piece of information. There is just too many targets to handle...

This past Saturday, there were 10 targets on my iPad's screen.

Prior to landing, I lost the power cord. It fell out of the socket. I didn't know until I was reviewing the flight recorder later at home and didn't get the last few miles of flight.

So much to learn...

Just sharing my observations,

-a-

[wishboneash]

The GDL-88 is probably the best solution for those not wanting to fly above 18k in the US. As a bonus, you will get it drive panel avionics with traffic. And perhaps some day drive your G500! You wouldn't have to change your Mode C transponder.  For basic compliance there are several transponders with extended squitter that will meet all ADS-B out requirements including those flying about 18k. The choices depend on your aircraft altitude capability, existing avionics and upgrade paths you envision. Will there be a version of a GDL-88 that supports ADS-B out for all altitudes?

[bnicolette]

I was out playing around this morning, along with a lot of other folks apparently.  There were 4 targets within 1000' and 10 miles of me.  Also got a cool video of one this morning that shows the accuracy of the ADS-B traffic.  Love it!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WRims9QJBc

 

I hope those 2 guys at my 8:00 position had traffic.  If not, they were pretty close to each other if they didn't change course.

[Marauder]

I was out playing around this morning, along with a lot of other folks apparently.  There were 4 targets within 1000' and 10 miles of me.  Also got a cool video of one this morning that shows the accuracy of the ADS-B traffic.  Love it!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WRims9QJBc

 

I hope those 2 guys at my 8:00 position had traffic.  If not, they were pretty close to each other if they didn't change course.

 

 

Very nice! I have a call out to the avionics shop this morning checking on the availability of the Aspen ADS-B products. Flew with my wife a few times over the last couple of weeks and we had our fair share of traffic. One was close enough for us to read the tail number. She uttered those words every plane owner wants to hear "Isn't there something you can put in the plane to let you see these planes".

 

I will keep you posted...

[Bob_Belville]

Very nice! I have a call out to the avionics shop this morning checking on the availability of the Aspen ADS-B products. Flew with my wife a few times over the last couple of weeks and we had our fair share of traffic. One was close enough for us to read the tail number. She uttered those words every plane owner wants to hear "Isn't there something you can put in the plane to let you see these planes".

 

I will keep you posted...

Nancy and I were IFR between JFK and HFD with a fairly high speed  VFR target (Pilatus, I think) went right over the top of us presumably 500' above. The collision paths were close enough that the 750, getting traffic from the GDS 88, filled the screen with a scary looking flashing alarm. I and the other pilot had had several ATC call outs by then but Nancy was very happy to know we had such useful info on board.