PDA

View Full Version : FAA ADS-B Avionics System Check


jdm117
05-30-2014, 11:10 AM
Want to know how your ADS-B system is performing? Send an email with N-number to 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov and request a detailed report.

Please include ADS-B transmitter & GPS make/model to save us a few emails if there are system performance issues.

jjhoneck
05-30-2014, 12:33 PM
Done.

It will be interesting to see the results, in light of my recent problems. Example: Yesterday we were seeing ADS-B traffic in the Austin and San Antonio areas, when we zoomed our GRzt Horizon HXr screen way out, but only sporadically along the Texas coast where we are based.

Was that a system problem? It would be extremely frustrating to be chasing problems in my system, only to discover that (for example) the local ground stations were down.

Thanks for the link!

Bavafa
05-30-2014, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the info. I requested a report and quickly received one but not sure what this means. I had been under the impression that my set up is in compliance since my source of location is a 430W. Does anyone know about these fields and what they mean?

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/14120031809_0f4ae5a193.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14120031809/)
ADS-B report (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14120031809/) by bavafa1 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61260420@N07/), on Flickr

I can e-mail the report to those who are interested and/or can make out what the report indicates. I am a bit at lost as why my system is failing on location accuracy and intergrity.

Mike S
05-30-2014, 12:42 PM
Jim, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

Do you by any chance work with the ADS-B program???

Good to have you here.

Brantel
05-30-2014, 01:06 PM
Thanks for the info. I requested a report and quickly received one but not sure what this means. I had been under the impression that my set up is in compliance since my source of location is a 430W. Does anyone know about these fields and what they mean?

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/14120031809_0f4ae5a193.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14120031809/)
ADS-B report (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14120031809/) by bavafa1 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61260420@N07/), on Flickr

I can e-mail the report to those who are interested and/or can make out what the report indicates. I am a bit at lost as why my system is failing on location accuracy and intergrity.

Go here for a description of what those are and what the limits are for each item:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/7e82c5df933b37588625775800671337!OpenDocument

Look at the "Distributions" section to see what your system is sending.

dmaib
05-30-2014, 01:30 PM
Go here for a description of what those are and what the limits are for each item:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/7e82c5df933b37588625775800671337!OpenDocument

Look at the "Distributions" section to see what your system is sending.

I got a report back about an hour ago that looks just like Mehrdad's. I went to 91.227 and looked at the descriptions in the link above. However, that does not help me figure out what is going on. My ADS-B out is GTX-330ES and GNS-430W and all appears to be working normally in the cockpit. ADS-B in is via SkyRadar D2 and GRT Hxr display.
Hopefully the OP can give us some insight here.

dmaib
05-30-2014, 01:35 PM
Well, I just got a document that explains all of the results of one of these compliance reports. I will read it and report back to the forum.

Brantel
05-30-2014, 01:42 PM
I got a report back about an hour ago that looks just like Mehrdad's. I went to 91.227 and looked at the descriptions in the link above. However, that does not help me figure out what is going on. My ADS-B out is GTX-330ES and GNS-430W and all appears to be working normally in the cockpit. ADS-B in is via SkyRadar D2 and GRT Hxr display.
Hopefully the OP can give us some insight here.

Like you I was shocked to see my report. I have had absolutely no reason to believe that my system was not working properly.

http://i57.tinypic.com/23k6bl3.png
I have a GTN 650 GPS and GTX 23 ES xponder

dmaib
05-30-2014, 01:58 PM
Well, the document helps a bit. However, the fact that this report shows that my position, velocity, and navigation integrity failed 100% of the time while everything else seems to show the system is working, makes me suspect settings in the GTX-330ES, or the 430W. I remember when I installed the new avionics last year, having a hard time finding anyone who knew, with a high level of confidence, what some of the settings should be.

rleffler
05-30-2014, 02:00 PM
Pretty good response time at generating these reports.

I have a Navworx/AFS/Garmin327 solution in my RV-10.

The good news is that there were no non-compliance issues were identified. Now I have to read the document they sent to understand what this is really telling me.

dmaib
05-30-2014, 02:00 PM
It looks like the OP works for the government.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-marks/20/240/733
It also looks like if you request your report and if you are out of spec, you are not allowed to xmit.

Personally I wish I had never requested that report!


Like you I was shocked to see my report. I have had absolutely no reason to believe that my system was not working properly.

http://i57.tinypic.com/23k6bl3.png
I have a GTN 650 GPS and GTX 23 ES xponder

I am not sure there is much we can do from our end on this.

Honestly I am not going to get too excited until I hear something from the fine Garmin folks.

I read 91.225 and I am pretty sure the prohibition on transmitting is after Jan. 1, 2020.

Mike S
05-30-2014, 02:04 PM
Brian, thanks for the Linkedin link-----------he seems to be with the FAA, ADS-B program as I suspected, and asked in my welcome post.

He has been watching this thread now for almost a half hour or possibly more, yet has not responded.........................too bad, I was hoping for someone in the program who was going to be active in supporting us in getting straight answers, and guidance through the ADS-B maze.

We shall see...........................................

Bavafa
05-30-2014, 02:05 PM
Go here for a description of what those are and what the limits are for each item:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/7e82c5df933b37588625775800671337!OpenDocument

Look at the "Distributions" section to see what your system is sending.

Here is my distribution and if I am reading this right, the entire duration of the flight "processed" which is reported as 10480, I have accuracy of greater than 10NM. Since I was using my GPS on an IFR flight plan, I would have thought to been made aware of this inaccuracy so I hardly think of such possibility.
Question is, how does the system determines my position to determine inaccurate reporting by me?
Perhaps what GPS is reporting (pertaining to ADS-B) is inaccurate and I am wondering if that is a setup issue.


https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2923/14284014956_626c62d6eb.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14284014956/)
Distribution (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14284014956/) by bavafa1 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61260420@N07/), on Flickr

Brantel
05-30-2014, 02:07 PM
I read 91.225 and I am pretty sure the prohibition on transmitting is after Jan. 1, 2020.

From the second document they sent:

http://i59.tinypic.com/27xphqq.png

Brantel
05-30-2014, 02:13 PM
Here is my distribution and if I am reading this right, the entire duration of the flight "processed" which is reported as 10480, I have accuracy of greater than 10NM. Since I was using my GPS on an IFR flight plan, I would have thought to been made aware of this inaccuracy so I hardly think of such possibility.
Question is, how does the system determines my position to determine inaccurate reporting by me?
Perhaps what GPS is reporting (pertaining to ADS-B) is inaccurate and I am wondering if that is a setup issue.


https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2923/14284014956_626c62d6eb.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14284014956/)
Distribution (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14284014956/) by bavafa1 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61260420@N07/), on Flickr

What is your "GPS Position Integrity" level set to on your xponder?

Mine is set to "1E-5" and that results in a SIL of 2 but a SIL of 3 is required to be compliant.

Not sure if this will throw the other values out of whack or not but Garmin has informed me that the GNS/GTN series can legally and should be set to "1E-7".

I am going to try that and then request another report....

rleffler
05-30-2014, 02:28 PM
Here is my distribution and if I am reading this right, the entire duration of the flight "processed" which is reported as 10480, I have accuracy of greater than 10NM. Since I was using my GPS on an IFR flight plan, I would have thought to been made aware of this inaccuracy so I hardly think of such possibility.
Question is, how does the system determines my position to determine inaccurate reporting by me?
Perhaps what GPS is reporting (pertaining to ADS-B) is inaccurate and I am wondering if that is a setup issue.

My GTN650 is providing coordinates to the Navworx unit.

My report shows NIC <7.5m, NACp <10m, NACv <1m/s, SIL 10-7, SDA 10-5, GVA <45m

That was the same question that immediately came to mind. What other data source is being used to determine accuracy? Radar versus GPS position? This certainly has got me curious.

rleffler
05-30-2014, 02:29 PM
Want to know how your ADS-B system is performing? Send an email with N-number to 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov and request a detailed report.

Thanks for making this available.

bob

jdm117
05-30-2014, 02:31 PM
Hi Mike/All, Sorry for the delay in responding to your question regarding my association with the FAA's ADS-B program, I've been somewhat busy sending out ADS-B reports since my original post. Yes, I work on the FAA ADS-B program as a avionics safety inspector with Flight Standards in DC. My primary responsibilities are to develop policy, guidance & training related §91.225 & §91.227 for our avionics inspectors. I also provide outreach to the aviation community related to the installation & maintenance of ADS-B systems. My arrival to the Vans forum was spurred by the latter of these and the knowledge that many who have already equipped with ADS-B are unaware that the system is not working properly. I've had little success with the alphabet groups when seeking to publish material that would be helpful to members such as those here. So out of frustration thought I'd go VFR direct (so to speak) to a large group of the GA community and provide assistance as able.

dmaib
05-30-2014, 02:42 PM
Here is my distribution and if I am reading this right, the entire duration of the flight "processed" which is reported as 10480, I have accuracy of greater than 10NM. Since I was using my GPS on an IFR flight plan, I would have thought to been made aware of this inaccuracy so I hardly think of such possibility.
Question is, how does the system determines my position to determine inaccurate reporting by me?
Perhaps what GPS is reporting (pertaining to ADS-B) is inaccurate and I am wondering if that is a setup issue.


https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2923/14284014956_626c62d6eb.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14284014956/)
Distribution (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14284014956/) by bavafa1 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61260420@N07/), on Flickr
I wondered about this, too. Since my flight was VFR with no flight plan and no ATC involvement other than the KEVB tower, I am wondering if this is showing that they have no way of knowing if my reported position is accurate?

Mike S
05-30-2014, 02:43 PM
I also provide outreach to the aviation community related to the installation & maintenance of ADS-B systems.

This is what I suspected, and hoped for when I asked the question in the first place.

You have come to the right place for sure---------the level of electronic sophistication on many of the RVs flying is a ripe test bed for you to interact with.

Very good to have you aboard:D

Radomir
05-30-2014, 02:44 PM
All this means is that some of you have incorrectly set up equipment :) These numbers are what your equipment is *sending out* -- so if for some reason you have the most accurate GPS, but your TXP sends out NIC value of 0 (like in Mehrdad's case) you'll "fail" -- minimum acceptable value is 7 (less than 0.2nm)...

Quick edit: As Brian pointed, having your transponder's "GPS Integrity" set to 1E-5 (or worse) will produce too low of SIL values, and will make you look non-compliant (aka "fail"). Garmin's new manuals show the correct value 1E-7 (SIL=3 which is then compliant).... If you have compliant equipment (ie 330ES with 430W or 650), it should be configured this way.

Radomir
05-30-2014, 02:47 PM
No, these values are not at all related to receiving ATC services. This is strictly equipment configuration (and performance).

I wondered about this, too. Since my flight was VFR with no flight plan and no ATC involvement other than the KEVB tower, I am wondering if this is showing that they have no way of knowing if my reported position is accurate?

jdm117
05-30-2014, 03:33 PM
Thanks for the info. I requested a report and quickly received one but not sure what this means. I had been under the impression that my set up is in compliance since my source of location is a 430W. Does anyone know about these fields and what they mean?

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/14120031809_0f4ae5a193.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14120031809/)
ADS-B report (https://www.flickr.com/photos/61260420@N07/14120031809/) by bavafa1 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61260420@N07/), on Flickr

I can e-mail the report to those who are interested and/or can make out what the report indicates. I am a bit at lost as why my system is failing on location accuracy and intergrity.

Mehrdad - given your NIC/NAC performance suggest checking that your GNS 430 and transponder software are at the correct version level.

KatieB
05-30-2014, 03:47 PM
I also provide outreach to the aviation community related to the installation & maintenance of ADS-B systems. My arrival to the Vans forum was spurred by the latter of these and the knowledge that many who have already equipped with ADS-B are unaware that the system is not working properly. I've had little success with the alphabet groups when seeking to publish material that would be helpful to members such as those here. So out of frustration thought I'd go VFR direct (so to speak) to a large group of the GA community and provide assist as able.

Thank you for doing whatever it takes to share what you know with the flying public! As a pilot who works for one of the experimental EFIS manufacturers, I really welcome your feedback and knowledge. Maybe you can help shed some light on some of the mysteries we've been seeing, like Jay and his ADS-B issues: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=113414

I thought we had the details nailed down for all the settings and equipment required for ADS-B broadcast now, before 2020, but stories like Jay's make me wonder if we have something wrong or if the system is still just quirky.

MarkW
05-30-2014, 04:00 PM
Brian,
As I have a very similar panel to yours and I did not do very well with my "Integrity & Accuracy Check" I would appreciate if you could share anything you find out. I assume you are already talking to Steve;)

jjhoneck
05-30-2014, 04:03 PM
Thank you for doing whatever it takes to share what you know with the flying public! As a pilot who works for one of the experimental EFIS manufacturers, I really welcome your feedback and knowledge. Maybe you can help shed some light on some of the mysteries we've been seeing, like Jay and his ADS-B issues: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=113414

I thought we had the details nailed down for all the settings and equipment required for ADS-B broadcast now, before 2020, but stories like Jay's make me wonder if we have something wrong or if the system is still just quirky.

Just to add a bit of info, I requested (and received) this report this afternoon, and my system (Trig TT-22 Mode S transponder, Skyradar, and GRT Horizon HXr) failed, utterly, in precisely the same way as the fellow on page 1. My "Integrity and Accuracy" failed in six out of eleven categories, 100% of the time.

Trouble is: The report is made up of incomprehensible (to me) acronyms, with no advice on what, if anything, should be done to bring the system into compliance.

Katie, I have forwarded a copy of the report to Ben and Jeff (as well as to this group's one Walt Aronow) in hopes that they can provide interpretation and advice.

g3xpert
05-30-2014, 04:06 PM
Hello,

For those using Garmin IFR navigators and transponders, the Position Integrity setting in the transponder configuration should indeed be set to 1E-7 to result in SIL=3, and the software should be at least to the versions identified below:

GNS/GPS 4XXW/5XXW (e.g. GPS 400W, GNS 430W, GNS 530W)
Main software version 5.03 or later and GPS software version 5.0 or later

GTN 6XX/7XX (e.g. GTN 650 and GTN 750)
Main software version 3.00 or later and GPS software version 5.0 or later

GNS 480
Main software version 2.4 and GPS software version 5.1
Aviation Service Document (http://garmin.blogs.com/files/1519a_asdn.pdf)

GTX 23ES and GTX330ES Transponders
Main software version 7.00 or later (V7.04 released in 2014)

The RS-232 serial output port on the GNS or GTN unit providing position data to the transponder should be set to "ADS-B+".

The RS-232 serial input port on a GTX330ES transponder configured to receive ADS-B+ position data from a GNS/GTN unit should be set to "REMOTE".

Just a quick reminder that those of us without an IFR navigator and using the G3X VFR WAAS GPS receivers only (built into the GDU 37X and GDU 46X displays) to provide data to our 1090ES transponders will have the Position Integrity set to "VFR GPS" on the GTX23ES configuration page or 1E-3 on the GTX330ES configuration page to reflect the non-certified nature of our position source.

Let us know if you have questions.

Thanks,
Steve

jclark
05-30-2014, 04:22 PM
Just to add a bit of info, I requested (and received) this report this afternoon, and my system (Trig TT-22 Mode S transponder, Skyradar, and GRT Horizon HXr) failed, utterly, in precisely the same way as the fellow on page 1. My "Integrity and Accuracy" failed in six out of eleven categories, 100% of the time.

Trouble is: The report is made up of incomprehensible (to me) acronyms, with no advice on what, if anything, should be done to bring the system into compliance.

Katie, I have forwarded a copy of the report to Ben and Jeff (as well as to this group's one Walt Aronow) in hopes that they can provide interpretation and advice.

Unless you have a Navigator like the Garmin (or other appropriate certified systems) then if you set it up correctly, it SHOULD fail as the level of precision of the "position source" is not known to be "adequate".

Not a big deal for the moment. But for 2020 compliance ducks will have to be in a row.

My system "fails" miserably as well. But I know that it is because of the configuration settings that I have. I do NOT have a 430W or 650 at the moment so I knew that would be the case.

The GOOD NEWS is that the FAA is taking all this in and exercising the system and this allows us ALL to get value out of the investment we all as citizens are making.

James

Radomir
05-30-2014, 04:22 PM
Jay, since you do not have certified equipment, your report should show you in the "fail" category. So what you're seeing there is normal for non-compliant setup.

Do note that Trig's transponder is not yet certified with Garmin's GPS's (such as 430W or 650) so even if you had that setup, you would not be officially compliant... though, that config is expected to be approved by this summer (end of it?).

jjhoneck
05-30-2014, 05:05 PM
Jay, since you do not have certified equipment, your report should show you in the "fail" category. So what you're seeing there is normal for non-compliant setup.

Do note that Trig's transponder is not yet certified with Garmin's GPS's (such as 430W or 650) so even if you had that setup, you would not be officially compliant... though, that config is expected to be approved by this summer (end of it?).

Thanks for the info!

Brantel
05-30-2014, 06:36 PM
I flew this evening with the new updated GPS Position Integrity setting of "1E-7".

I have requested another report but imagine it will be Monday before I see it.

Will let everyone know how it worked out.

rzbill
05-30-2014, 06:37 PM
This place is simply awesome. Since 10AM this morning we have had extremely useful information shared by the FAA, Garmin and GRT and other smart people.

Welcome to the club, jdm117, please hang around.

Thanks for the e-mail link. I just sent a request to see how my Navworx ADS600-BG is working. (Mine has self contained GPS unlike Bob Lefflers system, so expectations and corrective actions will be different)

jdm117
05-30-2014, 07:00 PM
I flew this evening with the new updated GPS Position Integrity setting of "1E-7".

I have requested another report but imagine it will be Monday before I see it.

Will let everyone know how it worked out.

Off for the weekend. Will run your report on Monday morning. Cheers

jdm117
05-30-2014, 07:03 PM
This place is simply awesome. Since 10AM this morning we have had extremely useful information shared by the FAA, Garmin and GRT and other smart people.

Welcome to the club, jdm117, please hang around.

Thanks for the e-mail link. I just sent a request to see how my Navworx ADS600-BG is working. (Mine has self contained GPS unlike Bob Lefflers system, so expectations and corrective actions will be different)

Bill, Off for the weekend but will send your report Monday morning. Cheers

scard
05-30-2014, 07:54 PM
I too am watching with much interest and amazement. I have no dog in this game yet, but will very soon x2. Garmin's immediate quality of data (no confusion there) is impressive. Incredibly encouraged that an "insider" to the program has stepped out to engage us...

GalinHdz
05-30-2014, 09:13 PM
I sent my request in so looking forward to seeing what the report shows on Monday. Can you explain what the different items mean? I will need a book named "ADS-B report interpretation for dummies".

:cool:

Bavafa
05-30-2014, 09:38 PM
I got a report back about an hour ago that looks just like Mehrdad's. I went to 91.227 and looked at the descriptions in the link above. However, that does not help me figure out what is going on. My ADS-B out is GTX-330ES and GNS-430W and all appears to be working normally in the cockpit. ADS-B in is via SkyRadar D2 and GRT Hxr display.
Hopefully the OP can give us some insight here.

Hi David,
I went and check my setup and seemed I had a couple of settings that needed to be changed. On my 430W, there is a setting that was set to ADS-B whereas I was told to change it to ADS-B +
Also on my GTX 330 setting, there is a field for GPS intergrity that was set to IE-3 and I was told to change it to IE-7.

I took another flight and will request another report to see if this has fixed the issue. I will report back once I get the report.

Bavafa
05-30-2014, 09:42 PM
Mehrdad - given your NIC/NAC performance suggest checking that your GNS 430 and transponder software are at the correct version level.
I confirmed today that it is a correct version but had the change a setting from ADS-B to ADS-B +

I will see if that makes a difference.

Thanks

jdm117
05-30-2014, 10:04 PM
I sent my request in so looking forward to seeing what the report shows on Monday. Can you explain what the different items mean? I will need a book named "ADS-B report interpretation for dummies".

:cool:

I'll send the decoder ring :confused: with your report Monday morning. :)

jjhoneck
05-30-2014, 10:47 PM
I'll send the decoder ring :confused: with your report Monday morning. :)

The "decoder ring" you sent along with my report was something only an avionics tech could love. lol

In other words, with it, or without it, I had NO idea what the report was saying, other than "You failed". :p

MarkW
05-31-2014, 11:34 AM
I found that I had not set the GTN650 RS-232 to the proper setting. I had it off and it needed to be ADS-B +. I also had not noticed that the transponder set-up required changing so it was still on "GPS Position" " VFR" and I have now changed it to IE-7. I flew this morning and will check with big brother again Monday to see if it fixed it.

Brantel
05-31-2014, 01:04 PM
I found that I had not set the GTN650 RS-232 to the proper setting. I had it off and it needed to be ADS-B +. I also had not noticed that the transponder set-up required changing so it was still on "GPS Position" " VFR" and I have now changed it to IE-7. I flew this morning and will check with big brother again Monday to see if it fixed it.

Mine was set to 1E-5 and ADS-B which was the recommended settings when I first commissioned the panel.

I have now set it to 1E-7 and ADS-B+.

Flew again today for a bit and will also check with Jim on Monday for a new report.

Bavafa
05-31-2014, 01:56 PM
While on the conversation with ADS-B, once in a while I see traffic on my display that disappears for a short duration (a minute or two) just to reappear again. Yesterday after making the changes to the configuration/setup, I went for another flight and saw this again. Interestingly, this was the case for only traffic nearby as I change the range of my map and I could see traffic far away (100 KN range) but not the traffic nearby.

Does anyone know what could this mean or be the cause of it?

As a note, those far away traffic were most likely commercial planes within SF airspace and most likely have ADSB-out whereas the nearby traffic were GA traffic. I also saw a Kingair that was landing at the same airport as I was and that traffic was displayed very accurately all the way to the ground. I had meant to ask him if he has ADSB on board but never got a chance for it.

Pat Hatch
05-31-2014, 02:26 PM
Mine was set to 1E-5 and ADS-B which was the recommended settings when I first commissioned the panel.

I have now set it to 1E-7 and ADS-B+.

Flew again today for a bit and will also check with Jim on Monday for a new report.

Where are you guys getting the information on the ADS-B+ setting? According to Revision M of the G3X install manual, page 20-15, the setting for the GTN650 RS-232 output is "MAPMX." Am I missing something?

I did change the transponder config setting to IE-7. I'll check performance with Jim on Monday as well, flying tomorrow.

OK, I'm going to answer my own question: the RS-232 output from the 650, channel 1, should be set to ADS B OUT +, if available, according to a schematic sent to me by Steve from Garmin quite some time ago. It's the 650 ch 3 out that I was confusing this with, that one should be set to "MAPMX." So I think I'm all set. Thanks for the good info from this thread!

Brantel
05-31-2014, 02:37 PM
Where are you guys getting the information on the ADS-B+ setting? According to Revision M of the G3X install manual, page 20-15, the setting for the GTN650 RS-232 output is "MAPMX." Am I missing something?

I did change the transponder config setting to IE-7. I'll check performance with Jim on Monday as well, flying tomorrow.

20-10 & 20-11,

Steve also confirmed this a few post back.

The setting you refered to is not the transponder link.

Brantel
05-31-2014, 02:39 PM
While on the conversation with ADS-B, once in a while I see traffic on my display that disappears for a short duration (a minute or two) just to reappear again. Yesterday after making the changes to the configuration/setup, I went for another flight and saw this again. Interestingly, this was the case for only traffic nearby as I change the range of my map and I could see traffic far away (100 KN range) but not the traffic nearby.

Does anyone know what could this mean or be the cause of it?

As a note, those far away traffic were most likely commercial planes within SF airspace and most likely have ADSB-out whereas the nearby traffic were GA traffic. I also saw a Kingair that was landing at the same airport as I was and that traffic was displayed very accurately all the way to the ground. I had meant to ask him if he has ADSB on board but never got a chance for it.

If they were a mode-c target that was being up linked to you via the ground stations, and they flew outside of radar coverage, they will disappear.

SmilingJack
05-31-2014, 03:07 PM
I don't know if this helps, but here is a report that passes and was a flight from Florida to New Jersey in A Falcon. Maybe good for comparson...

If not, feel free to delete this.

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff472/tinypc925/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/9843DF94-4BE2-4CE3-99EB-A24F32C081E9_zpsm096zvwr.png (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/tinypc925/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/9843DF94-4BE2-4CE3-99EB-A24F32C081E9_zpsm096zvwr.png.html)

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff472/tinypc925/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/3017FF40-9C89-48C0-8DCD-66AC6B3DC0E7_zps7agrzcv5.png (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/tinypc925/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/3017FF40-9C89-48C0-8DCD-66AC6B3DC0E7_zps7agrzcv5.png.html)

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff472/tinypc925/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/F5E03DAA-00DF-4CA9-A038-74692E4CB6F2_zpsshyyzisy.png (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/tinypc925/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/F5E03DAA-00DF-4CA9-A038-74692E4CB6F2_zpsshyyzisy.png.html)

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff472/tinypc925/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/9C7C5017-BA85-453F-A413-C766C4546B4D_zpsl3efs1ko.png (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/tinypc925/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-02/9C7C5017-BA85-453F-A413-C766C4546B4D_zpsl3efs1ko.png.html)

MarkW
05-31-2014, 03:55 PM
Pat,
I hope I don,t confuse things here but I think the Mapx you are referring to only provides gps signal to the G3X. There is a separate RS232 that feeds the 23Es.
I don't have my wiring harness pin-out at home with me but the RS232 #2 out is for the transponder and should be set as ADS-B +. Pg. C-9 rev k.
I think the one you are referring to is RS232 #3 out. Pg. C-14
I don't remember what I have on RS232#1

Pat Hatch
05-31-2014, 05:42 PM
Pat,
I hope I don,t confuse things here but I think the Mapx you are referring to only provides gps signal to the G3X. There is a separate RS232 that feeds the 23Es.
I don't have my wiring harness pin-out at home with me but the RS232 #2 out is for the transponder and should be set as ADS-B +. Pg. C-9 rev k.
I think the one you are referring to is RS232 #3 out. Pg. C-14
I don't remember what I have on RS232#1

Correct, Mark. Turns out I had both set correctly, just couldn't remember the details since it was almost a year ago. Actually, it's RS232 ch 3 that feeds the G3X and should be set to MAPMX. Ch 1 to the GTX23ES, set at ADS-B+. Thanks!

MarkW
06-02-2014, 06:48 AM
Pat,
I double checked my harness spread sheet this morning.

I do not use the RS232 #1 out on the GTN
RS232 #2 out feeds the GTX and will configure to ADS-B +
On my GTN the RS232 #1 would only configure to ADS-B and not the +
I believe the drawing shows using #2 and not #1 for the GTX.
Then the #3 is used to feed the G3X.

I am hoping this mornings report from this weekends flights shows compliance.

Brantel
06-02-2014, 07:00 AM
Just got my updated report back from Jim after setting 1E-7 and ADS-B+ and I passed with flying colors. No issues whatsoever.

Thanks Jim and thanks Steve for helping us get this ironed out and compliant!

I owe Jim an apology. I assumed incorrectly that he was here to trap us but in reality he was here to help. Jim I publicly apologize.

Old settings ("1E-5" and "ADS-B"):

http://i57.tinypic.com/23k6bl3.png

New settings ("1E-7" and "ADS-B+"):

http://i61.tinypic.com/25ktxr8.png

Brantel
06-02-2014, 07:08 AM
Pat,
I double checked my harness spread sheet this morning.

I do not use the RS232 #1 out on the GTN
RS232 #2 out feeds the GTX and will configure to ADS-B +
On my GTN the RS232 #1 would only configure to ADS-B and not the +
I believe the drawing shows using #2 and not #1 for the GTX.
Then the #3 is used to feed the G3X.

I am hoping this mornings report from this weekends flights shows compliance.

Mark,

On my GTN 650, I have the GTX 23 wired to serial port #1 and it is configured for ADS-B+. As long as the ADS-B+ setting is available, I do not think it matters which serial port on the GTN you connect the xponder to.

RV8iator
06-02-2014, 07:44 AM
This site is so full of useful information and helpful people.

I got my first report back and my system failed only in the NACv category. Went into the xpdr and changed velocity tp 10MPS and submitted request for another report. This morning Jim sent it back saying my system looks good now. No big RED blocks.

I thought at first this was a computer generated report but now having read the links I see that Jim is individually doing all this for us.

Many thanks Jim.

Brantel
06-02-2014, 08:07 AM
This appears to be a decent document that most of us can understand that goes into some good detail on what these settings are and what they must be set to for compliance. Starting on page 9.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf)

Much more detail in the element descriptions starting on page A1-1...

jdm117
06-02-2014, 08:19 AM
Just got my updated report back from Jim after setting 1E-7 and ADS-B+ and I passed with flying colors. No issues whatsoever.

Thanks Jim and thanks Steve for helping us get this ironed out and compliant!

I owe Jim an apology. I assumed incorrectly that he was here to trap us but in reality he was here to help. Jim I publicly apologize.

Old settings ("1E-5" and "ADS-B"):

http://i57.tinypic.com/23k6bl3.png

New settings ("1E-7" and "ADS-B+"):

http://i61.tinypic.com/25ktxr8.png


No worries Brian. As the old cliche goes "I'm with the government and here to help" ;)

apkp777
06-02-2014, 08:23 AM
I got my report back. So what's the Skyview solution to a failed SIL and SDA? I have an all-Skyview system (ADSB, GPS, TRANSPONDER) my SIL and SDA values fail with "0"'s as output.

Brantel
06-02-2014, 08:31 AM
I got my report back. So what's the Skyview solution to a failed SIL and SDA? I have an all-Skyview system (ADSB, GPS, TRANSPONDER) my SIL and SDA values fail with "0"'s as output.

I would say that you can expect those to fail due to the fact that you do not have a position source that meets the 2020 requirements.

apkp777
06-02-2014, 08:41 AM
I would say that you can expect those to fail due to the fact that you do not have a position source that meets the 2020 requirements.

So, is only an "IFR" and TSO'd GPS allowed for position output? I was under the impression that was not going to be the case. I know you are thinking "dude, where have you been". Well, just not paying attention. I actually, find it VERY difficult to believe that all of GA will even come close to complying with 2020 requirements.

revenson
06-02-2014, 09:10 AM
Have Navworx ADS600B, with recent factory update but without the certified GPS.

Report showed failed SIL, 100%.
Report showed failed eVAL and eVAL NIC, 2.13%
Everything else passed.

I don't know what this means, but intend to get the unit updated to the certified GPS prior to 2020.

MarkW
06-02-2014, 09:36 AM
After my setting corrections I am now compliant.

Brian,
When I checked my GTN configuration I was not 100% sure I had the GTX connected to the #2 or #1 port.
I checked the configurations available for the #1 out and ADS-B + was not available. Only ADS-B. I did have the + available on #2.
Luckily when I got to the office this morning and checked I found that indeed I did have it connected to #2.

Bavafa
06-02-2014, 09:49 AM
Mine is also all fixed and in compliance now. This is after changing the serial out to ADSB + and changing the 330 to IE-7

Brantel
06-02-2014, 10:16 AM
So, is only an "IFR" and TSO'd GPS allowed for position output? I was under the impression that was not going to be the case. I know you are thinking "dude, where have you been". Well, just not paying attention. I actually, find it VERY difficult to believe that all of GA will even come close to complying with 2020 requirements.

Currently for 2020, yep the position source must meet certain TSO requirements.

Details are in here:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-165.pdf

This has been and continues to be very confusing.

GA will have a choice....either comply or stay away from airspace that requires a transponder. Hopefully the number of lower cost position sources that meet the requirements will continue to climb and the competition will drive the cost down.

Brantel
06-02-2014, 10:18 AM
After my setting corrections I am now compliant.

Brian,
When I checked my GTN configuration I was not 100% sure I had the GTX connected to the #2 or #1 port.
I checked the configurations available for the #1 out and ADS-B + was not available. Only ADS-B. I did have the + available on #2.
Luckily when I got to the office this morning and checked I found that indeed I did have it connected to #2.

Mark,

Glad you are now compliant as well.

Was it possible that you had port #2 configured for ADS-B+ when you tried to also select that option on port #1? If so, many times these variables can only be set to one port at a time so that may be why you were not able to select it on port #1.

I verified that mine is on port#1 and it is set to ADS-B+. If the above is not the case, we may have different firmware.

Pat Hatch
06-02-2014, 10:33 AM
Got my report back from Jim this morning as well (good to go). Kudos to Jim for doing this, looks like it has helped a lot of people so far, me included! :)

I'm just wondering whether this report (5 pages) should be included in the airplane records somewhere and, if so, where? POH, perhaps?

MarkW
06-02-2014, 10:37 AM
Brian,
I was thinking that maybe we have a firmware difference but you may be correct that I had already used ADS-B + for the #2 port.

Good news is that we are compliant.

For those that thought they were anonymous while using 1200 that will not be the case with ADS-B. They will have all the info they need if they decide to use it.

jdm117
06-02-2014, 11:24 AM
Some of you may find this AEA Avionics News article on ADS-B helpful. http://www.brightcopy.net/allen/avne/51-6/#/58

jdm117
06-02-2014, 11:42 AM
Jay, I've looked at your data a little closer after having caught up on report requests this morning. I see nothing apparent that would prevent your system from triggering TIS-B traffic, meaning your ADS-B data quality is sufficient to establish you as a client to receive all traffic information from the ground system (TIS-B/ADS-R). I'll keep looking and let you know if any light bulbs go off.

BobTurner
06-02-2014, 11:43 AM
So, is only an "IFR" and TSO'd GPS allowed for position output? I was under the impression that was not going to be the case. I know you are thinking "dude, where have you been". Well, just not paying attention. I actually, find it VERY difficult to believe that all of GA will even come close to complying with 2020 requirements.

This is half true. The position source must meet a TSO standard. But it is not the "ifr" TSO, e.g., there is no database to worry about. I see one UAT manufacturer offering a TSO gps source for a $1K upgrade. Not cheap, but a lot less than the ifr gps boxes.

jdm117
06-02-2014, 12:31 PM
So, is only an "IFR" and TSO'd GPS allowed for position output? I was under the impression that was not going to be the case. I know you are thinking "dude, where have you been". Well, just not paying attention. I actually, find it VERY difficult to believe that all of GA will even come close to complying with 2020 requirements.

Check out page 62 of this article: http://www.brightcopy.net/allen/avne/51-6/#/58

Dvalcik
06-02-2014, 12:32 PM
Just ran the check on my ADS-B and all clean now red :)

My Navworks has the latest software update, but will wait for the compliant version in the future. I was amazed that I received the report back from the email request in less than a few hours.
.

revenson
06-02-2014, 12:58 PM
Check out page 62 of this article: http://www.brightcopy.net/allen/avne/51-6/#/58

jdm117: I wasn't intending on getting a certified GPS for a couple of years yet. This article troubles me. Am I correct in understanding that although I do receive traffic and weather, ATC can't use my ADS-B info for flight following purposes?

Do I need a certified GPS before 2020 to get full service (where available) now?

My errors (N374RS - 20140529_A4442F_1198575)
SIL: 100%
eVAL and eVAL NIC: 2.13%

And what are eVAL and eVAL NIC all about?

loopfuzz
06-02-2014, 01:03 PM
Very cool jdm117. Thanks for doing this. I look forward to seeing my results.

BobTurner
06-02-2014, 01:28 PM
jdm117: I wasn't intending on getting a certified GPS for a couple of years yet. This article troubles me. Am I correct in understanding that although I do receive traffic and weather, ATC can't use my ADS-B info for flight following purposes?

Do I need a certified GPS before 2020 to get full service (where available) now?

My errors (N374RS - 20140529_A4442F_1198575)
SIL: 100%
eVAL and eVAL NIC: 2.13%

And what are eVAL and eVAL NIC all about?

I think that's correct, ATC will not use uncertified data for traffic separation.
Until 2020 you should still be able to get conventional, radar-based, flight following. Living where you do there may well be places where radar can't see you, especially down low.

jdm117
06-02-2014, 02:23 PM
jdm117: I wasn't intending on getting a certified GPS for a couple of years yet. This article troubles me. Am I correct in understanding that although I do receive traffic and weather, ATC can't use my ADS-B info for flight following purposes?

Do I need a certified GPS before 2020 to get full service (where available) now?

My errors (N374RS - 20140529_A4442F_1198575)
SIL: 100%
eVAL and eVAL NIC: 2.13%

And what are eVAL and eVAL NIC all about?

No, you're set until 2020. ATC will use your transponder to provide services.

jdm117
06-02-2014, 02:28 PM
No, you're set until 2020. ATC will use your transponder to provide services.

Val & eVal is a check performed using primary radar to validate the position transmitted by your ADS-B system (is it where it says it is?).

revenson
06-02-2014, 03:18 PM
No, you're set until 2020. ATC will use your transponder to provide services.

Yes. But, my understanding was that if ADS-B ground stations are within range, and once the centers have the equipment, ATC could begin, before 2020, to use ADS-B info to provide flight following where traditional radar coverage is obstructed or aircraft too low. (My example is western Nevada, where if I'm not above about 14,500, Oakland center can't follow me on radar.)

If this is true, and if one needs a certified ADS-B/GPS to take advantage of this additional capability, I for one, will be more inclined to get my GPS certified now.

Can you comment on this?

jdm117
06-02-2014, 04:42 PM
Yes. But, my understanding was that if ADS-B ground stations are within range, and once the centers have the equipment, ATC could begin, before 2020, to use ADS-B info to provide flight following where traditional radar coverage is obstructed or aircraft too low. (My example is western Nevada, where if I'm not above about 14,500, Oakland center can't follow me on radar.)

If this is true, and if one needs a certified ADS-B/GPS to take advantage of this additional capability, I for one, will be more inclined to get my GPS certified now.

Can you comment on this?

You are correct. If an ATC facility has ADS-B and it provides coverage that radar cannot (or radar is down) within a service volume it will be used. This is known as ADS-B "only" airspace and your GPS would need to be certified to TSO-C129/196 or 145/146 (WAAS) to qualify for ATC services.

revenson
06-02-2014, 05:01 PM
Thanks so much. You are providing a great info service with this thread!

GalinHdz
06-02-2014, 07:42 PM
Got my report today and NO RED BOXES! :D Mine is a DYNON Skyview system (Xponder and ADSB module) connected to a Garmin 430W.

jdm117 - THANKS for doing this for us. I bet you are getting swamped by the requests.

:cool:

jdm117
06-02-2014, 08:34 PM
Got my report today and NO RED BOXES! :D Mine is a DYNON Skyview system (Xponder and ADSB module) connected to a Garmin 430W.

jdm117 - THANKS for doing this for us. I bet you are getting swamped by the requests.

:cool:

My pleasure. Just connecting the dots and trying to keep up. :D

jdm117
06-03-2014, 02:00 PM
Want to know how your ADS-B system is performing? Send an email with N-number to 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov and request a detailed report.

Update: Over 120 report requests processed since noon on 5/30. And working together we've resolved issues for 27 ADS-B installations. Thanks for everyone's help!

Brantel
06-03-2014, 02:03 PM
Update: Over 120 report requests processed since noon on 5/30. And working together we've resolved issues for 27 ADS-B installations. Thanks for everyone's help!

Jim,

Got any estimate of how many of the 120+ reports had issues?

jdm117
06-03-2014, 02:12 PM
Jim,

Got any estimate of how many of the 120+ reports had issues?

I'd estimate that approximately 75 had issues. Some were reported as non-compliant due to SIL/SDA = zero but this is expected (and complies with FAA guidance) for those with uncertified GPS.

Walt
06-03-2014, 02:24 PM
One thing I would like to see from the GPS/XPDR/UAT vendors is some clear directions on how to set up the various parameters after installation. The install manuals from most suppliers (if not all) leave the installer guessing on what the settings should be (hence the reason many folks get it wrong). I get calls all the time asking "what should I set xxx to" and to be honest with many I'm not sure what to tell them as the manuals don't say and I'm not sure either.

Bob'sRV6A
06-03-2014, 04:37 PM
I have two skyviews, Dynon transponder and GTN650.

Red boxes are:

Missing Elements NACp 3.05% failure

Integrity and Accuracy: % Fail 3.05%, SIL 3.05%, SDA 3.05%, NIC_SVT 3.05%, eVAL 2.32%, eVal NIC 2.31%. Lower chart: NIC 7.8%, SIL 2.9%, SDA 1.9%

Other Checks: Moded 3A 1.89%

Anyone know what I should be looking at to get rid of all this red?

Thanks all.

GalinHdz
06-03-2014, 07:23 PM
I have two skyviews, Dynon transponder and GTN650.

Red boxes are:

Missing Elements NACp 3.05% failure

Integrity and Accuracy: % Fail 3.05%, SIL 3.05%, SDA 3.05%, NIC_SVT 3.05%, eVAL 2.32%, eVal NIC 2.31%. Lower chart: NIC 7.8%, SIL 2.9%, SDA 1.9%

Other Checks: Moded 3A 1.89%

Anyone know what I should be looking at to get rid of all this red?

Thanks all.

1 - Are you getting ADS-B weather on your display?
2 - Is your GTN650 configured for ADS-B out and wired directly to the transponder pin #3 via a 1.2K Ohm resistor?

REF: Skyiew Installation Manual Pg 11-4 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/support_documentation.html)

:cool:

jdm117
06-03-2014, 07:51 PM
I have two skyviews, Dynon transponder and GTN650.

Red boxes are:

Missing Elements NACp 3.05% failure

Integrity and Accuracy: % Fail 3.05%, SIL 3.05%, SDA 3.05%, NIC_SVT 3.05%, eVAL 2.32%, eVal NIC 2.31%. Lower chart: NIC 7.8%, SIL 2.9%, SDA 1.9%

Other Checks: Moded 3A 1.89%

Anyone know what I should be looking at to get rid of all this red?

Thanks all.

Bob, I'll take another look at your data in the AM & see if it'll provide us clues on a direction to head to get you in the green.

Bob'sRV6A
06-03-2014, 10:13 PM
Haven't checked the Wx yet but according to Stein's wiring diagram, the GTN650 is wired directly to the Dynon transponder through the 1.21 K ohm resistor per instructions. I'll check the setup on the 650 tomorrow.
And thanks Jim for all you are doing here--we all really appreciate it.

jdm117
06-04-2014, 11:13 AM
Haven't checked the Wx yet but according to Stein's wiring diagram, the GTN650 is wired directly to the Dynon transponder through the 1.21 K ohm resistor per instructions. I'll check the setup on the 650 tomorrow.
And thanks Jim for all you are doing here--we all really appreciate it.

Bob, Checked your data again and discovered you went from all green on 5/17 to red after. Did you make any changes to the system after 5/17?

retpd2001
06-04-2014, 12:02 PM
Can you comment on this please? Mode 3A % fail 100.00% MCF 2558. For whatever its worth, ATC sees me fine with my proper altitude. Navworks system with Garmin Transponder. Thanks in advance.

jdm117
06-04-2014, 12:28 PM
Can you comment on this please? Mode 3A % fail 100.00% MCF 2558. For whatever its worth, ATC sees me fine with my proper altitude. Navworks system with Garmin Transponder. Thanks in advance.

Could be because the ATC facility isn't using ADS-B data yet and can only see your transponder (Mode 3/A code & Baro).

chipf
06-04-2014, 01:31 PM
Personalized service from the Fed, sincere smile included:)

I got my report back from Jim 10 minutes after sending the email. Everything appears to be in working order.

For the record I have a 430W and a Skyview system with the Trig transponder. When the Skyview capability became available, I updated my 430W firmware, added a serial output pin and connected it (with the resistor) to the pin on the transponder.
I don't remember the settings used but I do know I just followed the Dynon install instructions. It seems to be a successful recipe.

jsnapp
06-04-2014, 02:43 PM
I have a 430W and GTX330ES. I just got the report back from Jim and I am failing on:
NIC - 100% fails
NACp - 100%
NACv 100%
NIC-SVT 100%
NACp-SVT 100%
VAL - 100%

Geo altitude also fails 91% of the time.

For NIC, they are receiving 0 - unknown. For NACp, they are receiving 0 - >= 10NM. for NACv they are also receiving 0 >= 10m/s

I need to go back and check but I am pretty sure my 430W is set to send out ADS-B + and GPS integrity is set to IE-7. I do believe my GPS X OFST and GPS V OFST are set to the default of unknown. I will try changing those.

On a portable GDl-39 I do get TIS-B information and the other areas on the report do pass. It shows that I am sending a SIL of 3 and a SDA of 2. The GVA is a 0 though.

Does anybody have a suggestion?

Radomir
06-04-2014, 03:43 PM
Verify you're on ADSB+... I have my doubts..

Bob'sRV6A
06-04-2014, 04:23 PM
Bob, Checked your data again and discovered you went from all green on 5/17 to red after. Did you make any changes to the system after 5/17?

Hmm--nothing on purpose! Any idea what might have gone wrong, per the post 5/17 numbers?

jdm117
06-04-2014, 04:37 PM
Hmm--nothing on purpose! Any idea what might have gone wrong, per the post 5/17 numbers?

Bob, I'm on the wrong side of the FAA firewall so can't dig any deeper till tomorrow afternoon (meetings in AM). If no joy will engage our cert folks for guidance.

BobTurner
06-04-2014, 05:17 PM
I have a 430W and GTX330ES. I just got the report back from Jim and I am failing on:
NIC - 100% fails
NACp - 100%
NACv 100%
NIC-SVT 100%
NACp-SVT 100%
VAL - 100%

Geo altitude also fails 91% of the time.

For NIC, they are receiving 0 - unknown. For NACp, they are receiving 0 - >= 10NM. for NACv they are also receiving 0 >= 10m/s

I need to go back and check but I am pretty sure my 430W is set to send out ADS-B + and GPS integrity is set to IE-7. I do believe my GPS X OFST and GPS V OFST are set to the default of unknown. I will try changing those.

On a portable GDl-39 I do get TIS-B information and the other areas on the report do pass. It shows that I am sending a SIL of 3 and a SDA of 2. The GVA is a 0 though.

Does anybody have a suggestion?

Do you have the newest software (I think it is version 5.1) in the 430W? You must have that to work properly.

dmaib
06-04-2014, 08:38 PM
Disappointed to hear from jdm117 this morning that my report has not changed materially after making the recommended changes.

Had my 430W software updated to 5.1 and changed the setting to ADSB OUT +.

Changed the 330ES setting to ie7.

The 430W seems to be communicating properly with the 330, because the "no adsb" message in the upper left corner of the 330 goes out as soon as the 430W come on line. Additionally, I still get good TIS info on the 430W screen. Any Garmin gurus here that can suggest any other settings I might have wrong? It would sure be nice to have a definitive list of the settings necessary for ADS-B out.

jsnapp
06-04-2014, 10:21 PM
Do you have the newest software (I think it is version 5.1) in the 430W? You must have that to work properly.

http://i60.tinypic.com/fm135y.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/2cnbksj.jpg
http://i59.tinypic.com/2rcrdbo.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/16gbtig.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/rcn4tv.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/21b27gx.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/2m6313q.jpg

I think I have it correct. On the 430W Channel 1 is going to my portable GPS and channel 2 is going to the 330ES. On the 330ES channel 1 is from my encoder and channel 2 is from the 430W. As ytou can see I have SW 7.02 on the 330ES and main sw 5.03 and GOS sw 5.0 on the 430W. I will double check tomorrow that RS232 port 2 on 430W does connect to rs-232 port 2 on the 330ES.

ANy other suggestions?

jsnapp
06-04-2014, 10:24 PM
Disappointed to hear from jdm117 this morning that my report has not changed materially after making the recommended changes.

Had my 430W software updated to 5.1 and changed the setting to ADSB OUT +.

Changed the 330ES setting to ie7.

The 430W seems to be communicating properly with the 330, because the "no adsb" message in the upper left corner of the 330 goes out as soon as the 430W come on line. Additionally, I still get good TIS info on the 430W screen. Any Garmin gurus here that can suggest any other settings I might have wrong? It would sure be nice to have a definitive list of the settings necessary for ADS-B out.

It looks like I am having the exact same problem. Is there any need to turn off TIS-A between the 330ES and 430W and only use the TIS-B from ads-B on a GDL 39 or similar receiver? Are there any other setting that can be set?

Radomir
06-04-2014, 10:41 PM
Your report is reading like you're not getting any GPS signal into the transponder. You sure Channel 2 from GPS is actually wired into the txp and you didn't mis-pin it? :) you're even missing Geo Alt (GPS Alt)


PS. This is not related to TIS stuff..

jsnapp
06-05-2014, 05:09 PM
Your report is reading like you're not getting any GPS signal into the transponder. You sure Channel 2 from GPS is actually wired into the txp and you didn't mis-pin it? :) you're even missing Geo Alt (GPS Alt)


PS. This is not related to TIS stuff..

I am pretty sure. The NOADSB message goes out once the 430W acquires GPS. I was also getting TIS-B uplink on the GDL-39. If I turn on ADS-B OUT+ on port 2 the NOADSB message never goes away. I did hook a data scope up to the RS-232 port hoping that the message format was some variant of NMEA data format with extra sentences for ADSB but no luck it is a proprietary protocol that garmin will not release. Talked to Garmin and they were of know help. I may have to swap transponder and 430W to see if I can get it to go away. I hate having to bug Jim every time I try something new. I wish that the GDL-39 would let you see the raw data transmitted by the 330ES. The avionics shop I work with does not have anything either.

Radomir
06-05-2014, 05:36 PM
It would be funny if this was a glitch on the FAA's side :) It does sound like you have everything configured properly...

The only other thing that comes to mind is a possibility of having to use a specific port (on the 430) but I have not heard of any such requirement.. Garmin would know better :)

PS. If you know someone with Stratus II and ForeFlight, you could try using its "own ship" feature that would show you more info and even trace logging some of the data.. I suppose you could also try to find someone with a DVB-T stick and just record "raw" data sent by the transponder as you fly around...

GalinHdz
06-05-2014, 05:40 PM
I am pretty sure. The NOADSB message goes out once the 430W acquires GPS. I was also getting TIS-B uplink on the GDL-39. If I turn on ADS-B OUT+ on port 2 the NOADSB message never goes away. I did hook a data scope up to the RS-232 port hoping that the message format was some variant of NMEA data format with extra sentences for ADSB but no luck it is a proprietary protocol that garmin will not release. Talked to Garmin and they were of know help. I may have to swap transponder and 430W to see if I can get it to go away. I hate having to bug Jim every time I try something new. I wish that the GDL-39 would let you see the raw data transmitted by the 330ES. The avionics shop I work with does not have anything either.

What output setting format do you have your G430 set to? If other than ADSB+ the data stream the FAA is receiving is non compliant. If the NOADSB message goes out with another setting (for example AVIATION) it means your transponder is not accepting the ADSB+ data format the G430 is sending which points to a software issue.

:cool:

g3xpert
06-05-2014, 07:50 PM
If I turn on ADS-B OUT+ on port 2 the NOADSB message never goes away.

Hello John,

I may have missed it, but I didn't see in your troubleshooting if you turned off both RS-232 #1 (Aviation) and RS-232 #2 (ADS-B Out+) on the 430W, verified that the "No ADSB" annunciation came on, then turned just RS-232 #2 back on and verified that the "No ADSB" annunciation on the GTX turned off.

This would confirm that the connections aren't crossed and Aviation serial data is not being sent by accident to the GTX330ES. I don't know how it would behave if sent Aviation data (never tried this), but I know it wouldn't produce compliant ADS-B Out.

Thanks,
Steve

jsnapp
06-05-2014, 10:35 PM
Hello John,

I may have missed it, but I didn't see in your troubleshooting if you turned off both RS-232 #1 (Aviation) and RS-232 #2 (ADS-B Out+) on the 430W, verified that the "No ADSB" annunciation came on, then turned just RS-232 #2 back on and verified that the "No ADSB" annunciation on the GTX turned off.

This would confirm that the connections aren't crossed and Aviation serial data is not being sent by accident to the GTX330ES. I don't know how it would behave if sent Aviation data (never tried this), but I know it wouldn't produce compliant ADS-B Out.

Thanks,
Steve

Steve,
I did. I also pulled out the trransponder and connected a PC with a serial port to the RX pin of RS-232 2 and monitored it with a data scope program. I turned off the other serial port. I set it to aviation and verified that it matched the aviation format in the install manual and it did. I then changed it to ADSB-OUT+ and verified it was different. I wish I could get a document to decode the ADSBout+ format to see if it is correct.

I wish I could see the decoded data with the GDL39. I will have to play with a friends stratus this weekend and see what it shows for own ship as suggested above.

jsnapp
06-05-2014, 10:37 PM
Hello John,

I may have missed it, but I didn't see in your troubleshooting if you turned off both RS-232 #1 (Aviation) and RS-232 #2 (ADS-B Out+) on the 430W, verified that the "No ADSB" annunciation came on, then turned just RS-232 #2 back on and verified that the "No ADSB" annunciation on the GTX turned off.

This would confirm that the connections aren't crossed and Aviation serial data is not being sent by accident to the GTX330ES. I don't know how it would behave if sent Aviation data (never tried this), but I know it wouldn't produce compliant ADS-B Out.

Thanks,
Steve

I did not change it to aviation and see what the transponder did. I will have to try it with each of teh formats to see what happens to the annunciator.

jsnapp
06-05-2014, 10:40 PM
I am also helping a friend look at his ADS-B report. He has a G3X feeding a 330ES and a GDL39 for ADS-B in. I know the 3GX is not fully compliant and will fail some areas. Can someone post what a report would look like for this installation? You could also email it to me at john(AT)snapp.us

MarkW
06-06-2014, 06:37 AM
John,
I will send you a copy of mine. I believe my first test will show you what you need.

jdm117
06-09-2014, 11:43 AM
Want to know how your ADS-B system is performing? Send an email with N-number to 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov and request a detailed report.

Please include ADS-B transmitter & GPS make/model to save us a few emails if there are system performance issues.

FYI - I'll typically provide only one ADS-B flight report per request, especially if the report is "Green." If the report for the most recent flight happens to be "Red" I'll delve a little deeper into previous flights before replying to see if system performance (albeit bad) is consistent. If "bad" performance is consistent, only one report is sent (no point in looking at different reports that say the same thing). If performance is inconsistent, I'll likely send multiple reports in hopes you can associate performance on a given day with something you might have been doing with the aircraft and/or system at the time. That make sense?

CharlieWaffles
06-09-2014, 05:13 PM
Thanks again for providing this info. I requested the report and found there is no data. So it appears that my Navworx has not been transmitting at all when ive been flying. I have been talking to them about a software issue that keeps it from recognizing my N number and they believed I could override this setting to enable the transmitter but that doesnt appear to be happening after all. So back to the drawing board to figure out what is going on.

rleffler
06-09-2014, 07:32 PM
Thanks again for providing this info. I requested the report and found there is no data. So it appears that my Navworx has not been transmitting at all when ive been flying. I have been talking to them about a software issue that keeps it from recognizing my N number and they believed I could override this setting to enable the transmitter but that doesnt appear to be happening after all. So back to the drawing board to figure out what is going on.

Mark,

Did you have three greens in the UAT console? Is the bug you referring to on the screen that looks up the ICAO address from the Navworx database?

I'm curious since I too have a Navworx. Although mine passed on the adsb report, I'm having other issues.

Bob

CharlieWaffles
06-10-2014, 10:17 AM
Yes and no Bob. Because my N number is not in the Software for some reason (the software has a FAA database download) I have to override the n number and put in my hex ICAO code. I can then enable the transmitter and all the lights go green. But, if power is reset, Bill says the navworx PC application doesnt properly read the override, even though supposedly it is still enabled. But I am starting to doubt that.

Its been nearly a year since I reported this issue to Navworx and no update or fix has come about. I am now going to do a test flight with a safety pilot to monitor a laptop connected to the Navworx to see what information is being reported by the navworx status output.

N15JB
06-10-2014, 11:17 AM
Mark,

Did you have three greens in the UAT console? Is the bug you referring to on the screen that looks up the ICAO address from the Navworx database?

I'm curious since I too have a Navworx. Although mine passed on the adsb report, I'm having other issues.

Bob

Bob,

I have a NavWorx 600B on order. What other issues do I have to look forward to? Thanks.

Jim Berry
RV-10

jdm117
06-11-2014, 07:43 AM
If you receive an email from me stating "No ADS-B data available," please make sure your ICAO 24-bit address (Mode S code) is programmed correctly into your transmitter. There are quite a few aircraft operating with erroneous ICAO codes e.g., FFFFFF, 123456, A00000, etc. which obviously won't link to any aircraft in the FAA database. Jim

jdm117
06-11-2014, 10:55 AM
If you receive an email from me stating "No ADS-B data available," please make sure your ICAO 24-bit address (Mode S code) is programmed correctly into your transmitter. There are quite a few aircraft operating with erroneous ICAO codes e.g., FFFFFF, 123456, A00000, etc. which obviously won't link to any aircraft in the FAA database. Jim

Also, verify you provided the correct N-number.

rv6n6r
06-20-2014, 04:43 PM
Bob,

I have a NavWorx 600B on order. What other issues do I have to look forward to? Thanks.

Jim Berry
RV-10

Here's one thing -- I've noticed that very infrequently it doesn't fully initialize or get GPS lock (same thing I guess). Cycling power on the unit resolves it. I was comparing notes with a friend who has the same unit and learned that he has the same issue. In both cases it's using the internal GPS for position info. This isn't a big problem as it's very infrequent (and a pullable CB on the NavWorks box that makes it easy to cycle power on it) but I'd be interested to know if any other ADS600-B owners have seen this.

rv6n6r
06-20-2014, 05:04 PM
Just got sent an email for the report and received the reply promptly -- nice!

I get 100% fail on Mode 3A -- because I have a King KT-76A transponder with only analog output / no connection to the ADS-600B -- right?

I'm wondering if that might be why I get some intermittently odd behavior. Most of the time when I start up I don't get any ADSB targets until after I'm up at a good altitude, presumably because I need to get picked up by a ground station first (?) But occasionally I start getting returns right on the ground. Any thoughts on why?

Possibly related: occasionally I get a "ghost" -- last time it happened I also noticed I was picking up traffic (including myself) starting on the ground, and my "ghost" stuck with me all the way to landing. It seems any time I get a ghost it dogs me for the rest of the flight. Related, and why? If the ghost is because no transponder interconnect / ownship suppression then why don't I see it all the time?

Jeff A
06-20-2014, 05:04 PM
Jim,

Thank you for the quick response on my ADS-B report. I'm happy to find out my system is working perfectly.

Is there any plan to make a database for the ADS-B performance that is accessible through the internet in a fashion similar to how RVSM Height Monitoring Flights are listed/updated? Seems like it would be easier for everyone involved to simply be able to look up their N-Number or Hex code.

Thanks for all your help.

GalinHdz
06-20-2014, 07:52 PM
Jim,

Thank you for the quick response on my ADS-B report. I'm happy to find out my system is working perfectly.

Is there any plan to make a database for the ADS-B performance that is accessible through the internet in a fashion similar to how RVSM Height Monitoring Flights are listed/updated? Seems like it would be easier for everyone involved to simply be able to look up their N-Number or Hex code.

Thanks for all your help.

I agree with this suggestion. It would make checking and troubleshooting ADS-B problems a lot easier with less work for your shop.

:cool:

jdm117
06-23-2014, 07:22 PM
Jim,

Thank you for the quick response on my ADS-B report. I'm happy to find out my system is working perfectly.

Is there any plan to make a database for the ADS-B performance that is accessible through the internet in a fashion similar to how RVSM Height Monitoring Flights are listed/updated? Seems like it would be easier for everyone involved to simply be able to look up their N-Number or Hex code.

Thanks for all your help.

We are looking at possible ways to make the information available. The tool (aka ADS-B Compliance Monitor) is still under development & likely two years from being fully operational. In the interim, I'm considering posting a daily list of tail numbers with system faults (Red). If your tail number isn't on the list for a given day you can assume you were good (green), but if it is on the list you'd still need to email me & request a report for specific faults. Not ideal, but would at least let you know if troubleshooting were successful without an email exchange.

rv6n6r
06-24-2014, 04:16 PM
We are looking at possible ways to make the information available. The tool (aka ADS-B Compliance Monitor) is still under development & likely two years from being fully operational. In the interim, I'm considering posting a daily list of tail numbers with system faults (Red). If your tail number isn't on the list for a given day you can assume you were good (green), but if it is on the list you'd still need to email me & request a report for specific faults. Not ideal, but would at least let you know if troubleshooting were successful without an email exchange.

Good idea, I'd be checking. Thanks for doing this.

stevervb
10-30-2014, 12:19 PM
I have installed Ads b in and out using 430 wass and the report back was only red on the VAL whatever that is. ... I am seeing all transponder traffic when above 1500 ft I think...does anyone know what this red is about? VAL is .78

GalinHdz
10-30-2014, 12:56 PM
I have installed Ads b in and out using 430 wass and the report back was only red on the VAL whatever that is. ... I am seeing all transponder traffic when above 1500 ft I think...does anyone know what this red is about? VAL is .78

Multiple questions:
What ADS-B unit do you have and is it connected correctly?
Has your 430W software been upgraded to provide the correct output?
Is your equpiment configured correctly?

There are more questions depending on the answers to these.

:cool:

jdm117
10-30-2014, 01:39 PM
Val is an indication of ADS-B position validation using one of two methods: time-distance of arrival; or radar (if available). ADS-B position report validation using radar is proving difficult, especially during turns given radar's 8-15 second sweep rate. I've already had eVal reporting discontinued for the same reason (validation via primary radar exclusively). Resolving Val reporting issue in the compliance check process will take some time. Until then, avionics performance reports with Val issues identified will be analyzed manually to determine compliance and if our reply to your ADS-B system check indicates compliance you're all set even with a report flagged for Val.

Hope this helps.

Jim

dlomheim
10-30-2014, 03:43 PM
Val is an indication of ADS-B position validation using one of two methods: time-distance of arrival; or radar (if available). ADS-B position report validation using radar is proving difficult, especially during turns given radar's 8-15 second sweep rate...

Jim

If RADAR is losing you in a turn, it would seem that would more likely be a function of your decreased RADAR cross-section in the turn, vs. the implied slow sweep rate of the RADAR. Our E-3 RADAR rotates at 6 RPM (10 second updates) which is pretty standard for "search" RADARS, and tracks GA a/c quite well whether turning or not. I need to read up a lot more on ADS-B; so I ask this question from a point of ignorance: wouldn't a unit's internal positional accuracy that it transmits out be based more on how may GPS satellites it was seeing, vs. an ASR RADAR return?

Doug
ADS-B Neophyte!

jdm117
10-31-2014, 10:49 AM
Radar is used as an independent check of the reported ADS-B position. In other words, if the ADS-B system thinks it's telling the truth, it will report that it's telling the truth even if it's lying. Radar (TDOA or passive ranging) is used as a lie detector for ADS-B reported positions.

GalinHdz
10-31-2014, 06:03 PM
Radar is used as an independent check of the reported ADS-B position. In other words, if the ADS-B system thinks it's telling the truth, it will report that it's telling the truth even if it's lying. Radar (TDOA or passive ranging) is used as a lie detector for ADS-B reported positions.

Good information to know.

:cool:

dlomheim
11-05-2014, 12:51 AM
Radar is used as an independent check of the reported ADS-B position. In other words, if the ADS-B system thinks it's telling the truth, it will report that it's telling the truth even if it's lying. Radar (TDOA or passive ranging) is used as a lie detector for ADS-B reported positions.

Ah...that now makes perfect sense...thanks for the added information!

Doug

bryanflood
02-14-2015, 12:16 PM
Following this thread with much interest as I would like to get ADS-B out but can't afford it. Just wondering is anyone using the NavWorx ADS600-EXP box with an older mode C transponder and transmonspe? or a new mode S transponder? I'm a little confused about all the technical data, but does your system report come back okay, so you can use it till 2020?

Thanks,

Bryan

rleffler
02-14-2015, 05:22 PM
Following this thread with much interest as I would like to get ADS-B out but can't afford it. Just wondering is anyone using the NavWorx ADS600-EXP box with an older mode C transponder and transmonspe? or a new mode S transponder? I'm a little confused about all the technical data, but does your system report come back okay, so you can use it till 2020?

Thanks,

Bryan

The ads600-exp is too new for folks to have experience with it. I believe it will support the same transponders as the ads600b. If you have a really old one that doesn't support a serial interface, you can use the transmon device.

There is too much rumor and misinformation floating on the various threads. I would highly recommend giving Bill at at Navworx a call and asking him directly your questions. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

rwhittier
04-07-2015, 12:02 AM
What does it mean to have a Kinematics failure?

Just did my first test with a 430W and a 330ES. All categories pass but these:

Baro Alt delta .57% fail MCF = 2

Geo Alt delta 1.12% fail MCF = 3

Latest firmware.

The email said the Baro/Geo failure may be related to an issue identified by Garmin. All the decoder rings don't help me turn this into English ;)

Thanks for any advice you can give.

Hi Mike/All, Sorry for the delay in responding to your question regarding my association with the FAA's ADS-B program, I've been somewhat busy sending out ADS-B reports since my original post. Yes, I work on the FAA ADS-B program as a avionics safety inspector with Flight Standards in DC. My primary responsibilities are to develop policy, guidance & training related 91.225 & 91.227 for our avionics inspectors. I also provide outreach to the aviation community related to the installation & maintenance of ADS-B systems. My arrival to the Vans forum was spurred by the latter of these and the knowledge that many who have already equipped with ADS-B are unaware that the system is not working properly. I've had little success with the alphabet groups when seeking to publish material that would be helpful to members such as those here. So out of frustration thought I'd go VFR direct (so to speak) to a large group of the GA community and provide assistance as able.

g3xpert
04-07-2015, 06:21 AM
What does it mean to have a Kinematics failure?

Just did my first test with a 430W and a 330ES. All categories pass but these:

Baro Alt delta .57% fail MCF = 2

Geo Alt delta 1.12% fail MCF = 3

Latest firmware.

The email said the Baro/Geo failure may be related to an issue identified by Garmin. All the decoder rings don't help me turn this into English ;)

Thanks for any advice you can give.

Hello Roger,

As explained in the FAA document, the ground based compliance monitor watches your data and performs a reasonableness check on changes in Baro/Geo Altitude, Position, and Velocity. Items highlighted in red were identified with parameter changes outside the range of normal aircraft performance.

The MCF term identifies the Maximum Consecutive Failures, which were very low for your data. Were you performing any maneuvering flight at all during the analysis flight? (of course, it is an RV!)

I looked at the data for several other RV aircraft that we have collected (all using G3X systems), including a G3X RV-10 with a GNS 430W/GTX330ES combination, and didn't see any kinematics failures in any of these reports.

You didn't identify your source of pressure altitude to the GTX, but your report data suggests that there might be disagreement between baro and GPS altitude at times, but only rarely.

For peace of mind, you might want to make a flight where you fly pretty straight and level and request another compliance report. If this one comes back "clean", then you were probably just tripping up the compliance monitor for a few cycles while you were maneuvering.

Let us know if we can help further.

Thanks,
Steve

rwhittier
04-07-2015, 09:04 AM
I'll report back. Great help, thanks.

Hello Roger,

As explained in the FAA document, the ground based compliance monitor watches your data and performs a reasonableness check on changes in Baro/Geo Altitude, Position, and Velocity. Items highlighted in red were identified with parameter changes outside the range of normal aircraft performance.

The MCF term identifies the Maximum Consecutive Failures, which were very low for your data. Were you performing any maneuvering flight at all during the analysis flight? (of course, it is an RV!)

I looked at the data for several other RV aircraft that we have collected (all using G3X systems), including a G3X RV-10 with a GNS 430W/GTX330ES combination, and didn't see any kinematics failures in any of these reports.

You didn't identify your source of pressure altitude to the GTX, but your report data suggests that there might be disagreement between baro and GPS altitude at times, but only rarely.

For peace of mind, you might want to make a flight where you fly pretty straight and level and request another compliance report. If this one comes back "clean", then you were probably just tripping up the compliance monitor for a few cycles while you were maneuvering.

Let us know if we can help further.

Thanks,
Steve

ultrapilot
05-11-2015, 08:08 AM
I swapped out my 430 for a 530W and just need to confirm the serial (in & out) settings for the 530W. I am using a GTX330ES so want ADS-B out settings too!

BobTurner
05-11-2015, 01:42 PM
I swapped out my 430 for a 530W and just need to confirm the serial (in & out) settings for the 530W. I am using a GTX330ES so want ADS-B out settings too!

Set the 530W serial output to "ADSB+". Not "ADSB".

g3xpert
05-11-2015, 03:31 PM
I swapped out my 430 for a 530W and just need to confirm the serial (in & out) settings for the 530W. I am using a GTX330ES so want ADS-B out settings too!

Hello,

This posting (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=884276&postcount=27) should be useful, especially this part:

The RS-232 serial output port on the GNS or GTN unit providing position data to the transponder should be set to "ADS-B+".

The RS-232 serial input port on a GTX330ES transponder configured to receive ADS-B+ position data from a GNS/GTN unit should be set to "REMOTE".

For the GTX330ES, don't forget to enter your Mode S Address (hex or U.S. tail number), configure your Flight ID to either be same as tail number or via manual entry, set the X,Y offset (from nose) of your GNS/GTN antenna, set your GPS Integrity to 1E-7, set aircraft type, max airspeed, length, and width, enable ADS-B TX, enable EHS (enhanced surveillance), and finally specify whether or not your aircraft has an ADS-B receiver that can listen on 1090 Mhz and/or UAT (978 Mhz).

Let us know if you have additional questions.

Thanks,
Steve

ultrapilot
05-13-2015, 01:10 AM
Thank you for the info Steve. Any ARINC settings?

rv6n6r
06-09-2015, 05:35 PM
So I just received a call from a guy on the "FAA ADS-B Compliance Team" -- said my ADS-B is "bad" and he's tracking down me and 400 other aircraft owners. Took some questioning to pin him down on what he meant by that -- I already know my ADS-B (NavWorx ADS-600B) is not now 2020 compliant, for two reasons:

1) SIL is reading 100% fail on my report. According to NavWorx that's expected, because the internal GPS is not TSO certified. However NavWorx has a firmware update coming that will resolve that -- I believe that's because of a recent ruling from FAA that for experimentals the TSO is not required, only "performance to TSO specs" whatever that means, and so the new firmware will have something to make that go away.

2) Mode 3A is showing 100% fail. That's also expected, because I have an old transponder and no txpdr suppression connection to the ADS-B. I have ordered a gizmo from NavWorx that lets you do that interconnect, so that'll be resolved shortly.

When he called my impression was, I need to get this fixed or turn it off. When I pinned him down on it however he said it's not actually required before 2020. So I guess the call was a courtesy call? Or maybe if it weren't in an experimental it would need to be compliant now, regardless?

Anyway, just tossing this info out, in case anyone's interested or has any further comment on the topic.

dynonsupport
06-09-2015, 07:28 PM
Randall,
The FAA compliance guys are generally pretty nice in our experience and they are just trying to make sure the ADS-B system is working as expected. They don't have as much experience with experimental equipment of course, which can lead to some discussions which aren't 100% accurate. Ultimately, they are trying to contact operators that have ADS-B in their certified planes and think they are compliant, but are not due to a configuration or equipment issue.

I can see them having an issue with the lack of a Mode A code though. This might cause alarms at ATC, since you look like two airplanes, one with a Mode A of XXXX via your transponder, and YYYY via your UAT, but you're always a collision risk due to how close you are to one another. That's not very cool.

As for if that's legal, 91.227 says:


(d) Minimum Broadcast Message Element Set for ADS-B Out. Each aircraft must broadcast the following information, as defined in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c. The pilot must enter information for message elements listed in paragraphs (d)(7) through (d)(10) of this section during the appropriate phase of flight.

(7) An indication of the Mode 3/A transponder code specified by ATC;


I guess you have to decide if 91.227 applies before 2020. It does define "ADS-B OUT" as "a function of an aircraft's onboard avionics that periodically broadcasts the aircraft's state vector (3-dimensional position and 3-dimensional velocity) and other required information as described in this section. " and then lays out requirements for it. It doesn't say it's only ADS-B after 2020 and before then you can transmit whatever you want even if it's inaccurate.

The difference with a SIL=0 is that it's not inaccurate- it just doesn't meet the requirements to enter airspace after 2020 per 91.225, so that's clearly legal up to 2020 or even after if you stay out of rule airspace.

Note there is absolutely nothing in the FARs that differentiates an experimental airplane from a certified one. However, as you say, the FAA might not allow you to install something that doesn't meet the FAR in a certified plane because they get to limit installations in order to prevent issues. You can go and install whatever you want in your experimental, it's just that if it doesn't meet the FAR, they can use other forms of enforcement to get you to stop ;)

--Ian Jordan

BobTurner
06-09-2015, 07:49 PM
I believe that's because of a recent ruling from FAA that for experimentals the TSO is not required, only "performance to TSO specs" whatever that means,.

This is mis-information that just will not go away. As Ian says, there is NO differentiation between EAB and normally certified aircraft in this regard. The clarification of the rules was, that for ADSB-out, the equipment must meet the TSO specifications; it does not have to have a TSO guarantee from a manufacturer. This just brings ADSB into conformance with IFR gps and transponders. They just have to conform to the TSO specs. Now, the easiest way to be sure they do that is buy one that the manufacturer has TSO'd. But it's not required. OTOH, how the owner/operator will certify that the equipment meets the TSO specs - unless he is a lawyer, EE, and owns a building full of test equipment - is beyond me.

tunaf15
06-12-2015, 12:34 PM
Hey Skyview Gurus,

Got my first report from Jim earlier this week. Has SIL and SDA errors. Per his suggestion checked my software/firmware loads. I had previously loaded 12.2 Skyview system software. I saw that my Skyview 261 transponder had update version 2.06 available and updated to that. I flew it again and had Jim send me an updated report. I still have the SIL and SDA errors and now also have a NACv error. My system is all Skyview for the GPS, transponder and ADS-B. Flew again today and everything says it's OK. ADS-B shows receiving, transponder shows R for reply with altitude, getting TIS traffic and weather displayed. Although I have Display Tail Numbers for traffic selected I just get the positional data and altitude delta displayed. Not sure if that's tied into the rest of the ADS-B report errors. Anyone with an all Skyview system had this problem and know the solution? Thanks.

Cheers,
Mike--



BobTurner
06-12-2015, 12:39 PM
The Skyview gps does not meet the specs, so your system is working as it should by sending out data saying that you do not meet specs.

GalinHdz
06-12-2015, 01:08 PM
The solution is to connect a 2020 compliant position source. As Bob Turner posted, the SkyView GPS is not 2020 compliant hence the results of your report.

:cool:

dynonsupport
06-12-2015, 03:42 PM
Mike,
As others have mentioned, the Dynon GPS is not compliant with the 2020 requirements. This is where your SIL and SDA failures come in. These represent the "integrity" of the GPS, and the experimental GPS in SkyView has not been demonstrated to comply so it cannot transmit higher numbers. This doesn't actually mean your system is broken or failing- the compliance report is telling you if you are legal to enter specific airspace after 2020, not if the system you have installed has a problem.

The NACv error you get after upgrading the transponder is a bug in the transponder, and is why we didn't recommend non-compliant systems upgrade to 2.6. Doesn't cause any issues with non-compliant ADS-B, and it will be fixed in a future release.

As for N numbers showing up on the display, they can only appear for other aircraft that are ADS-B OUT equipped. Only about 3% of aircraft in the USA today have ADS-B, so it is pretty rare to see them. They're usually other SkyView aircraft ;)

tunaf15
06-13-2015, 06:11 AM
All,

Thanks for the replies.

Dynon Support,

Thanks for the detailed reply. All the documents I have seen referenced in earlier posts didn't explain it to this level. Great customer support!

Cheers,
Mike--

GalinHdz
06-13-2015, 11:12 AM
As for N numbers showing up on the display, they can only appear for other aircraft that are ADS-B OUT equipped. Only about 3% of aircraft in the USA today have ADS-B, so it is pretty rare to see them. They're usually other SkyView aircraft ;)

Except here in the NE part of Florida where lots of aircraft (Embry-Riddle) already have ADS-B OUT and more show up every day. :D

http://i1370.photobucket.com/albums/ag264/ghrmsr/Skyview%20at%202R4_zpsxsta5koo.jpg

Makes looking out for traffic very interesting.

:cool:

rv6n6r
07-01-2015, 05:04 PM
Thanks Bob, good info. I understood this more or less but probably less, this helps.

This is mis-information that just will not go away. As Ian says, there is NO differentiation between EAB and normally certified aircraft in this regard. The clarification of the rules was, that for ADSB-out, the equipment must meet the TSO specifications; it does not have to have a TSO guarantee from a manufacturer. This just brings ADSB into conformance with IFR gps and transponders. They just have to conform to the TSO specs. Now, the easiest way to be sure they do that is buy one that the manufacturer has TSO'd. But it's not required. OTOH, how the owner/operator will certify that the equipment meets the TSO specs - unless he is a lawyer, EE, and owns a building full of test equipment - is beyond me.

Jesse
09-02-2015, 09:26 PM
At the risk of asking a question that has been answered in the 8 pages of posts, how long does it usually take to get a response from 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov?

Brantel
09-02-2015, 09:35 PM
At the risk of asking a question that has been answered in the 8 pages of posts, how long does it usually take to get a response from 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov?

Have had a response almost immediately to taking a couple days.

chazking
09-03-2015, 06:28 AM
In the early days, responses could be as long as 3 to 5 days. Recently, the response has been less than a day with commentary.

Jesse
09-03-2015, 06:36 AM
The reports came in at about 6:30 this morning.

rv6n6r
09-10-2015, 12:16 PM
[...] The tool (aka ADS-B Compliance Monitor) is still under development & likely two years from being fully operational. In the interim, I'm considering posting a daily list of tail numbers with system faults (Red). If your tail number isn't on the list for a given day you can assume you were good (green), but if it is on the list you'd still need to email me & request a report for specific faults. Not ideal, but would at least let you know if troubleshooting were successful without an email exchange.

Any update on this?

In any case, how often can we request reports without becoming bothersome to you / your office? I'm still trying to sort out some things & verify compliance and it would be helpful to be able to get multiple reports along the way.

Thanks in advance, and especially for reaching out to the VAF forum on this.

FLightning
09-22-2015, 09:51 PM
Did my transponder inspection today, was ten mins and a hundred dolla Bill.
I am legal for 24 mo.

maus92
10-14-2015, 08:53 PM
Yay! My system passed! GTX 23ES + GPS 20A.

Submitted to the FAA at 10:42EDT, and got the results @ 12:05EDT. Awesomely fast - good job FAA.

Thank you.

strahler13
02-01-2016, 06:13 AM
I passed on my second try. On the original install of my Garmin 480 there was noting assigned to serial output pin #3. Now the updated Garmin installation instructions identify this pin as the ADSB output. After moving the wire to my Trig TT 31 from Pin #22 to #3, and software updates to both units, things appear in order.

Thanks to jdm117 for his assistance. The reports came back quickly.

Mark

AltonD
05-23-2016, 10:54 AM
Woot, Woot, A clean report, first time.

Now, If I could just get the Flight Stream to talk to the Garmin 430W.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zppq6ugklofale2/PCR_20160521_A6A0C3_24665904.pdf?dl=0

Shadetree
05-23-2016, 01:15 PM
Woot, Woot, A clean report, first time.

Now, If I could just get the Flight Stream to talk to the Garmin 430W.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zppq6ugklofale2/PCR_20160521_A6A0C3_24665904.pdf?dl=0

Congratulations!!