1090 Receiver
Printed From: Avidyne
Category: Avidyne General
Forum Name: SkyTrax Series ADS-B Receivers & Transceivers
Forum Description: Topics on the Avidyne SkyTrax 978 MHz Receivers & Transceivers
URL: http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=832
Printed Date: 22 Nov 2024 at 2:25am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 1090 Receiver
Posted By: brou0040
Subject: 1090 Receiver
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2015 at 12:16pm
| I see that the Navworx ADS6000-B receiver http://www.navworx.com/navworx_store/Certified_Aircraft_TSO_STC_AML_ADS_B_IN_Receivers_with_Optional_WAAS_GPS/ADS600.html" rel="nofollow - website says 1090ES receiver is coming soon. Considering the http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=727&KW=navworx&PID=7732&title=mlb100-install-time#7732" rel="nofollow - MLB100B is practically the ADS600-B , I'm hoping this 1090 receiver capability will also come to Avidyne. |
Replies:
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 12:17pm
|
I would be surprised if it didn't. But then, the NavWorx and Avidyne definition of "soon" may not match the FAA definition of "soon" and these are things that must go through governmental approval. So while I expect the feature eventually, I'm not holding my breath for it. David Bunin |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 12:38pm
|
Are there "A" and "B" MLB-100s? ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2015 at 1:46am
|
I'm not going to hold my breath or expect anything soon, but it sure would be nice. I don't plan on installing MLB until it is dual band; for my flying (a lot of MOAs and areas without ADS-B rebroadcast), I want to receive 1090 in natively. I've talked with some of the military pilots as well as the FAA, and I believe dual in is the only way to prevent coverage gaps that can contain serious hazards. One of these days I'll get a portable dual in system until a dual MLB is available. Avidyne most likely gauges interest in particular systems based on these forums, so that is one of the reasons I brought it up. Regardless of when it will be available, I'd be interested in one.
|
Posted By: bellanca1730a
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2015 at 9:36am
+1 (though I vote for sooner rather than later) I am down for my new avionics stack as we speak (2x540s, 340 and 240, among others), and we are prewiring and installing an antenna for the dual-band MLB, so when it becomes available we can drop it in, do a quick configure and fly off into the sunset. ------------- Sean Andrews Bellanca Super Viking |
brou0040 wrote:Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2015 at 4:38pm
|
I don't understand the question. What are you asking? Maybe I can find the answer. David Bunin |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2015 at 4:51pm
|
Post above: Quote: "I see that the Navworx ADS6000-B receiver http://www.navworx.com/navworx_store/Certified_Aircraft_TSO_STC_AML_ADS_B_IN_Receivers_with_Optional_WAAS_GPS/ADS600.html" rel="nofollow - website says 1090ES receiver is coming soon. Considering the http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=727&KW=navworx&PID=7732&title=mlb100-install-time#7732" rel="nofollow - MLB100B is practically the ADS600-B , I'm hoping this 1090 receiver capability will also come to Avidyne." I have an MLB installed; I'm unfamiliar with the B reference. David ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2015 at 1:11am
| must have been a typo, but it should have been obvious what I was talking about considering I provided a link... |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2015 at 9:51am
What raised the issue was the "B", coupled with sporadic notes about early vs newer hardware MLBs. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2015 at 10:06am
|
There is only one "flavor" of the MLB100. The circuit board includes pathways for 1090MHz circuitry, but I do not know if the components are placed on that part of the board. If the components are there, then it's just a matter of updating the software once the FAA approves. (Dual band functionality was always part of the design, but the FAA did not have an intelligent way to approve that function when the initial STC application was started.) So the software was backed out to get the STC. Not unlike what Avidyne had to do with their Wi-Fi functionality. So I fully expect that dual-band functionality is in the future for this product. But I can't say exactly when. And I can't say if it would be a software upgrade or a software/hardware upgrade. But there is an upgrade path and it is provisioned in the design. David Bunin |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 7:29pm
|
I just noticed some more reasons for wanting dual band. There are plenty of places where planes will be climbing through my path. I won't see them on rebroadcast until the "system" sees them. Although I may be skirting at the bottom of the rebroadcast reception, I won't see them until the last minute. That happened to me on my flight today, although it wasn't ADS-B. I was on VFR flight following and a twin climbing right at me that wasn't yet radar contact, so I had no idea he was coming, and approach didn't know about him when I stated traffic in sight as I switched frequencies. Mk-1 eyeballs still worked, but that defeats the purpose of having electronic traffic situation awareness. I hope there is a upgrade path in place as well, but unless they have it in writing, I'm not biting. I'm not sure I'll bite again until they have an STC in hand, but I am hopeful. I'm just on the fence to decide if it's worth it to buy a temporary system while waiting for the hardware/STC.
|
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2015 at 7:50am
|
You do understand that dual-band reception doesn't solve that problem today, right? You are also counting on your "attacker" being ADS-B equipped, which is not the case for 90% of the traffic today. So the odds are strongly that the situation would have been exactly the same with a dual-band receiver onboard your airplane. Aviation survived a hundred years without ADS-B. I think we'll be okay for the next five without dual-band receivers. There is no doubt in my mind that the NavWorx and Avidyne products will be dual-band capable before 2020, and that there will be an upgrade possible for any unit purchased now. David |
Posted By: Joe Jet
Date Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 11:13pm
|
Would be nice if Avidyne had something like the lynxx 9000, but without the waas gps, we have the 540/440, and with a larger display; maybe use the 540 box and display or EX600 box and display. ------------- A36 w/IFD 540, PA60 w/IFD 540 |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2016 at 7:42am
|
It's not a bad idea. On the other hand, Lynx already makes no fewer than seven different versions of their NGT product line. None of those does quite what we want for our planes? Is there a viable market volume to develop and certify a new product that only does what we want? Given the fixed cost of certification, would it be price-competitive on the market at low volume? David Bunin |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2016 at 9:02am
|
Cert costs kill a number of niche project ideas. I personally like my solution to ADS-B; extended squitter TXP, active traffic with ADS-B integration <hopefully soon> and FIS-B weather out of the MLB100. Done and done. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: Joe Jet
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2016 at 11:12am
|
I think an Avidyne all in one transponder with ADS-B 1090 out and 1090 + 978!in with a large display would be a great companion to any waas navigator. If you already have a waas navigator the gps in the lynxx is redundant added cost for both the unit and install. ------------- A36 w/IFD 540, PA60 w/IFD 540 |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2016 at 1:09pm
|
What do you mean? In the ADS-B world, there are no interrogations. Each ADS-B client just transmits its own position continuously, without being interrogated. That's why A stands for Automatic and B stands for Broadcast. David Bunin |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2016 at 1:16pm
|
With the exception of the GNS430/IFD440/GTN650 size products, any airplane with a WAAS navigator already has a large display. Even the 4-series products have a display large enough to do the job, as large as the display on the Lynx products. Personally, I think there is wide acceptance of a portable (tablet) device for "large display" purposes. Certified products will never be able to complete on cost with commercial off-the-shelf devices. That said, I agree that a single transponder-sized device that can do 1090ES Out and also receive dual band (1090 and 978) In is an attractive option, especially if there is a path (through the IFD counts) to output the data to a tablet display. David Bunin |
Posted By: bellanca1730a
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2016 at 9:06am
Yes!!! ------------- Sean Andrews Bellanca Super Viking |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2016 at 9:53am
The TAS-A series, for which the dual frequency box is already approved; awaiting software. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2016 at 7:05am
Don't get too excited, Sean. I've been told (by people who should know) that a product with that much circuitry won't fit into a transponder-sized container with today's technology. Maybe someday. David |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2016 at 7:13am
Oh, I see. An active traffic interrogation device (for Mode A/C/S transponders) that also receives ADS-B data. David Bunin |
Posted By: bellanca1730a
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2016 at 8:24am
Okay ... well, I'd still be thrilled with the dual-IN capability ... in fact, just imagine ... a follow-on to the MLB-100 with dual-band IN ... now THAT would be COOL. (Steve, is this too subtle? Sometimes I'm subtle.) :)) ------------- Sean Andrews Bellanca Super Viking |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2016 at 4:16pm
|
I am 95% sure that it will happen before 2020. I am 70% certain that it will not be in 2016. But like you, I am eager for it. |
Posted By: flybikeski
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2016 at 7:53pm
|
David, 70/90% sure that the MLB100 (since related to similar Navworx model) will be dual band? Or just that there will be an Avidyne dual band solution? I know you mentioned that the MLB100 possibly has the dual band hardware already inside, awaiting software update and FAA approval. Has Avidyne ever acknowledged this? It may help sales because I, for one, would buy one if I knew that was the case. But I would prefer not to buy a MLB100 and have to buy something else later on. - Ney
|
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2016 at 9:34am
If this were true, I would reconsider my ADS-B IN solution. I don't plan on doing this more than once and I plan on going dual band. I'd prefer to have ADS-B IN integrated into the panel, but I'm willing to give that up for dual band. As long as I was money-back assured that the dual in capability was indeed coming and within a reasonable timeframe, I may be willing to equip and wait for the unlock.
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2016 at 10:32am
|
Why would Avidyne offer a single frequency device (MLB100) and then later make it a dual frequency device, when it has a dual frequency product on its work plan?
------------- David Gates |
Posted By: flybikeski
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2016 at 3:52pm
David, Are you talking about TAS-A? Or it could be I missed a thread about a dual frequency device being planned. If you are talking about TAS-A - well not everyone can afford that solution (I can't) and I assume Avidyne would want to be competitive with others in (or that will be) in the market with dual frequency devices in the MLB price range.
|
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2016 at 4:21pm
|
I should probably restate that the things I post here are strictly my own opinions and predictions. I do not have any official insight into what either NavWorx or Avidyne is doing now or might be doing in the future. I know that the product ancestors of the MLB100 were dual-band prior to the time of certification. So I know that NavWorx knows how to "do that". I understand (I have been told) that every MLB unit made has the circuit paths for receiving 978MHz and 1090MHz. In response to why a company would offer a single-frequency product now and upgrade it later, that's easy: You sell today that-which the FAA has already certified, and you are always working on the next improvement. "[Avidyne] has a dual frequency product on its work plan." I don't know what plan or product you're talking about, so I can't offer a response. "I, for one, would buy one if I knew that was the case." Complete certainty is hard to come by in aviation. You pays your money and you takes your chances. I, for one, have put my money down on the Avidyne horse, even though the product is not yet "everything" I want it to be. Right now it is certainly enough. It works, and I have not personally experienced most of the reported problems. For one reason or another, my installation seems to side-step each of the known issues. Dual-band reception is a funny thing. It is only useful in a small fraction of the airspace and for a small fraction of the potential intruders (TCAS terminology for any airplane other than 'self'). Yet many pilots treat it like a make-or-break feature. Dual-band won't help you against the rancher who never equips for ADS-B. Dual-band won't help you for the "rebel" who flies around with his transponder turned off because "the government can't make me". Meanwhile, these same pilots are the ones complaining about the competence of any pilot who focuses on the onboard displays for more than a moment at a time. They grunt and gruff, "You should be looking out the window the whole time!" I guess they are determined to "show us all" how right they are. Sorry. This turned into a bit of a rant. I didn't mean anything by it. I am rarely 100% sure of myself, so I gave my percentages already. I'll give it a year and see if I want to change those numbers. David Bunin |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2016 at 8:56pm
|
I'm one of those people who wants dual-band receive. Our plane is at an airport under Boston's Mode-C veil. That means just about everything which flies there will have ADS-B out. I'm aware of only a few planes which won't, such as the flight school's Champ and the ultralights that visit occasionally. The ADS-B ground station coverage does not reach the ground at the airport. So during taxi with a dual-band receiver we will see more aircraft taking off, leaving, and in the pattern than we would see with a single-band receiver. We're currently using a Stratus II and Foreflight. That's quite adequate. My concern is that if WiFi can only connect to one device at a time and if Foreflight can work with our IFD 540 sometime in the future it won't be able to connect to both the IFD and Stratus II. At that point I may consider the MLB if it and the IFD give us the same capabilities as the Stratus box. Or maybe if I have time I'll put together a Stratux and add code to make it connect to the IFD as a client... |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2016 at 10:25pm
As it turns out, I have TAS (which is supposed to become TAS-A SOMEDAY. When I mentioned that dual band was in their workplan with an unspecified date, that has been my understanding based on posts here and elsewhere. In my case, since I have TAS, I am not using the traffic output of the MLB, and don't intend to. David ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 8:32am
I will point out that the risk of having a mid-air collision while taxiing the aircraft is very low. :) That said, I too am one of the people who wants (and fully expects to have) dual-band reception from my current Avidyne equipment before 2020. My forecast is that it will probably happen about the same time that the majority of targets are equipped for ADS-B Out. Based on your description (below network coverage), your current system is not showing you the non-ADS-B traffic in your pattern, since you are not receiving the TIS-B signal from a ground station. That means you are not seeing 90% of the traffic. (Also, those non-ADS-B targets themselves are probably below radar contact coverage.) On the other hand, if you ARE receiving the full traffic situation from Stratus, then you're getting it from TIS-B (and it means those guys ARE in radar contact). That means a single-band receiver would also receive the same TIS-B feed and the other-band ADS-B traffic by way of the ADS-R signal, which comes from the same antenna as the TIS-B data. We can't have it both ways. There is no scenario today (with the vast majority of targets still not equipped for ADS-B Out) where the Stratus works and a single-band ADS-B receiver (onboard a properly-configured ADS-B client aircraft) doesn't work just as well. David Bunin |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 12:27pm
Maybe not today, but high performance military aircraft will be ads-b out on 1090 only. When they are flying fast and we are both below coverage, or I'm in coverage, but they are below and climbing, I would sure like to see them. These guys zip around, you can't see them in time to react, and they aren't looking for you - trust me. That means I need 1090 as well as UAT since I don't want to give up weather and most of the GA traffic. My case may not be common, but I'm not sure it matters. I see that many users would prefer dual over single and that should be enough of a market demand to develop dual capability. It would be interesting to understand the demand for MLB dual-in vs TAS-A, and the cost for the upgrade in each case. If Navworx adds dual capability and the MLB is based on that, I'd assume it would be a better business case to bring dual MLB to the market first.
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 12:31pm
|
Except that the TAS-A conversion was promised a LONG TIME AGO, and many purchased the equipment on that basis. Moving TAS-A well down in the queue would not be a demonstration of good faith, and would probably lead to many pursuing refunds. That would not be a good business decision, whether or not it appealed to a larger market segment. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 12:50pm
|
I totally understand where you are coming from, I was also an early adopter for the 540. I was trying to say that if most of the work has already been done by navworx where it is simply a deal to work out between the companies and a software update, they should do that and right away. I don't think that would significantly take away from the TAS-A effort. I just hope they don't chose not to purse dual MLB because they offer the TAS-A. The other thing I was thinking is that if it would be cheaper for TAS customers to install a dual MLB rather than upgrade to TAS-A if that upgrade cost ends up being significant, then I do believe they should work on the dual MLB even if it does take away from the TAS-A effort. Either way, you'd get the capability albeit with another box to install. Perhaps I'm missing something, I haven't been following the TAS-A development.
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 1:01pm
|
I understand; agree that a dual frequency unit addresses most people's wants. In the case of those of us who have TAS units, the MLB is in many ways superfluous; just using it to get wx on the IFD (and I hope to be able to pipe that to the Aspens, still waiting to see if the MLB will do that with Aspen's non-Aspen unit unlock). Would have been just as good for me to have a wx only receiver. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 1:57pm
|
I have a TAS605(A) upgrade coming, but really, for most intents and purposes I don't see it as a biggie. Mode C will reveal the traffic already, and quite nicely. Granted that ADS-B 1090 TIS-B IN will extend the range, provide a bit more accuracy, and some extra data fields, but it will only do that when you are in range of ground stations. I'm not pacing, waiting for it.
Am I missing something? * Orest |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 2:09pm
|
Maybe I'M misguided, but it is my understanding that the ADS-B integration adds in what ground based radars are seeing, which leaves out the 152 up there who doesn't have mode C, or mode S? Or maybe his txp is off? If there is no advantage to the -A upgrade, why is it being done? ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: glassanza
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 7:17pm
|
So in the future (2020) we can't stop someone from turning off their GPS source/transponder (ADS-B out) to identify their position or if they choose not to comply with the equipment mandate and fly anyway, how is that different that what we have today? Cheaters will continue to fly so don't think you are going to see everyone in the pattern at many small airports. ------------- GDC25 |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2016 at 11:12pm
|
David, You are correct that a mid-air accident won't happen on taxi. But it is nice to see the aircraft in the area just before take-off. The airport is close enough to Boston that a transponder is required for almost everyone. ADS-B doesn't show that many aircraft when the plane is below the ground station coverage but there are more every week. By 2020 everyone (except the Champ) will have ADS-b out. I recognize that none of this is necessary and we should look outside the plane, and that the traffic is for situational awareness only. But we like it and want it to show as much as possible. So I'm planning to stay with dual-band reception for the time being. |
Posted By: BobsV35B
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 9:53am
|
Good Morning All, The requirement only applies to those who wish to fly in the roughly ten percent of the US airspace in which transponders are required or at altitudes above ten thousand feet Approximately ninety per cent of the US airspace below ten thousand is free to all. No transponder required and it is and will be perfectly legal to fly there without any electronics if the pilot wishes to do so. That is true even after the "mandate". Perfectly legal. No need to cheat or do anything improper. If we chose not to equip, we just can't fly as high or get as close to a few big cities. Please read the rules before you denigrate those who choose not to so equip. Happy Skies, Old Bob ------------- Old Bob, Ancient Aviator |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 10:40am
| I don't care if people don't want to upgrade, but I think it's fair to say that although ~90% of the airspace won't require equipping, more than 90% of aircraft will want to be able to fly in that 10% airspace and will therefore equip. I want to be able to see everybody I can, I understand it won't be everybody. It's like having insurance, you try to drive safe, but it's for the accident you didn't see coming. |
Posted By: n7ifr
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 11:20am
|
I pretty much agree with David-G, the ADSB traffic (MLB) usually doesn't add to the TAS traffic picture, but yesterday returning from California to Arizona, saw numerous MLB-ADSB traffic targets on 540-2 that were not displayed on 540-1 & Aspens receiving TAS-only targets... Just saying. I look forward to the TAS "A" upgrade that will presumably combine the two sources to the same displays. Tom p.s. I also would like to see MLB Wx on Aspens, and waiting for someone (else) to try the Aspen Unlock software ($$).
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 11:40am
|
In a previous post, Steve had said that he would have someone reach out to Aspen to evaluate this; my guess is Steve has many balls in the air at the moment, probably downstream in queue. But it would be good to know before contributing $800, particularly in view of current economic developments. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: LANCE
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 2:26pm
Sorry to hear that - it sounds painful.
|
Posted By: AzAv8r
Date Posted: 13 Apr 2016 at 10:24pm
|
The official Cardinal Flyers report from Sun'n Fun says Navworx announced that the 1090 In receiver function for the ADS600B would be available this summer via a software upgrade. If in fact the Skytrax / MLB100 is the same product, any peeps from Avidyne about the upgrade? I didn't see any in their announcements. I'm about to spend money to have a dual-band In receiver installed, and my preference would be a product that would display on the IFD540 on install, but NOW + Dual Band are much more important than that particular feature. The Aspens and WiFi to tablets will be sufficient. |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2017 at 11:53pm
|
Avidyne, Any word on a dual band ADS-B receiver that can display weather and traffic on an IFD?
|
Posted By: George P
Date Posted: 10 Apr 2017 at 12:10am
| GTX 345? |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 10 Apr 2017 at 10:10pm
That would be a waste of installing an AXP340, I'm looking for a receiver, or at least at a receiver price.
|
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2017 at 11:07am
|
My understanding was that the SkyTrax box had the internal hardware to receive dual-band but that the necessary software had not been certified yet. Maybe that approval was a casualty of the war between NavWorx and the FAA? Or maybe it's still coming in the future. |
Posted By: LANCE
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2017 at 3:36pm
| Avidyne at Sun N Fun said no SkyTrax or MLB200 (Dual Band) in the future |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2017 at 5:27pm
|
If they don't want to produce one, it would be nice to at least be compatible with another dual receiver so we can display traffic and weather on the IFD. I guess this becomes a 10.2.1 request then rather than a receiver request. |
Posted By: tony
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2017 at 8:25am
|
In my humble opinion, I think that's a mistake. |
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2017 at 9:16am
|
With 10.2, we are compatible with the GTX345 which is dual-band. Additionally, L3 has listed our IFD as a compatible display for their Lynx, which is also dual-band. ------------- Simpson Bennett Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2017 at 9:18am
I wouldn't rule anything out in the future. ------------- Simpson Bennett Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
Posted By: Thinwing
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2017 at 5:13pm
| Hi there,is there an stc for Garmin es-330 or gtx345 with IFD 540/440 with 10.2 yet? |
Posted By: Gary T
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2017 at 7:22pm
|
From the Avidyne IFD540 features web page: ADS-B Interface
What is a Skytrax 200/ 210 ???
------------- Gary-T |
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2017 at 8:06pm
AviSimpson, thanks for the heads up about those units, but this thread is about dual band receivers. Support for those units and not a dual receiver makes those of us who purchased an AXP340 wish we bought a product from one of your competitors...
|
Posted By: bellanca1730a
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2017 at 6:34am
+1
Here's hoping ... and for sooner rather than later. ------------- Sean Andrews Bellanca Super Viking |
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2017 at 8:28am
Yes, it's the 10.2 STC. ------------- Simpson Bennett Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2017 at 1:50pm
SkyTrax 100 is the receive-only box for ADS-B traffic and weather on 978MHz. SkyTrax 200 is a transmitter and receiver (UAT) for ADS-B Out and In on 978MHz, using an external GPS (IFD/GNS/GTN) as the position source. SkyTrax 210 is a transmitter and receiver (UAT) for ADS-B Out and In on 978MHz, using a built-in GPS as the position source. In other words, this is a stand-alone unit. The 200 and 210 are not available yet. Some of us still have hope (faded, though it may be) that all of these products will have an upgrade path to receive dual-band someday. But for now they are 978-only receivers. |
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2017 at 1:59pm
The SkyTrax200 & 210 will not be coming out in the aforementioned form. There is little to no demand in the market for a 978 Out transceiver. ------------- Simpson Bennett Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
Posted By: MysticCobra
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2017 at 9:28pm
??? Huh. My preference would have been for a 978 Out transceiver, for the air-to-air capability with my fellow little-guys. I "settled" for the 1090ES because it was the cleanest solution available at the time I was doing a major panel project.
|
Posted By: TurboPA30
Date Posted: 27 Apr 2017 at 10:36am
| It is harder and harder to stay a fanboy: Garmin came out with the 345, which is really the perfect box for the ADS-B mandate. I had sold my GTX33 and GTX330 that I had in my planes because I decided to go the IFD540 route, so it was only the AXPs that worked at that time, and there was no information that this would change. Now I lose the MLB700 weather, so I have to buy an MLB100, again with less capability. Cost of the AXP & MLB100 is already higher than the Garmin 345, with less capability and a higher install cost/effort. And as the icing on the cake, the 345 now works with the IFD540, giving better capability than the house brand stuff. Just shows that us early adopters get burned, every time. End Rant. |
Posted By: George P
Date Posted: 27 Apr 2017 at 10:51am
| I replaced my 530W with an IFD540 this month and will be going in in June to have a Garmin 345 installed in my Twin Comanche. I would have preferred to go with Avidyne ADS-B equipment for the sake of future compatibility, but the Garmin makes much more sense at this point. The Garmin has many more features than the Avidyne does including tablet display of weather and traffic and dual band ADS-B in, it is a one box solution which simplifies installation, and the cost is lower than the combined cost of an Avidyne transponder and their Skytrax100 box. Seems to me that Avidyne needs to take a serious look at their ADS-B products and pricing if they are going to be competitive. |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 2:28pm
|
I agree that the 345 is a slick product. Definitely second-generation thinking. If every receiver was dual-band capable then it wouldn't matter what band we use for ADS-B Out. (And there are already frequency saturation issues with 1090MHz.) My experience has been that the ADS-R function of the network is not reliable enough where it really matters (in the traffic pattern at most small airports). So in order to "see and" I want a dual band receiving capability. But in order to "be seen" I would need to have a dual-band transmitter, which as far as I know is not offered or proposed by any manufacturer, or I would need two transmitters which some airplanes seem to have. Just thinking out loud.
|
Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 4:09pm
Well, there is a TAS solution available. Pricier (perhaps too pricey now for the US market), but a much more complete solution, and it one day will have ADS-B IN from 1090 and ADS-R built-in. My TAS605 is a real performer, and you can send traffic data to any panel mount device from it, ASPEN, Avidyne, Garmin etc. * Orest |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 4:36pm
And it looks like maybe there might be some movement on the -A project. It was posted on another thread on this board by Avidyne that they were commiting more resources to get the -A piece tested and certified. One can hope anyway. Quite a few customers are waiting for this. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2017 at 6:52am
That does NOTHING to help other pilots/aircraft see me. Imagine that the other traffic only has a UAT installed. That guy won't see me unless I am transmitting on 978MHz. (In this scenario, we are both in the pattern at an airport outside/below network coverage altitude.) Of course, if I have a dual-band receiver that equipment will detect his target and display it for me. But his equipment would not detect me if I only broadcast on 1090MHz. My point is that "see and be seen" contains a serious flaw in a dual-band environment. And dual-band receivers only solve half of the problem. ADS-R solves the problem at altitude, but most so-called "mid-air" collisions don't really happen in the middle of the air. They happen mostly in the traffic pattern or on short final when two aircraft attempt to use one runway. Exactly the place where the network drops you off and says, "Thanks, see you next time." Of course, most of those places are well-outside rule airspace. And I am starting to get the impression that there are more "rancher pilots" than the FAA thought. Those pilots simply won't equip for ADS-B because they don't use rule airspace. These are the same guys who exercise their option not to use a radio to announce their position, and their airplane probably doesn't have any kind of traffic display system in the first place. I guess I'm just "not feeling it" this morning. Sorry guys. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2017 at 7:51am
|
None of this stuff will protect you against the NORDO J3 that pulls out onto the runway when you are on (really) short final, as happened to my wife at an airport under Boston's Mode C veil. The FAA says "see and avoid" and we need to do that. |
Posted By: mccdeuce
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2017 at 4:22pm
I really do think it is important for the SkyTrax to be upgraded to dual band on the ADSB-In - the Avidyne transponder is 1090 after all....
|
Posted By: n7ifr
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2017 at 5:55pm
Agree! It would also help to finally have the long promised TAS-"A" which would at least display both active TAS IN as well as ADSB 980 -In, but still would be nice to have the option with SkyTrax100 to upgrade to add 1090 IN with our squitter 1090-OUT.. Tom W.
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2017 at 6:15pm
|
supposedly a software defined radio exists within the existing Navworx/Skytrax box which could activate a 1090 receive function. However, Navworx appears to have its own issues. Such is the downside of purchasing "rebranded" technology. Tom, I agree with you about the TAS-A disgrace.
------------- David Gates |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 6:39am
While I agree with the desire to have the SkyTrax be a dual-band receiver, it really doesn't matter what band transmitter is installed. The ADS-B Out message format includes bits that inform the network of the aircraft's receiving capabilities. So when your airplane advertises itself as being capable of receiving on 978 only, it doesn't matter if that advertisement goes out on 978 or 1090. The advent of dual-band receivers did not occur until years after the final equipment specifications were set and published. The people who wrote the specs did not anticipate that market move, so the network is specifically designed to handle single-band receivers. I expect that in another decade or two, the marketplace will be populated by third-generation ADS-B products, and that virtually all of those will include dual-band receivers. Unfortunately, we all can't wait to equip. If we could wait (if there wasn't a 2020 mandate) then there would never even have been first-generation products. David Bunin |
Posted By: n7ifr
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 8:43am
When I am flying out in the boonies (like SW Colorado) out of range of the ground-based repeaters, as I often do, the only way I would ever see 1090 ADSB targets would be with a "dual band" SkyTrax - hence the TAS for active transponder reception. Tom W.
|
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 11:44am
|
True, but the ADS-B network (and mandate) isn't designed for you or me. It is designed for air traffic control, and they don't care about uncontrolled airspace.
|
Posted By: bellanca1730a
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 12:16pm
Well, "boonies" isn't synonymous with uncontrolled, and for the purposes of this thread (at least my own selfish ones) I'd rather Avidyne see more interest than disinterest in a dual-band solution so they have business incentive to pursue it. ------------- Sean Andrews Bellanca Super Viking |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 10:33am
| I'm totally with you on that front. I WANT to add dual-band receiving software to my SkyTrax unit. I know the hardware is already there. It's just a matter of motivating NavWorx to make it an engineering and certification priority. |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 10:59am
David B: IDK, seems like Navworx is underwater with magical thinking. Doesn't some of the "motivation" need to come from Avidyne? I assume you are saying there is a software defined radio asset capable of 1090 within the existing Skytrax box? ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: TurboPA30
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 7:25pm
| I have my trusty TAS610, which one day will be a 1090 receiver...... So I am not too enthusiastic on the MLB becoming a dual receiver box. I'd rather have it retail for $500. What I however found is that with every additional box, there is significant additional install error / wiring issue risk. So I'd love to have as few boxes as possible. So really the MLB100 should have been built into the IFD540. Makes more sense than the AHRS of the 550, especially as it is stand-alone. |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2017 at 4:24pm
|
I haven't seen a circuit schematic, so I can't comment on the physical embodiment. But I have been told that there is receiving circuitry on the boards that are tuned for 1090MHz. Also, NavWorx makes a device called a TransMON which links their UAT to an existing transponder. The TransMON contains a 1090 receiver/decoder. So they obviously know how to make a receiver. The issue is not receiving the frequency. The issue is receiving the ADS-B data and piecing it together. When a UAT transmitter broadcasts, it spits out all of the data at once. When a 1090 unit broadcasts, it only pumps out part of the data stream on each bust. A 1090 receiver has to capture and store all of the 1090 broadcasts within range, and then reassemble the data for each target in order to form a display set. That's why I say it's a software problem, not a hardware problem. Certainly some of the motivation at NavWorx needs to come from Avidyne (and it does). I also bug them about it each time I see them. Not sure how to translate "underwater with magical thinking". NavWorx is doing what they can with their FAA oversight office. That relationship can only be pushed so far, so fast. So I do have some sympathy when they tell me they can't climb that mountain with the FAA right now. But it doesn't stop me from bringing it up each time. |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2017 at 4:27pm
I understand conceptually what you mean. A true all-in-one piece of avionics equipment. But I don't see how Avidyne could produce a unit that is a combination navigator-transponder while still having it be a slide-in replacement for a GNS530. David
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2017 at 4:48pm
meaning a number of new product announcements which are questionably deliverable. Adding one more (albeit rebadged) has even less probability of fulfillment. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: n7ifr
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 6:25pm
|
Regarding Dual band ADSB receivers (and 1090 Out), I see Lynx 9000 (+) and GDL88, but I would love to know if either of these or both are compatible to display on our Avidyne 540's? Lynx is compatible with Aspen, and wouldn't it be nice if the Lynx would also talk to our 540's - finally all toys playing in the same sandbox... Tom W.
|
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 8:20pm
And now their troubles include an AD. Published today. AD2017-11-11 ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: n7ifr
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2017 at 8:50pm
|
That's a pretty harsh AD for NavWorx. Assume it does not apply to our SkyTrax100. Tom W.
|
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2017 at 9:21am
SkyTrax100 does not use an internal GPS. It takes the GPS information from the IFDs. So it is still unaffected by this AD.
------------- Simpson Bennett Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2017 at 7:02am
The AD doesn't seem to accept that the unit can be married to an external GPS (although they indicate that an AMOC will be available to allow such). The best (most technically correct) answer for the SkyTrax100 is that this part number is not listed on the AD. So the AD does not apply to these units. David Bunin |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2017 at 7:06am
Actually, I think it is about as cooperative as I have ever witnessed from the FAA. 1) They waited to publish the AD until after NavWorx had submitted the certification data package for the new units. 2) They gave the AD an effectivity date that allows the FAA enough time to approve the submitted data. 3) They gave enough compliance time for operators to perform an orderly upgrade. 4) They said that there would be AMOC coverage available for solutions not currently listed on the AD. I have never seen them be that nice to a manufacturer. Sounds like they reconsidered their original position on the topic quite a bit. David Bunin |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2017 at 11:43am
I don't know that "cooperative" and regulatory fit in the same thought. All in all, this will generate costs to Navworx' customers (as posted on the Navworx web site), and probably tarnish future sales. I hope they survive. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: Stiletto1
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2017 at 7:09pm
|
As I have been educating myself on the ins and outs of ADSB and active TAS, I can't help but keep coming back to the same place. Since the ADSB system will not relay primary (non-transponder equipped) radar targets back to you and active TAS can't interrogate a transponder that is not there, neither system will ever see NORDO aircraft. If you are inside radar coverage ATC can and will advise you of any traffic, including primary radar returns on NORDO aircraft, and the ADSB out mandate will further ATC's view of "equipped" aircraft outside radar coverage areas where ground stations can receive data. Out in the "boonies" where you need a traffic awareness system most, where radar coverage and ATC services may not be available, below 3000' where ADSB ground station coverage may be a bit intermittent, and where the bulk of the NORDO aircraft are operating, you won't have a complete picture with either system, and neither will ATC. If you are worried about these small dark areas of not very high traffic congestion that may remain outside the view of ATC after 2020, I'm not sure what can be done about it until EVERY aircraft is required to broadcast its' GPS position to any other aircraft that would equip to receive and display the information. If that IS where we are headed, then it would seem to me that Active TAS would not offer any value over a dual band ADSB-In solution. If that IS NOT where we are headed, then I'm not so sure either ADSB-in or active TAS offers much improvement over what ATC will be able to provide via traffic advisory for free by 2020. There may be that rare occasion where air to air ADSB might prevent a collision when operating below 3000', where the ADSB ground station eye's of ATC may be somewhat limited, but man that's getting down into the weeds. Add to the above that midair collisions are very rare in the first place, even more so in the so called "boonies", and latest accident data suggests that no traffic awareness system would have helped to prevent the few that did occur, and well, I'm just not seeing much bang for my buck worrying about ADSB-in traffic - especially not active TAS for an additional eight grand and up. Having said that, if I was Avidyne I would be getting a dual band ADSB-in Skytrax with internal Bluetooth on the market, and PRONTO! Include the ability to remotely control the ADSB-out transponder directly via the IFD100 without having to go through the IFD5xx/4xx WIFI/BT connection, and an internal WAAS as backup should the Primary IFD go dark - all of the above in one remotely mounted box no bigger than a pack of cigarettes for under 3 grand, thank you! :) ------------- C310C |
Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 7:46am
| It's not just in the boonies, I fly a float plane with no transponder at all. I've been known to transit the NY class B legally without it, and I fly at many different altitudes from down low at 500ft to 6-7000ft. I'll never put ADSB in this plane, nor will I bother with a transponder. |
Posted By: Stiletto1
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 7:37am
I hear ya. I wouldn't equip some airplanes for similar reasons either. And when operating in the airspace you describe, ATC can at least paint you with ground radar - and while in Bravo, ATC can get verbal altitude information from you - both of which is something neither ADSB or Active TAS can do. Fact is there is very little airspace that does not have radar coverage, and even less that does not or won't have ADSB ground station coverage. So, as long as ATC services, including VFR flight following, remain available, I guess I'm just not seeing much bang for my on-board traffic awareness buck. However, I will equip my traveling plane with an ADSB Transponder when I find the right interface that offers a remote one box solution and additional value as backup NAV source (internal WAAS and BT connection to an IPad app required). Ironic, when I can't think of any airspace that I have or will operate in when going X-country where ATC services would not have me covered - but on-board weather would be nice. ------------- C310C |
Posted By: bobcain
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2017 at 6:49pm
I didn't see that you received any response on this. But a little on this line- Does anyone know if the IFD can provide position for the GDL88 like it can the GTX345?
|
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2017 at 9:29am
The GDL88 approval is coming in a future release. We had some issues with it during the late stages of the 10.2 approval and had to pull the support. ------------- Simpson Bennett Avidyne Corporation Product Manager |
Posted By: Ibraham
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2017 at 9:52am
|
AviSimpson, Any update on when the Avidyne EX5000 MFD will be able to display weather and traffic from the Avidyne Skytrax 100? I guess that should be a priority for Avidyne as it is listed as being compatible. That was the whole reason we installed the Avidyne Skytrax and the AXP340 in favor of the Garmin GTX345 that would have been a much simpler and cheaper install, with more capabilities.
|
Posted By: brou0040
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2018 at 3:48pm
|
Kelly, Any news on additional ADS-B hardware? I was told at a trade-show that Avidyne was working on ADS-B products to hopefully announce late 2017. Is there anything still in the works? More specifically, I have the AXP340 for ADS-B out and would like a receiver where I can display dual band ADS-B traffic and weather on the IFD-540. Is there a way or plans to get this capability?
|
Posted By: Ibraham
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2018 at 5:38pm
|
The Garmin GTX 345 has a 1090 ADS-S out and dual ADS-S B in traffic, with "Spoken audio alerts call out potential flight path conflicts (“Traffic, 10 O’Clock, same altitude, two miles)” It has taken over 3 years and still no traffic display on the Avidyne's own MFD. Now with release 10.2.1, Avidyne removed the aural traffic alerts form the IFD's which was available with release 10.2 (Was listed in the 10.1 pilot guide but not actually implemented till 10.2) Can Avidyne explain the purpose of paying for the Skytrax 100 receiver and having no traffic alerts??
|
Posted By: n7ifr
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2018 at 7:36pm
Agree - I was holding out hope also for this unit as allows for Inout of active TAS traffic with dual ADSB IN. So, the GTX345 seemed to be a viable way to accomplish this, but sounds like on the IFD540 the UAT Icons with speed vectors, etc will not display... Not sure if this is data channel dependent though - Wonder if by using the GTX RS232 output to port to the IFD540... might acomplish this...IFD currently does allow UAT traffic display from the Skytrax100 (980 only) on the RS232 input. Tom W. |