1. Becker Atc 4401-1 Manual Pdf

PILOT’S GUIDETranspondersBuyer’s GuideB y Pau l N ovac e k COMPARISON CHART on pages 76 & 77The venerable transponder pulses asking all aircraft to send The ACSS RCZ-852 Mode Soriginally was developed a message back. This is where diversity transponder is optimizedin the 1940s for the war- the transponder earns its keep. For regional, corporate aircraft andtime need of identifying friendly helicopters.aircraft from adversaries.

Then The aircraft transponder listenscalled an IFF (identify friend for these pulses on a frequency this autonomous communica-or foe), the transponder has of 1030 MHz. The transponder tion between opposing aircraftevolved into a vital part of our circuits determine what kind of is done over the Mode S tran-air traffic control system. Without information the ground station sponder data link. Therefore, alltransponders, ground controllers wants, then transmits back a TCAS II aircraft must have Modewouldn’t know where anyone series of pulses on 1090 MHz. S transponders.was, and the chaos soon would Those series of pulses containresult in aluminum rain.

Information, and depending Mode S offers more, however.on what type of information A substantial upgrade in technol-Air traffic control (ATC) facili- is requested, the transponder ogy over the standard ATCRBS,ties use both primary and sec- sends either the squawk code the Mode select beacon systemondary radar systems. The (Mode A), the pressure altitude (Mode S) was designed to doprimary system uses the big dish (Mode C) or the coded aircraft three things: provide plane-to-antenna seen rotating atop a identification (Mode S). Plane TCAS II communication;tower. A high frequency and very allow two-way electronic connec-strong signal is sent into the sur- A word about Mode S capabil- tions for ATC communications;rounding sky, only to return when ity: The collision avoidance sys- and provide traffic informationbounced off objects.

Then, this tem TCAS II (ACAS II in Europe) service (TIS) from FAA ATC radarreflected echo is analyzed so an allows nearby aircraft to commu- systems.object’s direction and distance nicate with each other and arrivecan be displayed on a big round at a conflict resolution, taking TIS gives pilots access toindicator screen. But this primary each out of the other’s path.

The information on up to sevenradar technique has many limita- decision is made electronically nearby aircraft, including eachtions because it not only detects for one aircraft to climb while the airplane’s relative location, direc-aircraft, it also detects trucks, other is commanded to dive. All tion of flight and relative altitude.trees and mountains. This data-linked traffic informa- 74 - tion then is presented in real-timeStep in the secondary sur- on a panel moving-map display.veillance radar system, other-wise known as the air traffic Avionics designed for largecontrol radar beacon system and air transport aircraft gener-or ATCRBS. This system usesa smaller directional antennamounted atop the big rotat-ing dish.

This secondary radarantenna sends out a series ofally combine the entire avionics sponder poised for future growth. Dzus-mounted unit certified forsuite into a completely inte- More than 4,000 XS-950 tran- unrestricted service to 62,700grated system. Although the sponders have been delivered to feet. It displays the squawk codetransponder typically is a sepa- more than 100 operators world- in its left window and its operat-rate remotely mounted unit, its wide since the product debuted ing mode or flight level altitudeintegration into the entire system in 1996. In its right window. A stored VFRprevents any meaningful price code, such as 1200, can becomparisons.

Therefore, this The XS-950 Mode S tran- recalled quickly with the VFRBuyer’s Guide focuses on tran- sponder is easily upgradeable push button. To facilitate dualsponders designed for retrofit for tomorrow’s technology transponder installations, provi-or original equipment in general requirements. Major functional- sions are included for automaticaviation, corporate aircraft and ity upgrades, such as ICAO transfer of one transponder tohelicopters. Level V data link or pending the standby mode when theUnited States transponder secu- other transponder is selectedThe accompanying chart offers rity modifications (also known for normal. This prevents botha brief description and starting as the hijack mode), are easily transponders transmitting at theprice for each unit. Accomplished with software-only same time.changes. Both the RCZ-852 andAviation Communications XS-950 have all the required The ATC-4401 series of Mode& Surveillance Systems functionality for ACAS II mandate A/C transponders come in fourcompliance, European-enhanced flavors.

The Dash-1 series isA joint venture company of Mode S, and ADS-B. Intended for mounting in stan-L-3 Communications and Thales, dard 2¼-inch instrument holesACSS is located in Phoenix, Ariz. For more information, contact with either 160-watt or 250-wattThe company designs, manu- ACSS at 623-445-7070 or visit transmitters.

The Dash-2 seriesfactures and supports a full line www.acssonboard.com. Offers remote-mounted boxesof avionics for regional airlines, used for installations when panelbusiness aviation, general avia- Becker Avionics depth is limited. A 2½-inch deeption and military customers, as CU-5401 control unit is installedwell as all aircraft operating in The German manufacturer in a 2¼-inch instrument hole. Thethe former Soviet Union. Thales Becker Flugfunkwert GmbH was control unit offers a clear, high-Avionics is the exclusive sales founded in 1956, and it brought contrast, double-line LCD displayand support agent of ACSS prod- the world’s first transistorized sin- readable under all lighting condi-ucts to commercial air transport gle-block airborne receiver into tions, even bright sunlight. Whencustomers operating Airbus and the market.

As technology devel- an altitude encoder is connected,Boeing aircraft. Oped, the company produced the reported altitude is displayeda comprehensive, high-quality below the transponder code toThe ACSS RCZ-852 is a range of communications and verify correct operation of thefull-featured Mode S diversity navigation products, which are entire system.transponder currently flying on used all over the world in militarymore than 2,500 regional and and civil aircraft. To accommodate Mode Sbusiness aircraft.

Its small, light- requirements, the Becker BXP-weight package is optimized for The Becker ATC-3401 is aregional and corporate aircraft as complete Mode A/C transpon- Continued on following pagewell as helicopters, and is eas- der housed in a single, compactily compatible with all currentlyavailable TCAS I and TCAS II Becker Avionics ATC-3401systems.

I'm wondering if someone could explain how the UAT Out system works? I understand Out through a ES transponder but the UAT Out isn't clear to me. I realize that a WAAS GPS is needed but I've read somewhere that a Mode C transponder could be linked with the approved GPS and work as an Out solution. Is this correct?In a nutshell, ADS-B out is a transponder signal, with an ID and position signal 'piggy backing' out of the same antenna.

If you have a transponder with RS-232 data lines, you can PROBABLY (some will work, some will not) build an ADS-B out system with it. Connect the UAT box to the transponder via the 232 lines and connect a WAAS enable GPS signal to the UAT via 232 or 429 data lines. Some UAT boxes have a WAAS GPS built in to simplify installation.When the ADS-b signal is called for, The GPS sends the location fix to the UAT box, which sends that location and an aircraft ID to the transponder, which sends all this information out the antenna.Web. In a nutshell, ADS-B out is a transponder signal, with an ID and position signal 'piggy backing' out of the same antenna. If you have a transponder with RS-232 data lines, you can PROBABLY (some will work, some will not) build an ADS-B out system with it.

Connect the UAT box to the transponder via the 232 lines and connect a WAAS enable GPS signal to the UAT via 232 or 429 data lines. Some UAT boxes have a WAAS GPS built in to simplify installation.When the ADS-b signal is called for, The GPS sends the location fix to the UAT box, which sends that location and an aircraft ID to the transponder, which sends all this information out the antenna.WebThat triggers the memory on the RS-232 port.

Do you know if the Becker 4401 has an RS-232 port? I have this transponder in the Cub and if I decide to go with an Out on this plane I'm looking at options.In the Cessna I'm installing a Garmin GTX 335 as the Out.

And for an In solution I have a Garmin 796 that I move easily from one plane to the other. And the GDL 39 3D is coming with the GTX 335. That portability plus the 3D Bluetooth output to the 796 providing attitude information seemed like a better In compromise than the GTX 345 transponder which sends the Out along with Bluetoothed In to a 796 but no attitude data or transfer to another plane.The FAA $500 rebate and Garmin's current $100 rebate on the GDL portables come close to paying for this In solution too since I already had the 796.I do understand the In limitations without an Out transponder in the Cub.

'In the Cessna I'm installing a Garmin GTX 335 as the Out.' Spinner2, Which model of the 335 are you installing? Do you have to use the one with the GPS to be legal?I'm having a bit of trouble understanding all the details of the requirements.Hi Gerald,I am installing the GTX 335 with GPS.

It has to be a WAAS GPS as Web points out. And this is a certified airplane and I have no other WAAS source.I think Garmin's sales specifications state that the GDL 39 has a GPS with WAAS accuracy but I think they stop short of calling it a WAAS. Even for experimental, the GPS position source must either be a certified unit OR the manufacturer has to show he FAA that it meets the equivalent performance to the TSO'ed units. The Aera and / or GDL-39 do not meet that standard - they never tried to do so.

Dynon and some of the other experimental EFIS manufacturers have apparently met the 'equivalent performance' standard, but not all have (or will) meet that standard. Check with your EFIS vendor to be sure.Where is this written? Vendors say lots of things to cover their legal behinds. I need to see it in an FAR.Web.

It's not in the FAR, but on the official FAA 'Equip ADS-B FAQ' website. Here's the link: down to the question:'I operate an amateur built experimental aircraft.

What should I install?' The ADS-B Out equipment installed in an aircraft must meet the performance requirements of the ADS-B TSOs.

A TSO authorization, issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21 subpart O, is not required. However, ADS-B Out systems and equipment installed or used in type-certificated aircraft must have a design approval issued under 14 CFR 21 (or must be installed by field approval, if appropriate).The performance requirements include those requirements referenced in section 3 of the applicable TSO (UAT or 1090ES), including considerations for design assurance and environmental qualification.

Deviations to the requirements can be approved for equipment which does obtain a TSO authorization, as identified in 14 CFR 91.227.For experimental category aircraft there is no FAA approval required for the ADS-B Out system installation. Owners of these aircraft may elect to install equipment authorized under a TSO, in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the manufacturer.

Alternatively, owners of these aircraft may elect to purchase uncertified equipment. For uncertified equipment, the owner should obtain a statement of compliance from the supplier, along with installation instructions, that identifies that the ADS-B equipment complies with section 3 requirements of the applicable TSO and that, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions, complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. The FAA expects manufacturers to perform appropriate engineering efforts to ensure the equipment complies with all requirements of Section 3 of the TSO before issuing their statement of compliance, and expects installers to consider the guidance in the current version of AC 20-165B when performing the installation.Owners of experimental aircraft should retain the statement of compliance from the equipment supplier in the aircraft records to assist in resolving in-service issues, should they arise. The FAA monitors compliance to the ADS-B Out requirements, and if the equipment, or an installation, is determined to be noncompliant the operator may not be able to enter the airspace designated in 14 CFR 91.225 until the equipment or installation is brought into compliance. If you have a WAAS enabled GPS already installed, you can use that as your position source.

If not, you'll have to install a Waas GPS or install an ADS-B system with a WAAS GPS built in.WebIt has to be better than just a WAAS GPS. There are lots of GPS units out there that claim to be WAAS, but when used as a position source for ADS-B Out will report SIL = 0. (SIL = System Integrity Level) Starting last January, the FAA stopped replying to ADS-B Out units reporting SIL=0. I have a friend that was using a GDL39 as his position source for his ADS-B Out (UAT).

Starting last January, he stopped receiving ADS-B traffic from the ADS-B towers because his unit is reporting SIL=0. Same for another friend using a Dynon Skyview GPS source that was reporting SIL=0 on his 1090-ES ADS-B Out. SIL 3 vs SIL 0 has to do with how quickly and how accurately the WAAS features in the GPS unit correct for errors from the GPS constellations. This is the battle currently being waged by NavWorx. Their units are WAAS GPS and report a SIL 3.

The FAA says they should be reporting themselves as SIL 0. However, the FAA hasn't proven the inaccuracies in the NavWorx GPS units, and apparently NavWorx hasn't been able to show enough proof to the FAA to convince them their units should be reporting as SIL 3.

So, for right now, they are deadlocked and finger pointing while the FAA has issued an A.D. To take certain NavWorx unit out of service.Even for the ADS-B Out unit I have in one of my Experimentals, the manufacturer had to demonstrate to the FAA that he had tested his unit to meet the same standards as the TSO. With that proof, he can sell his units for Experimental and Light Sport Aircraft. He has been working with the FAA on a TSO approval for over 2 years now.The only way to know for sure whether you can use a specific GPS as an ADS-B GPS source is to ask the manufacturer.-Cub Builder. The SIL 0 vs SIL 3 is the unit self reporting it's System Integrity Level as set in the software. It is not a running analysis of the system.

That is something that could be hacked if one wanted to put in the effort, but reporting incorrectly can also be detected via the reporting error rate, and the feds may come calling if you are reporting SIL 3, but have a high position error rate. What the Feds are saying about NavWorx is that they installed a software patch to make the units in question report SIL 3 even though they have not demonstrated to the feds satisfaction that it meets that level of system integrity. They are playing similar games with many of the manufacturers. I got a recall notice on my ADS-B unit this week as the feds decided that the data blocks they approved last year are not OK this year. So my unit has to go back to the manufacturer for a firmware update to change the format of the datablock for pressure altitude reporting.-Cub Builder. When the feds say that there are no FAA approvals required for experimentals, I'll take them at their word.I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but it could be interpreted as 'anything goes', and I don't believe that's what the Feds intended at all. The FAQ response says there is no FAA approvals required for the installation itself, as long as you follow the manufacturer's installation instructions.

But it most certainly does not say the ADS-B equipment doesn't need to meet any requirements, just that it doesn't have to be 'certified' by the FAA as meeting those TSO requirements. They are giving additional latitude to EAB owners and the suppliers of experimental equipment to 'self-certify' by providing a statement that the equipment meets the performance standards of the TSO, without having to go through the entire TSO certification process. I'll stay out of the FAA / NavWorx pissing contest, as there appears to be a lot of 'he said / she said' arguments going back and forth. I'm sad for all those people who thought they were 'done' with the 2020 compliance, and are now facing a double-whammy if the NPRM goes through to AD status. I'm also sad that NavWorx has had their TSO pulled over this whole fiasco. Seems like a draconian response to something that could probably have been resolved over a beer.It's worth noting that the FAA and NavWorx are only tussling over a small number of their units that had been broadcasting SIL 0, then had a firmware update to change them to SIL 3 without any modifications to the WAAS GPS Unit. NavWorx made the change thanks to the FAA cutting off TIS-B response to all units broadcasting SIL 0 & SDA 0.

The FAA claims the firmware patch was unauthorized, not because the NavWorx WAAS GPS didn't meet spec, but because they had not proven to the FAAs satisfaction that it met spec. Dynon also did the same for some SkyView units as well depending on which GPS was installed with the unit.Current NavWorx production units are already broadcasting SIL3 and the FAA is fine with that. I wouldn't be afraid of a new NavWorx device.

Depending on the outcome of the proposed A.D. (due Dec 20) for some of the older units, the A.D. May be rescinded, or NavWorx will provide an upgrade path to convert those units to the newer part number that the FAA accepts as meeting spec.

I would expect there will be some cost involved as NavWorx may have to replace the GPS or the WAAS correction board in the unit, but I would also expect NavWorx to make it as painless as possible. The bad part of this is that NavWorx is undoubtedly taking a hit on their sales thanks to all the negative publicity even though this has nothing to do with their current production.The problem here is that the FAA keeps changing the rules without actually changing the TSO. At first WAAS GPS that resulted in a SIL 0 and SDA 0 was fine. Then the FAA decided they would 'encourage' manufacturers to use better GPS units by shutting off responses to units broadcasting SIL 0 and SDA 0. Just my opinion, but I don't really care whether I have 3 meter or 30 meter accuracy on the traffic near me. I care about knowing where they are a few miles out.

Closer than about 2 - 3 miles, I want eyes on the traffic much more so than my display. With the FAA changing the rules, I don't blame people for waiting. I'm still waiting to equip the second plane.-Cub Builder. It's worth noting that the FAA and NavWorx are only tussling over a small number of their units that had been broadcasting SIL 0, then had a firmware update to change them to SIL 3 without any modifications to the WAAS GPS Unit. NavWorx made the change thanks to the FAA cutting off TIS-B response to all units broadcasting SIL 0 & SDA 0. The FAA claims the firmware patch was unauthorized, not because the NavWorx WAAS GPS didn't meet spec, but because they had not proven to the FAAs satisfaction that it met spec.

Dynon also did the same for some SkyView units as well depending on which GPS was installed with the unit.Current NavWorx production units are already broadcasting SIL3 and the FAA is fine with that. I wouldn't be afraid of a new NavWorx device. Depending on the outcome of the proposed A.D. (due Dec 20) for some of the older units, the A.D. May be rescinded, or NavWorx will provide an upgrade path to convert those units to the newer part number that the FAA accepts as meeting spec. I would expect there will be some cost involved as NavWorx may have to replace the GPS or the WAAS correction board in the unit, but I would also expect NavWorx to make it as painless as possible.

The bad part of this is that NavWorx is undoubtedly taking a hit on their sales thanks to all the negative publicity even though this has nothing to do with their current production.The problem here is that the FAA keeps changing the rules without actually changing the TSO. At first WAAS GPS that resulted in a SIL 0 and SDA 0 was fine. Then the FAA decided they would 'encourage' manufacturers to use better GPS units by shutting off responses to units broadcasting SIL 0 and SDA 0. Just my opinion, but I don't really care whether I have 3 meter or 30 meter accuracy on the traffic near me. I care about knowing where they are a few miles out.

Closer than about 2 - 3 miles, I want eyes on the traffic much more so than my display. With the FAA changing the rules, I don't blame people for waiting.The problem here is that the FAA keeps changing the rules without actually changing the TSO.With the FAA changing the rules, I don't blame people for waiting.Since they can't seem to make up their mind exactly what they want, I keep hoping that the whole boondoggle witll just go away.Like the 406 ELT requirement that was a big deal just a few years ago.At minimum, they need to push back that 2020 deadline, it looks like they might still be doing a soft-shoe routine with the technical requirements then. Accuses FAA Of ’Sabotage’Last month, the FAA said (it was de-certifying some NavWorx ADS-B units, which have been the subject of an ongoing dispute, and now NavWorx President Bill Moffitt has issued a statement to customers and dealers claiming that the FAA has “sabotaged” NavWorx’s business.

The problems began, Moffitt says, when the FAA implemented a service change in January that affects the data received by certain transponders. About 700 NavWorx customers have installed these products, which no longer are able to display all of the airborne traffic. Moffitt says the FAA approved its plans for the product, but since making the system change, the FAA has been unresponsive to NavWorx’s efforts to fix the problem.The statement details a number of efforts the company has made to solve the problem, including replacing the internal GPS module, but the FAA 'never showed up' to witness the testing. “We can only conclude that the FAA is deliberately sabotaging our business,” Moffitt says.

“The FAA has a mandate to create a safe National Airspace System (NAS), but instead have created an on-going risk of mid-air collisions for our 700 certified systems for almost a year now.” The FAA said, in its emergency order last month, that NavWorx has “declined on repeated occasions to allow FAA personnel to conduct the required inspections.”. Might have mentioned this before or in another thread, but I still think that this company is going to be bringing their little ADS-B out box to GA as the next step. FAA just approved it for drones, which while it's not the same, it's a good place to get going I expect.:Looks like the info above is less important. This link below is approved for EXP. And it could be they are simply waiting on FAA approval for certified A/C.http://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-atu-20/.

I would guess that Navworx got into it with whoever their FAA point-of-contact is,now he is getting even with them & the FAA is blindly backing him up.I hate to think that about the FAA, but I've experienced that sort of thing with smaller local bureaucraciesand have no reason to believe that its any different with larger federal ones.Very hard to deal with, when the other side has all the cards.Interesting side note that puts the NavWorx squabble in a slightly different light. I got an email from the manufacturer of my ADS-B unit last month saying that the FAA had mandated a firmware upgrade and they would notify me when to ship it back for the patch.

Mine went in before Christmas and was back in less than a week. When I opened the box, there was a new GPS antenna in the box and a letter from the manufacturer saying that my unit had a new higher accuracy GPS installed that will require the included active antenna to work properly. Apparently they also got caught up with the same issue as NavWorx, but rather than battling it out with the FAA, these guys just ate the cost and installed a new GPS receiver in the unit along with a firmware patch of some sort.

My only cost was to ship the unit to them.-Cub Builder. I am hoping that those with more knowledge with ADS-B can shed some light on what I've experienced with my setup. This past winter I installed a Garmin GTX 335 transponder in my Cessna for Out in that airplane. I go into some Class C and under some class B at times. For an In solution I got a GDL 39 3D that bluetooths to my Garmin 796. I went with the GDL as the In rather than a GTX 345 transponder which has In and Out because I move the 796 and now the GDL 39 between the Cessna and the Cub.It it has been my understanding and experience that the TiSB uplink from the ground towers won't provide traffic information unless you're equipped with an Out transponder or close enough to another plane receiving that data to piggyback off of them.Today I was returning home from a cross country flight in the Cub. The Cub has a mode C transponder but no ADS-B Out.

Getting close to home I noticed on the 796 map page an N number and target arrow moving crossways to my path at 12:00 and about 10 miles out. The icon that turns on when the GDL is receiving TISB data was not on. I was within a marginal area to receive a signal though. The air-to-air icon is always on. Obviously that plane had ADSB Out because his N number was displayed. But my Cub doesn't have Out.

My understanding is that air-to-air only works with two Out equipped planes close to each other.So so how was I receiving that target information?For whatever it's worth, I like the technology. I am aware of traffic I would never had seen before. For those that say we need to look out the window to see traffic, I agree.

But it helps a lot to know where to look. That is pretty much the case. If you have a dual channel receiver (978 & 1090 Mhz), you will receive the traffic with ADS-B Out that is near you. Since they have ADS-B Out, they will trigger the tower to broadcast traffic information for Mode-C traffic that is near them. You may be close enough to get an accurate traffic picture, or you may be on the edge of the area that's being broadcast to them, so you may only get a partial traffic picture for you, but an accurate picture of their traffic.

Mode-C traffic is usually pretty sketchy in that it pops up on the screen intermittently. The mode-C traffic coverage varies significantly depending on Radar and ADS-B Tower coverage.-Cub Builder. That is pretty much the case. If you have a dual channel receiver (978 & 1090 Mhz), you will receive the traffic with ADS-B Out that is near you. Since they have ADS-B Out, they will trigger the tower to broadcast traffic information for Mode-C traffic that is near them.

You may be close enough to get an accurate traffic picture, or you may be on the edge of the area that's being broadcast to them, so you may only get a partial traffic picture for you, but an accurate picture of their traffic. Mode-C traffic is usually pretty sketchy in that it pops up on the screen intermittently. The mode-C traffic coverage varies significantly depending on Radar and ADS-B Tower coverage.-Cub BuilderI looked on Garmin's site and it sounds as though the GDL 39, which receives both the 978 and 1090 frequencies, will get an ADS-B out direct from the other airplane. Though it is not refered to as air-to-air online. I thought it had to be rebroadcast by a tower.In this case he was about 2000' higher and closer to the ground tower than I was and we both had good radar coverage. So he should have seen me as a Mode C target through a rebroadcast.Good to know. The more I use this system the more I like it.

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

Interesting side note that puts the NavWorx squabble in a slightly different light. I got an email from the manufacturer of my ADS-B unit last month saying that the FAA had mandated a firmware upgrade.Apparently they also got caught up with the same issue as NavWorx, but rather than battling it out with the FAA, these guys just ate the cost and installed a new GPS receiver in the unit along with a firmware patch of some sort. My only cost was to ship the unit to them.Sounds like that was the smarter way to handle the situation.Which unit do you have?And whatever happened with NavWorx, are they back in the game yet? For you who might be interested there are some good discussions on this topic over on the Beechtalk forums as well as Vans.

I learned something over there that maybe some would be interested in. If you want to find a very good price on the Stratus ESG. Email this shop I'm not connected in anyway but have emailed him a couple times and was amazed what he will sell that unit for. So good I may change my mind and go with that product.

I have had issues with the Stratus 2 so am not fully convinced that they are the way to go. (It took three try's to get them to get me a unit that worked, and that one had connector problems). I have not yet heard of issues with the ESG so maybe it is made a bit better. Sounds like that was the smarter way to handle the situation.Which unit do you have?And whatever happened with NavWorx, are they back in the game yet?I can't find a direct quote, but it seems that NavWorx offered an upgrade to modify the offending models to a different model number that the FAA says complies.My unit is a SkyGuard TWX for Experimentals. I like the unit, and the owner's support has been fantastic, but it has some down sides as well.

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

Disappointing, but highly predictable once they started their 'war' with the FAA. They demonstrated their disregard for both the FAA and for their customers when they initiated the conflict by unilaterally changing their software without any review/approval through the FAA - knowing all the while that it was a violation of their TSO to do so. Customers be damned.Now they've stranded approximately 800 customers who purchased their 'TSO'ec' ADS-B units that were non-compliant, and which must now be removed (and replaced before 2020, I suppose). And there are probably many more experimental owners whose purchased units were NOT affected by the AD, but will now be unable to get any service for them in the future. Seems like just another 'temper tantrum' to shut down operations without pursuing alternative solutions - which are clearly available through other component vendors.As for 'only doing business with tried and true outfits like Garmin'.

It's not like Garmin's skirts are completely clean in terms of abandoning customers, either. They walked away from supporting thousands of early GPS adopters. And if it wasn't for Appareo's launch (and runaway sales success) of the ESG, do you think we'd be seeing $2995 pricing for the GTX-335? We need to support other vendors besides Garmin, lest they achieve 100% market share, where they can dictate pricing, upgrades, etc. Disappointing, but highly predictable once they started their 'war' with the FAA. They demonstrated their disregard for both the FAA and for their customers when they initiated the conflict by unilaterally changing their software without any review/approval through the FAA - knowing all the while that it was a violation of their TSO to do so. Customers be damned.Now they've stranded approximately 800 customers who purchased their 'TSO'ec' ADS-B units that were non-compliant, and which must now be removed (and replaced before 2020, I suppose).

And there are probably many more experimental owners whose purchased units were NOT affected by the AD, but will now be unable to get any service for them in the future. Seems like just another 'temper tantrum' to shut down operations without pursuing alternative solutions - which are clearly available through other component vendors.As for 'only doing business with tried and true outfits like Garmin'.

It's not like Garmin's skirts are completely clean in terms of abandoning customers, either. They walked away from supporting thousands of early GPS adopters. And if it wasn't for Appareo's launch (and runaway sales success) of the ESG, do you think we'd be seeing $2995 pricing for the GTX-335? We need to support other vendors besides Garmin, lest they achieve 100% market share, where they can dictate pricing, upgrades, etc.You might want to go back and read some of the earlier articles on these units.

Navworx didn't initiate a pissing contest they had units in production 'decertified'. That means the feds ok'd the production and then said 'stop'. Navworx had a good thing going and had their production stopped.

While they tried to work out a solution, they were threatened with an AD. Sounds just a bit heavy handed.Web. You might want to go back and read some of the earlier articles on these units. Navworx didn't initiate a pissing contest they had units in production 'decertified'.

That means the feds ok'd the production and then said 'stop'. Navworx had a good thing going and had their production stopped.

While they tried to work out a solution, they were threatened with an AD. Sounds just a bit heavy handed.WebI've read them all, including the FAA's letters to NavWorx. I see zero evidence, either from the letters and documents that NavWorx published, nor from the letters and documents the FAA has published, that NavWorx made ANY efforts to work with the FAA to find a solution.

Becker Atc 4401-1 Manual Pdf

Things got so acrimonious that the FAA took the unprecedented step of publishing many of the emails and documents exchanged with NavWorx. I believe this was a response to NavWorx broad insinuation of FAA corruption and payoffs by an unnamed 'large manufacturer of GPS, avionics, and ADS-B devices' to get the FAA to 'shut down' NavWorx. NavWorx behaved like a petulant 3-year-old, and eventually the FAA was forced to revoke the TSO and publish the AD.NavWorx devices were indeed TSO'ed – with software that broadcast SIL level of '0' (the lowest performance level). The FAA agreed that the devices met that standard, thus issuing the TSO. There would have been no TSO revocation, nor any AD issuance, had NavWorx continued to build the units PER THEIR TSO. The problem occurred when NavWorx made what the FAA (and pretty much anyone reading the tea leaves here) considered to be a significant change to the software.

They began broadcasting SIL level 3 instead of 0. That's a whole different class of data to the FAA, and NavWorx definitely knew that.Why did NavWorx do that? Well, sometime after their TSO was granted, the FAA clarified the rules, such that ADS-B traffic broadcasts would only be relayed from the ground stations to aircraft broadcasting SIL level 3 (the more accurate GPS signals that the entire NextGen system was designed around). NavWorx was (perhaps understandably) upset with this 'rule change' and felt it was unfair. Rather than go through the FAA approval process (as required by their existing TSO) to change their software, they chose to unilaterally change that software to broadcast SIL level 3, and distribute it to their customers without obtaining FAA approval - a clear violation of their TSO and the TSO approval process.

When the FAA found out about it, NavWorx tried to justify their actions by blaming the FAA for 'changing the rules mid-stream' (which is indeed one way of looking at the change to require SIL level 3, but it doesn't matter - the rules are what the FAA says they are).At that point, the FAA was still perfectly willing to sit down with NavWorx and review the engineering data to formalize the TSO approval of the new software (and here's the key point) PROVIDED that NavWorx could show that the GPS chip they were using actually did meet the requirements set down for SIL level 3 broadcast. NavWorx was very public with their claims that the chip they were using met the FAA standards, and that they had the engineering data to prove it. NavWorx set an appointment with the FAA inspectors to come review that data so they could get that TSO approval. Remember: At this point, the NavWorx TSO was still in effect, with the FAA only calling for them to roll back that software update or prove compliance with the TSO standard.So, on the date for which the meeting was scheduled, the FAA folks showed up at NavWorx (remember - this was a meeting requested by NavWorx). Much to their surprise, they were turned away and refused admittance to the facility. (NavWorx later claimed their chief engineer was on vacation on that day, which begs the question 'Why would you request an engineering review meeting with the FAA on a date when your chief engineer is on vacation?'

) Shortly thereafter (with a few more emails exchanged), the FAA revoked the TSO for the NavWorx units, and began the NPRM process which led to the AD.Then suddenly, a few days ago, the NaxWorx home page (shows the following:The ADS600-B Gen 2.0 product utilizes a GPS module from a third-party vendor. Although the vendor represented their GPS module met 14 CFR 91.227, the FAA recently determined the GPS module does not meet 14 CFR 91.227.We are unable to sell the ADS600-B, or provide AD updates, for either certified or experimental aircraft.Therefore, we are not currently conducting any business and have ceased operations.We will provide updates if they become available.Draw your own conclusions. I feel very sorry for their customer base.

And the airlines are asking for an exemption to the ADSB mandate. GAis getting screwed by them and the big avionics manufactures in my opinion. EAA and AOPA did very little to help, of course their big advertisers are making a lot of money off of it.What a buncha BS!!IMHO this ADS-B stuff is all about airliners & that sort of flying-hence the mandate to have it in A B & C airspace as well as in the mode C veil,but not in lesser airspaces.Now the airlines want an exemption?Well, I want one too! And the airlines are asking for an exemption to the ADSB mandate. GAis getting screwed by them and the big avionics manufactures in my opinion.

EAA and AOPA did very little to help, of course their big advertisers are making a lot of money off of it.As I understand it, the airlines already got an exemption from the required newer, higher accuracy GPS until 2025, but must install the rest of ADS-B Out by 2020. The stated reason is that certification is needed for each airliner model and variant, volumes are low, and certified units won't be available in time for installation.Added: this is another example of FAA certification standards getting in the way of its own objectives. Satellite tracking is another area. Instead of making it easier to certify and upgrade the GPS, the FAA relaxed accuracy and moved the deadline. I was talking with an airline pilot friend and marveling that my Cub had more modern navigation and tracking than many airliners, when he pointed out that it costs nearly $100k to install a GPS in an airliner.https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/media/Exemption12555.pdf. I looked on Garmin's site and it sounds as though the GDL 39, which receives both the 978 and 1090 frequencies, will get an ADS-B out direct from the other airplane. Though it is not refered to as air-to-air online.

I thought it had to be rebroadcast by a tower.In this case he was about 2000' higher and closer to the ground tower than I was and we both had good radar coverage. So he should have seen me as a Mode C target through a rebroadcast.Good to know. The more I use this system the more I like it. Thanks for the replies.I got an email from Garmin today saying that they have the GTX 335 transponder with a WAAS GPS on sale for just under $3000 now. That was the price without the GPS.

Plus there is the $500 FAA rebate.I had another target pop up on my 796 that I can’t explain. Yesterday I was flying east, at a VFR altitude, through a canyon below radar and ADSB coverage. Slightly ahead of me and probably 1000’ below was opposite direction traffic. The canyon here is maybe a mile wide but plenty of room for both of us. I looked at my 796 and there he was behind me now with the gap widening. The target was a black diamond like rebroadcast Mode C traffic looks.

No N number associated with it. So I don’t think he had ADSB Out for that reason and also because I didn’t see him on the 796 ahead of me, just when he was abeam and behind me.It would seem that the GDL 39 was picking up his transponder directly. A few days earlier I did a software update on the 796 and one of the changes, so it said, was an improvement of ADSB targets. A connection?Anybody else seeing this type of target when you know you’re out of both ADSB and radar coverage?.The target was a black diamond like rebroadcast Mode C traffic looks.

No N number associated with it. So I don’t think he had ADSB Out for that reason and also because I didn’t see him on the 796 ahead of me, just when he was abeam and behind me.What I do about ADS-B you could out in a thimble (and have room left over),but I was just reading up on the Garmin GDL82 and I believe Garmin says it has an 'anonymous' mode where it will not show the tail number on other folk's ADS-b 'in' display. What I do about ADS-B you could out in a thimble (and have room left over),but I was just reading up on the Garmin GDL82 and I believe Garmin says it has an 'anonymous' mode where it will not show the tail number on other folk's ADS-b 'in' display.There is a provision in the TSO for 978-UAT units to broadcast in 'anonymous' mode while squawking 1200 (VFR). This would result in no N-number displayed, and no aircraft information.

But as soon as you enter a discrete transponder code, it begins transmitting your N-number, ICAO identifier, etc. (just like the 1090-ES units, where 'anonymous mode is NOT ever allowed). So it is possible that is what was going on. I think it's more likely that Garmin displayed the wrong symbol when it saw an 'anonymous' target, because a 'Mode-C only' transponder does not 'broadcast' anything - it only 'replies' to interrogations by radar. If spinner2 was seeing positional updates for that target that were 'fluid' (not jumping from position to position based on a new radar sweep), it was almost certainly ADS-B OUT equipped. Jim I couldn’t see it long enough to see if it was jumpy. I know what you’re referring to by that.

It didn’t show until it was a abeam me and because we were flying opposite directions it didn’t stay on the 796 for long.An anonymous UAT seems possible. I saw this same phenonomen once before and I talked to the pilot. He said he had a common Mode C transponder and yet he was on my 796 and I had no ADSB coverage but we both were in radar coverage.The GDL 82 is an interesting option. I downloaded the manual and you can install a switch to turn the anonymity on or off at the pilot’s discretion. And it can be on only when you’re squawking 1200. When turned off or squawking an ATC code it displays your N number.

God of war 3 ps2 game torrent download. Screenshot thumbnail / media file 8 for god of war usa. God of war ascension psp iso torrent. En un cash converters. God of war 3 ps2 iso file. Home Login ROMs, ISOs, & Games Emulators BIOS Files Gaming Music Books, Comics, Guides, & Magazines Retro Game of the Day Game Lists.

Just an uneducated guess, the other traffic's antenna was mounted on it's belly so your airplane didn't see the signal until he was passing you.Could be. The ADSB Out uses a blade type transponder antenna and it should be mounted on the bottom side. The plane looked like a Husky/Cub from the brief look I got. A blue and white one on skis. My engine and his engine could well have been blocking the signal. My GDL39 is mounted above the panel.He he was below me and not offset to the side by much.However it it worked I remain impressed with the technology and system.

Even living in an area with somewhat spotty coverage. I’ve wondered why the ADSB towers are all placed in valleys instead of the tops of mountains? Most of the radar installations are up high.

Missoula being the only exception I can think of. All of the ADSB towers are down at airports or close to them. The rebate is taxable, but no 1099is provided, because the total amount was less than 600 bucks.the article in Avweb this morning, about the postponement of the adsb deadline until 2040, WAS a prank.at least, it better be.Jim, do you remember what worksheet?The one where you list miscellaneous income. It doesn’t get filed — TT just uses it to determine how much income you had, in case you had more than one source of “non-1099” income.A “friend” works for the IRS, and says they know if you got a rebate. So including it when you file is just common sense. Why give them a reason to audit you, over a measly $500 in income?

OK, from what I’ve been able to wade through this morning, fifty Iridiums have already been launched with the adsb receivers aboard. I found ONE statement that indicated that they ONLY monitor 1090 MHz, so, if true, then Alaska cubs and Canada transiting planes had better plan on extended squitter mode S transponders and not 978 MHz equipment.there were also vague statements that the ground portion of the system would become operational towards the end of 2018.This kinda makes sense, as the transponder pulses are about 250 Watts, and the 978 equipment pulses are a lot less.NavCanada is a program participant.

The one where you list miscellaneous income. It doesn’t get filed — TT just uses it to determine how much income you had, in case you had more than one source of “non-1099” income.A “friend” works for the IRS, and says they know if you got a rebate. So including it when you file is just common sense. Why give them a reason to audit you, over a measly $500 in income?Just talked to my CPA about this since I didn't tell them about the $500.

Her opinion is that isn't taxable income since it was a rebate against the purchase of the equipment. However, being the gubmint we know they want as much money as they can get. Actually her comment was 'they are erring on the conservative side. Does the FAA have fine print saying that they are not qualified to give tax advise?' I'll be watching this, if I see comments that folks are getting letters (which is probably where they would start, not audits) then we'll open up the returns and amend them.Thanks for the heads up!JimPS, sorry for the thread drift. Cathy sent me this.FAA's ADS-B Rebate web site has FAQs, including one as to whether the rebate is taxable: Here's the relevant portion:Is the rebate payment considered as taxable income?Yes, the $500 is taxable income.

Rebate payment recipients are required to report it on the appropriate tax return.Will I receive a 1099 form from FAA for the rebate payment?1099 forms are only required for taxable income exceeding $600. FAA will not send a 1099 form to any Rebate recipient.A 'rebate' check from the federal government is NOT a 'discount' from the manufacturer, as discussed in the Turbo-Tax 'cash-back rewards' answer.

Again, why invite an audit over $500 in income? But I suppose we all have different levels of risk tolerance. Not worth saving $100-150 in taxes to me. The accountant I am married to asked why you would report it. It is money you didn't spend on the ADSB, like discounting the price. It is not income.Steve I think this is one of those apples and oranges things.

Garmin didn't give me the rebate, the FAA did. Unfortunately that sounds like income to me.The FAA's ADS-B Rebate web site has FAQs, including one as to whether the rebate is taxable: Here's the relevant portion:Is the rebate payment considered as taxable income?Yes, the $500 is taxable income. Rebate payment recipients are required to report it on the appropriate tax return.Will I receive a 1099 form from FAA for the rebate payment?1099 forms are only required for taxable income exceeding $600. FAA will not send a 1099 form to any Rebate recipient.A 'rebate' check from the federal government is NOT a 'discount' from the manufacturer, as discussed in the Turbo-Tax 'cash-back rewards' answer. Again, why invite an audit over $500 in income? But I suppose we all have different levels of risk tolerance.

Not worth saving $100-150 in taxes to me.That's nuts. It isn't income. It's an incentive rebate. You already paid taxes on the money you spent on the equipment.My CPA agrees with Steve's CPA, thank you Cathy! I agree with y'all, but it is the government, they have one hand out whilst the other is behind your back picking your pocket.Like my CPA said, is the FAA really qualified to give tax advice??? What I noticed was this sentence, 'Only aircraft that fly in uncontrolled airspace, and aircraft without electrical systems, such as balloons and gliders, are exempt from the mandate'. I have not seen the exception worded that way before.

This kind of opens things up that even with an engine driven charging system on can fly without ADS-B Out. Thoughts, comments?If you stay out of class A, B, or C airspace, as well as any of the thirty or so 30NM radius 'mode C veils' in the country, you will not have to have ADS-B. At least for now. 10 or 20 years from now, who knows?Basically where you do NOT have to have a transponder now, you will not need to have SDS-B in 2020.A lot of people got their feathers in a ruffle about SDS-B who in general aren't necessarily affected by the mandate.

Sandia STX360Has anyone installed a Sandia STX360 or heard anything good or bad about it? When compared to other options the $3200 price for a transponder/ADS-B out/in all in one unit seems reasonable. Sandia does make nice avionics. They are just not a big high volume name like Garmin. Air Spruce says that it is on indefinite back order.

In my mind that is not a good sign. Does that mean that the company is not producing or that it doesn't sell well for some reason?no one buys my 185 before the end of the year it will need something or be grounded since we live under a class B.