|
1090 Receiver |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | |||
brou0040 
Senior Member 
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: 1090 ReceiverPosted: 03 Oct 2015 at 12:16pm |
||
|
I see that the Navworx ADS6000-B receiver website says 1090ES receiver is coming soon. Considering the MLB100B is practically the ADS600-B, I'm hoping this 1090 receiver capability will also come to Avidyne.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 12:38pm |
||
|
Are there "A" and "B" MLB-100s?
|
|||
|
David Gates
|
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. Edited by brou0040 - 06 Oct 2015 at 1:50am |
|||
|
|||
|
bellanca1730a
Groupie 
Joined: 04 Jul 2013 Location: Tampa Status: Offline Points: 63 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Oct 2015 at 4:51pm |
||
|
Post above:
Quote: "I see that the Navworx ADS6000-B receiver website says 1090ES receiver is coming soon. Considering the 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
|
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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...
|
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
Edited by brou0040 - 12 Oct 2015 at 7:30pm |
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Jet
Groupie
Joined: 22 Dec 2013 Location: F70 Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Jet
Groupie
Joined: 22 Dec 2013 Location: F70 Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 Edited by DavidBunin - 10 Jan 2016 at 1:17pm |
|||
|
|||
|
bellanca1730a
Groupie
Joined: 04 Jul 2013 Location: Tampa Status: Offline Points: 63 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 Jan 2016 at 9:06am |
||
Yes!!! |
|||
|
Sean Andrews
Bellanca Super Viking |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 Jan 2016 at 9:53am |
||
The TAS-A series, for which the dual frequency box is already approved; awaiting software.
|
|||
|
David Gates
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
bellanca1730a
Groupie
Joined: 04 Jul 2013 Location: Tampa Status: Offline Points: 63 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|||
|
|||
|
flybikeski
Groupie
Joined: 26 Feb 2015 Location: Placerville Status: Offline Points: 68 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
Edited by brou0040 - 14 Jan 2016 at 9:43am |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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?
Edited by ddgates - 14 Jan 2016 at 11:20am |
|||
|
David Gates
|
|||
|
|||
|
flybikeski
Groupie
Joined: 26 Feb 2015 Location: Placerville Status: Offline Points: 68 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
Paul
Senior Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Massachusetts Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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... |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 Edited by DavidBunin - 15 Jan 2016 at 8:34am |
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. Edited by ddgates - 15 Jan 2016 at 12:32pm |
|||
|
David Gates
|
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
Edited by brou0040 - 15 Jan 2016 at 12:53pm |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
oskrypuch
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
glassanza
Groupie
Joined: 26 Feb 2013 Location: Georgia Status: Offline Points: 98 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul
Senior Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Massachusetts Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|||
|
|||
|
BobsV35B
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 Location: Downers Grove, Status: Offline Points: 131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
n7ifr
Senior Member
Joined: 05 Aug 2013 Location: Scottsdale, Az Status: Offline Points: 470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 ($$).
|
|||
|
|||
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
LANCE
Senior Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2014 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 277 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 2:26pm |
||
Sorry to hear that - it sounds painful.
|
|||
|
|||
|
AzAv8r
Senior Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 154 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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?
|
|||
|
|||
|
George P
Groupie
Joined: 29 Jan 2017 Location: Big Horn, WY Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Apr 2017 at 12:10am |
||
|
GTX 345?
|
|||
|
|||
|
brou0040
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: KIYK Status: Offline Points: 720 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
DavidBunin
Senior Member
Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
brou0040 wrote: