What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA ADS-B Avionics System Check

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..
 
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.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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:
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
John,
I will send you a copy of mine. I believe my first test will show you what you need.
 
Want to know how your ADS-B system is performing? Send an email with N-number to [email protected] 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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
"No ADS-B Data" Email Response

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
User Database?

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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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 spokane rv8

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
 
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:
 
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
 
E-VAL due to turns?

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!
 
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.
 
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:
 
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
 
NavWorx ADS600-exp

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
 
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.
 
Great help - what does Kinematics mean?

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.
 
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
 
Thanks, I'll do as you suggest

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
 
GNS530W serial configs

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!
 
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 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
 
Call from FAA ADS-B Compliance Team...

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Skyview system problems...

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--


 
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.
 
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:
 
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 ;)
 
Thanks

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--
 
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

Skyview%20at%202R4_zpsxsta5koo.jpg


Makes looking out for traffic very interesting.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top