• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

ADS-B Mandate

That is pretty much the case. If you have a dual channel receiver (978 & 1090 Mhz), you will receive the traffic with ADS-B Out that is near you. Since they have ADS-B Out, they will trigger the tower to broadcast traffic information for Mode-C traffic that is near them. You may be close enough to get an accurate traffic picture, or you may be on the edge of the area that's being broadcast to them, so you may only get a partial traffic picture for you, but an accurate picture of their traffic. Mode-C traffic is usually pretty sketchy in that it pops up on the screen intermittently. The mode-C traffic coverage varies significantly depending on Radar and ADS-B Tower coverage.

-Cub Builder

I looked on Garmin's site and it sounds as though the GDL 39, which receives both the 978 and 1090 frequencies, will get an ADS-B out direct from the other airplane. Though it is not refered to as air-to-air online. I thought it had to be rebroadcast by a tower.

In this case he was about 2000' higher and closer to the ground tower than I was and we both had good radar coverage. So he should have seen me as a Mode C target through a rebroadcast.

Good to know. The more I use this system the more I like it. Thanks for the replies.

I got an email from Garmin today saying that they have the GTX 335 transponder with a WAAS GPS on sale for just under $3000 now. That was the price without the GPS. Plus there is the $500 FAA rebate.
 
Interesting side note that puts the NavWorx squabble in a slightly different light. I got an email from the manufacturer of my ADS-B unit last month saying that the FAA had mandated a firmware upgrade .....Apparently they also got caught up with the same issue as NavWorx, but rather than battling it out with the FAA, these guys just ate the cost and installed a new GPS receiver in the unit along with a firmware patch of some sort. My only cost was to ship the unit to them.

Sounds like that was the smarter way to handle the situation.
Which unit do you have?
And whatever happened with NavWorx, are they back in the game yet?
 
For you who might be interested there are some good discussions on this topic over on the Beechtalk forums as well as Vans. I learned something over there that maybe some would be interested in. If you want to find a very good price on the Stratus ESG. Email this shop http://www.starkavionics.com/ I'm not connected in anyway but have emailed him a couple times and was amazed what he will sell that unit for. So good I may change my mind and go with that product. I have had issues with the Stratus 2 so am not fully convinced that they are the way to go. (It took three try's to get them to get me a unit that worked, and that one had connector problems). I have not yet heard of issues with the ESG so maybe it is made a bit better.
 
Sounds like that was the smarter way to handle the situation.
Which unit do you have?
And whatever happened with NavWorx, are they back in the game yet?

I can't find a direct quote, but it seems that NavWorx offered an upgrade to modify the offending models to a different model number that the FAA says complies.

My unit is a SkyGuard TWX for Experimentals. I like the unit, and the owner's support has been fantastic, but it has some down sides as well. Every input and output has it's own discrete antenna, so there is one each for 1090 In, 978 In, 978 Out, GPS, WiFi, and mode C transponder interrogator (interrogates the transponder to get Pressure Altitude and Squawk Code). It seems to me that several of these are on close enough frequencies or the same frequency that they could have been diplexed to keep the antenna count down. Fortunately, I have it mounted in a wood and glass plane, so antenna placement wasn't the problem one might have if it was being mounted to a metal plane, or a fabric plane. When I think about mounting a like unit in my SC Clone, I can't imagine where I would put all the antennae.

-Cub Builder
 
Last edited:
Pretty disappointing about NavWorx.
I wonder how many people are out how much money because of them?
Maybe a good reason to only consider ADS-B solutions (or any avionics, for that matter)
from tried and true outfits like Garmin.
 
Last edited:
Disappointing, but highly predictable once they started their "war" with the FAA. They demonstrated their disregard for both the FAA and for their customers when they initiated the conflict by unilaterally changing their software without any review/approval through the FAA -- knowing all the while that it was a violation of their TSO to do so... Customers be damned...

Now they've stranded approximately 800 customers who purchased their "TSO'ec" ADS-B units that were non-compliant, and which must now be removed (and replaced before 2020, I suppose). And there are probably many more experimental owners whose purchased units were NOT affected by the AD, but will now be unable to get any service for them in the future. Seems like just another "temper tantrum" to shut down operations without pursuing alternative solutions -- which are clearly available through other component vendors.

As for "only doing business with tried and true outfits like Garmin"... It's not like Garmin's skirts are completely clean in terms of abandoning customers, either... They walked away from supporting thousands of early GPS adopters. And if it wasn't for Appareo's launch (and runaway sales success) of the ESG, do you think we'd be seeing $2995 pricing for the GTX-335? We need to support other vendors besides Garmin, lest they achieve 100% market share, where they can dictate pricing, upgrades, etc.
 
Disappointing, but highly predictable once they started their "war" with the FAA. They demonstrated their disregard for both the FAA and for their customers when they initiated the conflict by unilaterally changing their software without any review/approval through the FAA -- knowing all the while that it was a violation of their TSO to do so... Customers be damned...

Now they've stranded approximately 800 customers who purchased their "TSO'ec" ADS-B units that were non-compliant, and which must now be removed (and replaced before 2020, I suppose). And there are probably many more experimental owners whose purchased units were NOT affected by the AD, but will now be unable to get any service for them in the future. Seems like just another "temper tantrum" to shut down operations without pursuing alternative solutions -- which are clearly available through other component vendors.

As for "only doing business with tried and true outfits like Garmin"... It's not like Garmin's skirts are completely clean in terms of abandoning customers, either... They walked away from supporting thousands of early GPS adopters. And if it wasn't for Appareo's launch (and runaway sales success) of the ESG, do you think we'd be seeing $2995 pricing for the GTX-335? We need to support other vendors besides Garmin, lest they achieve 100% market share, where they can dictate pricing, upgrades, etc.

You might want to go back and read some of the earlier articles on these units. Navworx didn't initiate a pissing contest they had units in production 'decertified'. That means the feds ok'd the production and then said 'stop'. Navworx had a good thing going and had their production stopped. While they tried to work out a solution, they were threatened with an AD. Sounds just a bit heavy handed.

Web
 
You might want to go back and read some of the earlier articles on these units. Navworx didn't initiate a pissing contest they had units in production 'decertified'. That means the feds ok'd the production and then said 'stop'. Navworx had a good thing going and had their production stopped. While they tried to work out a solution, they were threatened with an AD. Sounds just a bit heavy handed.

Web
I've read them all, including the FAA's letters to NavWorx. I see zero evidence, either from the letters and documents that NavWorx published, nor from the letters and documents the FAA has published, that NavWorx made ANY efforts to work with the FAA to find a solution. Things got so acrimonious that the FAA took the unprecedented step of publishing many of the emails and documents exchanged with NavWorx. I believe this was a response to NavWorx broad insinuation of FAA corruption and payoffs by an unnamed "large manufacturer of GPS, avionics, and ADS-B devices" to get the FAA to "shut down" NavWorx. Poppycock. NavWorx behaved like a petulant 3-year-old, and eventually the FAA was forced to revoke the TSO and publish the AD.

NavWorx devices were indeed TSO'ed – with software that broadcast SIL level of "0" (the lowest performance level). The FAA agreed that the devices met that standard, thus issuing the TSO. There would have been no TSO revocation, nor any AD issuance, had NavWorx continued to build the units PER THEIR TSO. The problem occurred when NavWorx made what the FAA (and pretty much anyone reading the tea leaves here) considered to be a significant change to the software. They began broadcasting SIL level 3 instead of 0. That's a whole different class of data to the FAA, and NavWorx definitely knew that.

Why did NavWorx do that? Well, sometime after their TSO was granted, the FAA clarified the rules, such that ADS-B traffic broadcasts would only be relayed from the ground stations to aircraft broadcasting SIL level 3 (the more accurate GPS signals that the entire NextGen system was designed around). NavWorx was (perhaps understandably) upset with this "rule change" and felt it was unfair. Rather than go through the FAA approval process (as required by their existing TSO) to change their software, they chose to unilaterally change that software to broadcast SIL level 3, and distribute it to their customers without obtaining FAA approval - a clear violation of their TSO and the TSO approval process. When the FAA found out about it, NavWorx tried to justify their actions by blaming the FAA for "changing the rules mid-stream" (which is indeed one way of looking at the change to require SIL level 3, but it doesn't matter - the rules are what the FAA says they are).

At that point, the FAA was still perfectly willing to sit down with NavWorx and review the engineering data to formalize the TSO approval of the new software (and here's the key point) PROVIDED that NavWorx could show that the GPS chip they were using actually did meet the requirements set down for SIL level 3 broadcast. NavWorx was very public with their claims that the chip they were using met the FAA standards, and that they had the engineering data to prove it. NavWorx set an appointment with the FAA inspectors to come review that data so they could get that TSO approval. Remember: At this point, the NavWorx TSO was still in effect, with the FAA only calling for them to roll back that software update or prove compliance with the TSO standard.

So, on the date for which the meeting was scheduled, the FAA folks showed up at NavWorx (remember - this was a meeting requested by NavWorx). Much to their surprise, they were turned away and refused admittance to the facility. (NavWorx later claimed their chief engineer was on vacation on that day, which begs the question "Why would you request an engineering review meeting with the FAA on a date when your chief engineer is on vacation?") Shortly thereafter (with a few more emails exchanged), the FAA revoked the TSO for the NavWorx units, and began the NPRM process which led to the AD.

Then suddenly, a few days ago, the NaxWorx home page (http://navworx.com) shows the following:

The ADS600-B Gen 2.0 product utilizes a GPS module from a third-party vendor. Although the vendor represented their GPS module met 14 CFR 91.227, the FAA recently determined the GPS module does not meet 14 CFR 91.227.
We are unable to sell the ADS600-B, or provide AD updates, for either certified or experimental aircraft.
Therefore, we are not currently conducting any business and have ceased operations.
We will provide updates if they become available.


Draw your own conclusions... I feel very sorry for their customer base.
 
and the airlines are asking for an exemption to the ADSB mandate. GAis getting screwed by them and the big avionics manufactures in my opinion. EAA and AOPA did very little to help, of course their big advertisers are making a lot of money off of it.
 
FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said the agency must vigorously enforce its technical standards for crucial equipment like ADS-B. “The FAA has strict requirements for navigation units to ensure the reliability of the information they provide both to pilots and to air traffic controllers,” said Huerta. “Customers of these products must be able to trust that their equipment meets our safety standards."

Yet experimental and LSA can fly in the same airspace with a lesser version. :roll:
 
Yep but you tell me the difference in both airplanes operating in the same airspace, under the same regulations but the equipment that they claim as a safety issue doesn't have to meet the same standard. Makes no sense to me and now the airlines want exemptions. Glad I don't operate in controlled airspace and don't have a transponder.
 
Civil liability will keep the EXP equipment manufacturers in line. TSO equipment manufacturers will hide behind the TSO. The former makes more sense to me than the latter.

Experimental aviation has demonstrated lots of exciting advancements that could only be achieved by the government getting out of the way. ADS-B equipment is no different.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that experimental units have to meet the same performance standards as the approved ones, they just don't have to go through the TSO approval process
 
and the airlines are asking for an exemption to the ADSB mandate. GAis getting screwed by them and the big avionics manufactures in my opinion. EAA and AOPA did very little to help, of course their big advertisers are making a lot of money off of it.

What a buncha BS!!
IMHO this ADS-B stuff is all about airliners & that sort of flying-
hence the mandate to have it in A B & C airspace as well as in the mode C veil,
but not in lesser airspaces.
Now the airlines want an exemption?
Well, I want one too!
 
Jet powered airliners operate in positive IFR control at all times. There are some minor exceptions. They and their pilots (except the ones who are also light plane pilots) think that they should have exclusive control of all airspace. They look with derision at the "little spam cans". As a result they, along with their lobbyists have imposed as many restrictions on our operations as possible. The ADS-B system is just one example.
 
and the airlines are asking for an exemption to the ADSB mandate. GAis getting screwed by them and the big avionics manufactures in my opinion. EAA and AOPA did very little to help, of course their big advertisers are making a lot of money off of it.
As I understand it, the airlines already got an exemption from the required newer, higher accuracy GPS until 2025, but must install the rest of ADS-B Out by 2020. The stated reason is that certification is needed for each airliner model and variant, volumes are low, and certified units won't be available in time for installation.

Added: this is another example of FAA certification standards getting in the way of its own objectives. Satellite tracking is another area. Instead of making it easier to certify and upgrade the GPS, the FAA relaxed accuracy and moved the deadline. I was talking with an airline pilot friend and marveling that my Cub had more modern navigation and tracking than many airliners, when he pointed out that it costs nearly $100k to install a GPS in an airliner.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/media/Exemption12555.pdf
 
Last edited:
That’s what I was tracking. Working towards but not complete on time for all the services
 
Where’d you hear that?

That was on one of the national aviation news sites. I don’t think it was a “we’re not going there” thing, but the difficulty and expense of integrating this technology into the avionics in some Aircraft would delay compliance, perhaps substantially.

MTV
 
That was on one of the national aviation news sites. I don’t think it was a “we’re not going there” thing, but the difficulty and expense of integrating this technology into the avionics in some Aircraft would delay compliance, perhaps substantially.

MTV

Yeah, I agree with that. Especially the integrated avionics suites - very difficult.
 
... the difficulty and expense of integrating this technology into the avionics in some Aircraft would delay compliance, perhaps substantially.

"Difficulty and expense..." -- oh yeah, me too.
I gotta remember that line for when it's 2020 and I haven't met the mandate.
 
I looked on Garmin's site and it sounds as though the GDL 39, which receives both the 978 and 1090 frequencies, will get an ADS-B out direct from the other airplane. Though it is not refered to as air-to-air online. I thought it had to be rebroadcast by a tower.

In this case he was about 2000' higher and closer to the ground tower than I was and we both had good radar coverage. So he should have seen me as a Mode C target through a rebroadcast.

Good to know. The more I use this system the more I like it. Thanks for the replies.

I got an email from Garmin today saying that they have the GTX 335 transponder with a WAAS GPS on sale for just under $3000 now. That was the price without the GPS. Plus there is the $500 FAA rebate.

I had another target pop up on my 796 that I can’t explain. Yesterday I was flying east, at a VFR altitude, through a canyon below radar and ADSB coverage. Slightly ahead of me and probably 1000’ below was opposite direction traffic. The canyon here is maybe a mile wide but plenty of room for both of us. I looked at my 796 and there he was behind me now with the gap widening. The target was a black diamond like rebroadcast Mode C traffic looks. No N number associated with it. So I don’t think he had ADSB Out for that reason and also because I didn’t see him on the 796 ahead of me, just when he was abeam and behind me.

It would seem that the GDL 39 was picking up his transponder directly. A few days earlier I did a software update on the 796 and one of the changes, so it said, was an improvement of ADSB targets. A connection?

Anybody else seeing this type of target when you know you’re out of both ADSB and radar coverage?
 
....The target was a black diamond like rebroadcast Mode C traffic looks. No N number associated with it. So I don’t think he had ADSB Out for that reason and also because I didn’t see him on the 796 ahead of me, just when he was abeam and behind me. ....

What I do about ADS-B you could out in a thimble (and have room left over),
but I was just reading up on the Garmin GDL82 and I believe Garmin says it has an "anonymous" mode where it will not show the tail number on other folk's ADS-b "in" display.
 
Back
Top