---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 02/12/17: 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Z-17/ alternator wire protection (Jeff Point) 2. 07:51 AM - Re: Z12 Question (user9253) 3. 11:02 AM - Stash of PIDG splices unearthed . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: Z-17/ alternator wire protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 11:05 AM - Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 11:06 AM - Re: Icom junction box (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 12:10 PM - Re: Icom junction box (Ken Ryan) 8. 12:18 PM - Re: Icom junction box (Alec Myers) 9. 12:28 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (Kelly McMullen) 10. 12:30 PM - Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (user9253) 11. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (don van santen) 12. 01:14 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (Charlie England) 13. 01:47 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders () 14. 02:12 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders () 15. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (don van santen) 16. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: Z12 Question (don van santen) 17. 02:33 PM - Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (user9253) 18. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (Alec Myers) 19. 03:39 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (Charlie England) 20. 03:56 PM - Re: Z12 Question (user9253) 21. 04:19 PM - Re: Re: Z12 Question (don van santen) 22. 05:38 PM - Re: Z12 Question (user9253) 23. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders (Kelly McMullen) 24. 09:17 PM - Re: Icom antenna junction box (speedy11@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:07 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-17/ alternator wire protection From: Jeff Point On 2/11/17 10:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > The 200G on a Continental is belt driven with > a pretty high ratio. This is why, with the SAME > magnetics, it is rated at 12A output. It's almost > a certainty that this machine would smoke seriously > if the R/R presents a hard fault. On my O-200 it is mounted on the vacuum pad and is gear driven from the cam gear. Nevertheless I will take your advice and put a 15A fuse in both locations. Final question- the drawing from B&C only shows the fuse on one of the two A/C wires from the dynamo to the regulator. Since there is no polarity to these wires, I assume this is because it is AC voltage? Jeff ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:22 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z12 Question From: "user9253" Looking at Z-12, both alternator outputs are connected together through very low resistance shunts and short circuit protection devices. Your plan does not change that. The only disadvantage I see in your plan is that the shunt will not have short circuit protection. And the disadvantage of my circuit posted above is that if the large ANL current limiter blows, then both alternators are lost. Separate shunts as in Z-13/8 eliminates those disadvantages. You might consider using a 30 amp Maxi fuse instead of an ANL to save money and weight. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466047#466047 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:02:38 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Stash of PIDG splices unearthed . . . In the process of down-sizing my inventory I uncovered a stash of red, 16-22AWG, PIDG splices . . . Emacs! In lots of 25, these venerable products from AMP are going for $1.60 each . . . or thereabouts. http://tinyurl.com/jz8vjny I'll offer these to members of the List in lots of 25 for $12 postage paid. Email me privately please. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:03:11 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-17/ alternator wire protection At 08:17 AM 2/12/2017, you wrote: > >On 2/11/17 10:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> >> >>The 200G on a Continental is belt driven with >> a pretty high ratio. This is why, with the SAME >> magnetics, it is rated at 12A output. It's almost >> a certainty that this machine would smoke seriously >> if the R/R presents a hard fault. >On my O-200 it is mounted on the vacuum pad and is gear driven from >the cam gear. Nevertheless I will take your advice and put a 15A >fuse in both locations. Final question- the drawing from B&C only >shows the fuse on one of the two A/C wires from the dynamo to the regulator. >Since there is no polarity to these wires, I assume this is because >it is AC voltage? No, it's because the alternator output is a loop that goes to zero current when opened anywhere in that loop . . . one fuse suffices for both leads. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:05:15 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: >Hi Bob, > >Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on >transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that >would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements >for transponders? What are the equipment standards for >transponders? What should I look for in a new transponders? Are >there changes coming in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) >all about? I will appreciate your comments and suggestions. If >there are other questions I should be asking, please address them as >well. Thank for considering my inquiry. I've not kept current with the requirements or all the features/options in the transponder world. I've posted this question to the AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha service with a great deal more knowledge on this topic. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:06:50 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icom junction box At 05:09 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: > > >Someone was asking on this forum about issues with the Icom antenna junction >box installed in their plane. I put in one of those in between my SL-30 >Nav/Com and my belly antenna on the RV-6A. I've had a lot of scratchy and >not so great transmissions/reception on that Radio. I didn't think that >maybe if would be that junction box. I like the idea because it makes it >easy to plug in my hand held and use my outside antenna. But I've never had >to do that so if the junction box is causing crappy tx/Rx on that radio I'll >take it out of the loop. I know the SL-30 is a great radio so this has >puzzled me since I finished the RV. Did whomever it was figure out whether >the Icom junction box was causing radio Tx/Rx problems or not? Does the >junction box need to be removed from the loop or is there some I can do to >fix it? It's a simple experiment to take it out and see if the complaints go away. I'm not encouraged about 'fixing' a poorly performing example of this product. Best advise is to take it out and add pilot accessible junctions and coax jumpers to get your hand-held connected to ship's antenna. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:10:37 PM PST US From: Ken Ryan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icom junction box Bob, regarding the coax junctions, what are the specs to look for? On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 05:09 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: > > dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> > > Someone was asking on this forum about issues with the Icom antenna > junction > box installed in their plane. I put in one of those in between my SL-30 > Nav/Com and my belly antenna on the RV-6A. I've had a lot of scratchy and > not so great transmissions/reception on that Radio. I didn't think that > maybe if would be that junction box. I like the idea because it makes it > easy to plug in my hand held and use my outside antenna. But I've never had > to do that so if the junction box is causing crappy tx/Rx on that radio > I'll > take it out of the loop. I know the SL-30 is a great radio so this has > puzzled me since I finished the RV. Did whomever it was figure out whether > the Icom junction box was causing radio Tx/Rx problems or not? Does the > junction box need to be removed from the loop or is there some I can do to > fix it? > > > It's a simple experiment to take it out and see > if the complaints go away. I'm not encouraged about > 'fixing' a poorly performing example of this > product. Best advise is to take it out and add > pilot accessible junctions and coax jumpers > to get your hand-held connected to ship's antenna. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:18:47 PM PST US From: Alec Myers Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icom junction box I've never met your radio, but I'd put a small amount of money on a wager th at your problem lies in a badly terminated cable - a badly crimped, loose or corroded BNC connector, somewhere. 99% of failures are either the fuse or the connector :-) On Feb 12, 2017, at 15:05, Ken Ryan wrote: Bob, regarding the coax junctions, what are the specs to look for? > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 05:09 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: ulos@verizon.net> >> >> Someone was asking on this forum about issues with the Icom antenna junct ion >> box installed in their plane. I put in one of those in between my SL-30 >> Nav/Com and my belly antenna on the RV-6A. I've had a lot of scratchy and >> not so great transmissions/reception on that Radio. I didn't think that >> maybe if would be that junction box. I like the idea because it makes it >> easy to plug in my hand held and use my outside antenna. But I've never h ad >> to do that so if the junction box is causing crappy tx/Rx on that radio I 'll >> take it out of the loop. I know the SL-30 is a great radio so this has >> puzzled me since I finished the RV. Did whomever it was figure out wheth er >> the Icom junction box was causing radio Tx/Rx problems or not? Does the >> junction box need to be removed from the loop or is there some I can do t o >> fix it? > > It's a simple experiment to take it out and see > if the complaints go away. I'm not encouraged about > 'fixing' a poorly performing example of this > product. Best advise is to take it out and add > pilot accessible junctions and coax jumpers > to get your hand-held connected to ship's antenna. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:28:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders From: Kelly McMullen There is no change in the airspace requiring a transponder. However, there is a new requirement for ADS-B equipment. There are two ways to comply. You can either get a Mode S transponder that has software to give the data output needed, or you can get a UAT unit that is tied to your Mode C transponder. Either variety has to have either an internal GPS that meets requirements, or be connected to a certified WAAS IFR GPS. There are a number of sources for the information, including manufacturers. However, a lot will confuse the issue. The requirements are only to transmit the required data stream. There are no reception requirements, but that is another entire ball of wax, as to what traffic and weather you do or don't receive, and how you display it in the cockpit. Very useful, but not required. Kelly On 2/12/2017 11:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: > >> Hi Bob, >> >> Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on >> transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that >> would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements for >> transponders? What are the equipment standards for transponders? >> What should I look for in a new transponders? Are there changes coming >> in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) all about? I will >> appreciate your comments and suggestions. If there are other >> questions I should be asking, please address them as well. Thank for >> considering my inquiry. > > I've not kept current with the requirements > or all the features/options in the transponder > world. I've posted this question to the > AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha > service with a great deal more knowledge on > this topic. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:30:14 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders From: "user9253" ADS-B will let you see other aircraft on a glass panel in your airplane. And other pilots will be able to see you. It is like having a radar screen in your cockpit. ADS-B-OUT will be required in many areas in 2020. If buying a new transponder, you might as well make sure it has ADS-B. If you do not fly near big cities where ADS-B will be required, then you could buy a used transponder without ADS-B for well less than $1000. Lots of used transponders are available as more and more aircraft are upgrading to ADS-B-OUT to meet the 2020 mandate. When shopping for a transponder with ADS-B, I recommend that you buy one that contains an internal 2020 compliant GPS receiver instead of two separate units. Here are some models to consider: APPAREO STRATUS ESG GARMIN GTX335 GARMIN GTX345 L-3 Avionics LYNX NGT-9000 Prices vary from $3000 to $9000 There are a lot more options and equipment to consider. Research before buying. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466067#466067 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 12:54:14 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders One additional comment. The external waas certified gps must also be on the approved list for the mode S transponder that it is feeding location information. At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved list. This may change with software updates. Garmin did noy mention the 480 so it is currently an unknown. On Feb 12, 2017 12:36 PM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote: > kellym@aviating.com> > > There is no change in the airspace requiring a transponder. However, there > is a new requirement for ADS-B equipment. There are two ways to comply. You > can either get a Mode S transponder that has software to give the data > output needed, or you can get a UAT unit that is tied to your Mode C > transponder. Either variety has to have either an internal GPS that meets > requirements, or be connected to a certified WAAS IFR GPS. There are a > number of sources for the information, including manufacturers. However, a > lot will confuse the issue. > The requirements are only to transmit the required data stream. > > There are no reception requirements, but that is another entire ball of > wax, as to what traffic and weather you do or don't receive, and how you > display it in the cockpit. Very useful, but not required. > Kelly > > On 2/12/2017 11:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: >> >> Hi Bob, >>> >>> Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on >>> transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that >>> would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements for >>> transponders? What are the equipment standards for transponders? >>> What should I look for in a new transponders? Are there changes coming >>> in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) all about? I will >>> appreciate your comments and suggestions. If there are other >>> questions I should be asking, please address them as well. Thank for >>> considering my inquiry. >>> >> >> I've not kept current with the requirements >> or all the features/options in the transponder >> world. I've posted this question to the >> AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha >> service with a great deal more knowledge on >> this topic. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:14:34 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders To be clear, there *will be* a new requirement. In 2020, but not at the moment. The FAA certainly held to its traditional Pro Grade Obfuscation in writing the upcoming regs, but basically you'll need ADSB out, with a Certifiable WAAS position source. *And* you'll need to keep a traditional transponder with encoder, unless you go with a Mode S with Extended Squitter (remember offuscation?). Opinions vary widely on whether ADSB prices will continue to fall, or start to rise, as 2020 approaches. Charlie On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > kellym@aviating.com> > > There is no change in the airspace requiring a transponder. However, there > is a new requirement for ADS-B equipment. There are two ways to comply. You > can either get a Mode S transponder that has software to give the data > output needed, or you can get a UAT unit that is tied to your Mode C > transponder. Either variety has to have either an internal GPS that meets > requirements, or be connected to a certified WAAS IFR GPS. There are a > number of sources for the information, including manufacturers. However, a > lot will confuse the issue. > The requirements are only to transmit the required data stream. > > There are no reception requirements, but that is another entire ball of > wax, as to what traffic and weather you do or don't receive, and how you > display it in the cockpit. Very useful, but not required. > Kelly > > On 2/12/2017 11:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: >> >> Hi Bob, >>> >>> Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on >>> transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that >>> would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements for >>> transponders? What are the equipment standards for transponders? >>> What should I look for in a new transponders? Are there changes coming >>> in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) all about? I will >>> appreciate your comments and suggestions. If there are other >>> questions I should be asking, please address them as well. Thank for >>> considering my inquiry. >>> >> >> I've not kept current with the requirements >> or all the features/options in the transponder >> world. I've posted this question to the >> AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha >> service with a great deal more knowledge on >> this topic. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:47:53 PM PST US From: Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders Dion said: << At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved list. This may change with software updates. >> I don't believe that statement is true, as both of these WAAS-equipped devices ARE approved GPS sources for any of the Garmin ADS-B Out transponders. I had a GTX-330 upgraded to 330ES (around $1200) by Garmin, then connected to my 430W (cost about $600 for the shop to rewire to add the GPS connector to the 330ES). This was fully approved, and passed all the FAA's ADS-B Out testing. And a friend who had a 530W and 330 did the same with his plane, and likewise passed the FAA testing. I also know of several people who have upgraded to Garmin 335 and 345 transponders and used their 430W/530W as the GPS-WAAS source for their ADS-B installations. One possible source of confusion might be that the older non-WAAS 4XX/5XX models are NOT approved because they lack the WAAS GPS capability. A non-WAAS 430 (or 530) would need to be upgraded to 430W (or 530W) to add the WAAS capability. This can only be done by Garmin, and I think they charge something like $3,000 (IIRC) to upgrade the units. But the bigger issue for Garmin 430W/530W owners is working with non-Garmin ADS-B transponders... I believe the issue is that (at least at one time) the Trig ADS-B transponder (which is re-sold by Avidyne and several others under their own company name) was NOT certified with the 430W/530W. Obviously, Garmin had no interest in pursuing certification with someone else's equipment, and although I think Trig eventually certified their own proprietary brand unit with the 430W/530W, apparently the other companies that were re-selling the Trig unit did not pursue certification with the Garmin either. But check into it, because this stuff changes very rapidly. Jim Parker -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders From: don van santen One additional comment. The external waas certified gps must also be on the approved list for the mode S transponder that it is feeding location information. At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved list. This may change with software updates. Garmin did noy mention the 480 so it is currently an unknown. On Feb 12, 2017 12:36 PM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote: There is no change in the airspace requiring a transponder. However, there is a new requirement for ADS-B equipment. There are two ways to comply. You can either get a Mode S transponder that has software to give the data output needed, or you can get a UAT unit that is tied to your Mode C transponder. Either variety has to have either an internal GPS that meets requirements, or be connected to a certified WAAS IFR GPS. There are a number of sources for the information, including manufacturers. However, a lot will confuse the issue. The requirements are only to transmit the required data stream. There are no reception requirements, but that is another entire ball of wax, as to what traffic and weather you do or don't receive, and how you display it in the cockpit. Very useful, but not required. Kelly On 2/12/2017 11:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: Hi Bob, Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements for transponders? What are the equipment standards for transponders? What should I look for in a new transponders? Are there changes coming in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) all about? I will appreciate your comments and suggestions. If there are other questions I should be asking, please address them as well. Thank for considering my inquiry. I've not kept current with the requirements or all the features/options in the transponder world. I've posted this question to the AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha service with a great deal more knowledge on this topic. Bob . . . =================================== - Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List =================================== FORUMS - eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com =================================== WIKI - errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com =================================== b Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =================================== ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:12 PM PST US From: Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders I don't believe there will be any "new" requirements in 2020 that aren't already on the books. The current rules state that after Jan 1, 2020, you will still need a Mode-C / Mode-S transponder anywhere you need one today -- that's not changing. But you will also need to EITHER upgrade to a 1090ES transponder (one that provides the "Extended Squitter" capability), OR that you would need to add a UAT transmitter (978UAT) -- in addition to your Mode-C / Mode-S transponder. The UAT has to integrate with your existing Mode-C / Mode-S transponder to pick up the transponder squawk code (among other things) to include in the ADS-B OUT data stream. If you remain within the US borders, and never fly above 18,000 feet, 978UAT is "good enough". And since an "ab-initio" UAT solution (including the WAAS GPS receiver) can be less expensive to install, about 20-25% of the aircraft equipping for ADS-B are taking that option. But, if you fly above 18,000 feet, you will be required to use the 1090ES version. And if you fly internationally (Canada, Mexico, Carribean, etc.), the odds are pretty good that you will also need the 1090ES version. To this point, ICAO has not recognized 978 UAT as a "standard", so it may wind up being a "US only" option. Thus far, the vast majority of aircraft upgrading to ADS-B OUT seem to be doing 1090ES upgrades -- something like 75-80% of the ADS-B OUT fleet is 1090ES, depending on whose data you use. As for cost, those who already have a certified WAAS-GPS receiver may find it far less expensive to go this route. My previous airplane that had a 430W and a GTX-330 cost me well under $2,000 to upgrade to 1090ES by upgrading the 330 to 330ES ($1,200 through Garmin) and wiring the 430W to the 330ES ($500-600 to the avionics shop doing that work). Jim Parker -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders From: Charlie England To be clear, there *will be* a new requirement. In 2020, but not at the moment. The FAA certainly held to its traditional Pro Grade Obfuscation in writing the upcoming regs, but basically you'll need ADSB out, with a Certifiable WAAS position source. *And* you'll need to keep a traditional transponder with encoder, unless you go with a Mode S with Extended Squitter (remember offuscation?). Opinions vary widely on whether ADSB prices will continue to fall, or start to rise, as 2020 approaches. Charlie ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:24:44 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders Jim, You are correct wit is that h regaeds to the Garmin transponders. The information that I have from Trig i and a Avidyne 540Ts that Garmin 430w/530w are not approved as the gps source unless they are updated per Garmin. The software update is not currently available and may never become available. My work around is a Trig/Dynon 261 mode s and an Avidyne 540T all certified and approved. Only draw back was the price. Don On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:44 PM, wrote: > > Dion said: > << At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved list. This > may change with software updates. >> > > I don't believe that statement is true, as both of these WAAS-equipped > devices ARE approved GPS sources for any of the Garmin ADS-B Out > transponders. I had a GTX-330 upgraded to 330ES (around $1200) by > Garmin, then connected to my 430W (cost about $600 for the shop to > rewire to add the GPS connector to the 330ES). This was fully approved, > and passed all the FAA's ADS-B Out testing. And a friend who had a 530W > and 330 did the same with his plane, and likewise passed the FAA > testing. I also know of several people who have upgraded to Garmin 335 > and 345 transponders and used their 430W/530W as the GPS-WAAS source for > their ADS-B installations. > > One possible source of confusion might be that the older non-WAAS > 4XX/5XX models are NOT approved because they lack the WAAS GPS > capability. A non-WAAS 430 (or 530) would need to be upgraded to 430W > (or 530W) to add the WAAS capability. This can only be done by Garmin, > and I think they charge something like $3,000 (IIRC) to upgrade the > units. > > But the bigger issue for Garmin 430W/530W owners is working with > non-Garmin ADS-B transponders... I believe the issue is that (at least > at one time) the Trig ADS-B transponder (which is re-sold by Avidyne and > several others under their own company name) was NOT certified with the > 430W/530W. Obviously, Garmin had no interest in pursuing certification > with someone else's equipment, and although I think Trig eventually > certified their own proprietary brand unit with the 430W/530W, > apparently the other companies that were re-selling the Trig unit did > not pursue certification with the Garmin either. But check into it, > because this stuff changes very rapidly. > > Jim Parker > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About > Transponders > From: don van santen > Date: Sun, February 12, 2017 2:43 pm > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > One additional comment. The external waas certified gps must also be on > the approved list for the mode S transponder that it is feeding location > information. At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved > list. This may change with software updates. Garmin did noy mention the > 480 so it is currently an unknown. > > On Feb 12, 2017 12:36 PM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote: > > > There is no change in the airspace requiring a transponder. However, > there is a new requirement for ADS-B equipment. There are two ways to > comply. You can either get a Mode S transponder that has software to > give the data output needed, or you can get a UAT unit that is tied to > your Mode C transponder. Either variety has to have either an internal > GPS that meets requirements, or be connected to a certified WAAS IFR > GPS. There are a number of sources for the information, including > manufacturers. However, a lot will confuse the issue. > The requirements are only to transmit the required data stream. > > There are no reception requirements, but that is another entire ball of > wax, as to what traffic and weather you do or don't receive, and how you > display it in the cockpit. Very useful, but not required. > Kelly > > On 2/12/2017 11:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on > transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that > would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements for > transponders? What are the equipment standards for transponders? > What should I look for in a new transponders? Are there changes coming > in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) all about? I will > appreciate your comments and suggestions. If there are other > questions I should be asking, please address them as well. Thank for > considering my inquiry. > > I've not kept current with the requirements > or all the features/options in the transponder > world. I've posted this question to the > AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha > service with a great deal more knowledge on > this topic. > > > Bob . . . > > =================================== > - > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > WIKI - > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:27:41 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z12 Question Joe, I may try using the Hall Effect amp sensor with the standby.alt. The manufacturer says the sensor may not be mounted on the hat side of the firewall. I know of a few people that have ignored this warning and they have had no issues with the sensor functioning after 1500 to 2500 hours of use. I might try this as well. On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:33 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Looking at Z-12, both alternator outputs are connected together through > very low resistance shunts and short circuit protection devices. Your plan > does not change that. The only disadvantage I see in your plan is that the > shunt will not have short circuit protection. And the disadvantage of my > circuit posted above is that if the large ANL current limiter blows, then > both alternators are lost. Separate shunts as in Z-13/8 eliminates those > disadvantages. > You might consider using a 30 amp Maxi fuse instead of an ANL to save > money and weight. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466047#466047 > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:33:06 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders From: "user9253" Here is a link to the FAA's list of approved ADS-B Certified Equipment. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/equipment/ Unfortunately they do not keep it up to date. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466081#466081 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:12 PM PST US From: Alec Myers Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders As things stand, there are no requirements for anything beyond old fashioned mode C to be mandatory in any parts of Canada. And even that is only required in a very small portion of airspace. On Feb 12, 2017, at 17:08, wrote: But, if you fly above 18,000 feet, you will be required to use the 1090ES version. And if you fly internationally (Canada, Mexico, Carribean, etc.), the odds are pretty good that you will also need the 1090ES version. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 03:39:56 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders My point is that it's not a current requirement; it *will be* in 2020. On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:08 PM, wrote: > > I don't believe there will be any "new" requirements in 2020 that aren't > already on the books. The current rules state that after Jan 1, 2020, > you will still need a Mode-C / Mode-S transponder anywhere you need one > today -- that's not changing. But you will also need to EITHER upgrade > to a 1090ES transponder (one that provides the "Extended Squitter" > capability), OR that you would need to add a UAT transmitter (978UAT) -- > in addition to your Mode-C / Mode-S transponder. The UAT has to > integrate with your existing Mode-C / Mode-S transponder to pick up the > transponder squawk code (among other things) to include in the ADS-B OUT > data stream. > > If you remain within the US borders, and never fly above 18,000 feet, > 978UAT is "good enough". And since an "ab-initio" UAT solution > (including the WAAS GPS receiver) can be less expensive to install, > about 20-25% of the aircraft equipping for ADS-B are taking that option. > > But, if you fly above 18,000 feet, you will be required to use the > 1090ES version. And if you fly internationally (Canada, Mexico, > Carribean, etc.), the odds are pretty good that you will also need the > 1090ES version. To this point, ICAO has not recognized 978 UAT as a > "standard", so it may wind up being a "US only" option. Thus far, the > vast majority of aircraft upgrading to ADS-B OUT seem to be doing 1090ES > upgrades -- something like 75-80% of the ADS-B OUT fleet is 1090ES, > depending on whose data you use. As for cost, those who already have a > certified WAAS-GPS receiver may find it far less expensive to go this > route. My previous airplane that had a 430W and a GTX-330 cost me well > under $2,000 to upgrade to 1090ES by upgrading the 330 to 330ES ($1,200 > through Garmin) and wiring the 430W to the 330ES ($500-600 to the > avionics shop doing that work). > > Jim Parker > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About > Transponders > From: Charlie England > Date: Sun, February 12, 2017 3:06 pm > To: "aeroelectric-list@matronics.com" > > To be clear, there *will be* a new requirement. In 2020, but not at the > moment. The FAA certainly held to its traditional Pro Grade Obfuscation > in writing the upcoming regs, but basically you'll need ADSB out, with a > Certifiable WAAS position source. *And* you'll need to keep a > traditional transponder with encoder, unless you go with a Mode S with > Extended Squitter (remember offuscation?). > > Opinions vary widely on whether ADSB prices will continue to fall, or > start to rise, as 2020 approaches. > > > Charlie > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:29 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z12 Question From: "user9253" Don, I have no experience with hall effect sensors, so can not advise. That sensor could be mounted on the cold side of the firewall, but would require another wire through the firewall, 12 or 10 AWG, whatever the alternator requires. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466088#466088 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:57 PM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z12 Question Yeah it would need to come in, through hall effect and then bach out. Trying to avoid the extra penetrations. Think I will just try the hall effect on the hot side of FW. Don On Feb 12, 2017 16:02, "user9253" wrote: > > Don, I have no experience with hall effect sensors, so can not advise. > That sensor could be mounted on the cold side of the firewall, but would > require another wire through the firewall, 12 or 10 AWG, whatever the > alternator requires. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466088#466088 > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:38:57 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z12 Question From: "user9253" The wire would not have to go back out. Just connect it to the main power bus with a fuse or circuit breaker. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466097#466097 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About Transponders From: Kelly McMullen Last I heard the 430/530 software had been patched, as it was required for all transponders, not just non-Garmin. Garmin had to fix the data stream output that wasn't 100% compliant. When they did that it became ADSB+ output, and both the GPS and the transponder had to have software updates to use that specific format. I'm using a GTN650 with a Trig/Dynon transponder, and I had to update both. My avionics shop got the update from Garmin. On 2/12/2017 3:16 PM, don van santen wrote: > Jim, > You are correct wit is that h regaeds to the Garmin transponders. The > information that I have from Trig i and a Avidyne 540Ts that Garmin > 430w/530w are not approved as the gps source unless they are updated per > Garmin. The software update is not currently available and may never > become available. My work around is a Trig/Dynon 261 mode s and an > Avidyne 540T all certified and approved. Only draw back was the price. > Don > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:44 PM, > wrote: > > > > > Dion said: > << At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved list. This > may change with software updates. >> > > I don't believe that statement is true, as both of these WAAS-equipped > devices ARE approved GPS sources for any of the Garmin ADS-B Out > transponders. I had a GTX-330 upgraded to 330ES (around $1200) by > Garmin, then connected to my 430W (cost about $600 for the shop to > rewire to add the GPS connector to the 330ES). This was fully approved, > and passed all the FAA's ADS-B Out testing. And a friend who had a 530W > and 330 did the same with his plane, and likewise passed the FAA > testing. I also know of several people who have upgraded to Garmin 335 > and 345 transponders and used their 430W/530W as the GPS-WAAS source for > their ADS-B installations. > > One possible source of confusion might be that the older non-WAAS > 4XX/5XX models are NOT approved because they lack the WAAS GPS > capability. A non-WAAS 430 (or 530) would need to be upgraded to 430W > (or 530W) to add the WAAS capability. This can only be done by Garmin, > and I think they charge something like $3,000 (IIRC) to upgrade the > units. > > But the bigger issue for Garmin 430W/530W owners is working with > non-Garmin ADS-B transponders... I believe the issue is that (at least > at one time) the Trig ADS-B transponder (which is re-sold by Avidyne and > several others under their own company name) was NOT certified with the > 430W/530W. Obviously, Garmin had no interest in pursuing certification > with someone else's equipment, and although I think Trig eventually > certified their own proprietary brand unit with the 430W/530W, > apparently the other companies that were re-selling the Trig unit did > not pursue certification with the Garmin either. But check into it, > because this stuff changes very rapidly. > > Jim Parker > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Everything I Need To Know About > Transponders > From: don van santen > > Date: Sun, February 12, 2017 2:43 pm > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > > One additional comment. The external waas certified gps must also be on > the approved list for the mode S transponder that it is feeding location > information. At this point the Garmin 430w/530w are not on any approved > list. This may change with software updates. Garmin did noy mention the > 480 so it is currently an unknown. > > On Feb 12, 2017 12:36 PM, "Kelly McMullen" > wrote: > > > > There is no change in the airspace requiring a transponder. However, > there is a new requirement for ADS-B equipment. There are two ways to > comply. You can either get a Mode S transponder that has software to > give the data output needed, or you can get a UAT unit that is tied to > your Mode C transponder. Either variety has to have either an internal > GPS that meets requirements, or be connected to a certified WAAS IFR > GPS. There are a number of sources for the information, including > manufacturers. However, a lot will confuse the issue. > The requirements are only to transmit the required data stream. > > There are no reception requirements, but that is another entire ball of > wax, as to what traffic and weather you do or don't receive, and how you > display it in the cockpit. Very useful, but not required. > Kelly > > On 2/12/2017 11:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 09:58 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > Just wondering where I should begin looking for more information on > transponders. Is there a source of information I could access that > would answer questions, such as what are the minimum requirements for > transponders? What are the equipment standards for transponders? > What should I look for in a new transponders? Are there changes coming > in the standardization? What is this ADB(?) all about? I will > appreciate your comments and suggestions. If there are other > questions I should be asking, please address them as well. Thank for > considering my inquiry. > > I've not kept current with the requirements > or all the features/options in the transponder > world. I've posted this question to the > AeroElectric-List. There are folks on tha > service with a great deal more knowledge on > this topic. > > > Bob . . . > > =================================== > - > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > =================================== > FORUMS - > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com > > =================================== > WIKI - > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com > > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > =================================== > > =========================== > - > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > WIKI - > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:17:06 PM PST US From: speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom antenna junction box Dean, I was one of those who was wondering if my "SL30 failure" might have been caused by the Icom junction box (I have mine wired like yours) but I just got word from the radio shop that the problem exists in the SL30. The radio is on the way to Garmin for a $500 repair. So, at this point I cannot say the Icom unit is causing any issue. Stan Sutterfield RV-8A Daytona Beach, FL Someone was asking on this forum about issues with the Icom antenna junction box installed in their plane. I put in one of those in between my SL-30 Nav/Com and my belly antenna on the RV-6A. I've had a lot of scratchy and not so great transmissions/reception on that Radio. I didn't think that maybe if would be that junction box. I like the idea because it makes it easy to plug in my hand held and use my outside antenna. But I've never had to do that so if the junction box is causing crappy tx/Rx on that radio I'll take it out of the loop. I know the SL-30 is a great radio so this has puzzled me since I finished the RV. Did whomever it was figure out whether the Icom junction box was causing radio Tx/Rx problems or not? Does the junction box need to be removed from the loop or is there some I can do to fix it? Thanks Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Tarpon Sprgs, FL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.