The International Cessna 170 Association

After face to face conversations with uAvionix folks at Sun n Fun, a friend's discussion with them at the Great Alaska Aviation Gathering plus telephone calls, I have decided to pull the trigger on a Tail Beacon for Ole Pokey. I'm sure there are lots of opposing opinions on this product and how other systems offer other nice perks, the price of the Tail Beacon looks best for my situation at $2019. Placed my pre order and it will be shipped upon their FAA approval which is expected (?) within the next week or two. Once received they will do the TSO, STC, test the unit and ramp up production. Expected to be done by mid June. They have over 2000 pre purchase orders now. I also got my rebate reservation and am anxious to see how this works out.

I decided against the tailbeacon and switched my choice to the skyBeacon for a couple of reasons.

My original choice was tailBeacon because I already have Whelen wingtip strobes and wanted to keep them (and erroneously thought the tailbeacon would also contain an LED strobe. It does not. It is also still not approved or available and I wanted to get 'er done!)

The skyBeacon has a look-alike mate available for the right wing. With both installed, wingtip strobes will still be on my airplane...and I can utilize the wires already-run for the wingtip strobes to power-up the skyBeacon/skySensor LED strobes. I will sell my Whelen wingtip installation to help offset the cost of the upgrade.

The drawback one friend pointed out was the hazard of hangar-rash being more likely for the wingtip skyBeacon/skySensor items. But I have insurance for that and similar potential exists for the tailBeacon.

I hope to have both the 172 and 170 finished by the end of May and in-time for convention.

What I don't like about the uAvionix is that it senses the transponder by it's wiring antenna and the GDL82 senses directly from the transponder in line. I like direct sensing for positive results.
I am installing the GDL82.

John

I thought about the GDL82 as well but Garmin IN solutions encrypt their signal so it only talks to Garmin partner aps. I prefer to use FlyQ over Foreflight so I am not going to buy any more Garmin equipment in protest. Yes, I know the GDL82 is an OUT solution not IN. It just tics me off that Garmin takes an "open" ADS-B signal that our tax dollars paid for and encrypts it so you can only use it with their blessed solutions. $$$$

I have only anecdotal reference for the understanding that uAvionix skyBeacon senses transponder code via the aircraft wiring by using that electrical connection as a "databus". (Not sure how altitude data is managed since skyBeacon has it's own sensor and the txdr still transmits grey-code if mode C is selected. Question: what if the txdr's grey-code/encoder is disabled? Hmmmn...)
I was given that understanding from reading materials regarding the Garmin suit against uAvionix. I have a sneaking suspicion that Garmin planned the suit as a tactic against uAvionix entering the field rather than legitimate patent infringement concerns and the suit was intended to reveal proprietary details of the uAvionics product. I have also owned numerous Garmin products over time and have been disappointed in Garmins habit of introducing, then abandoning support for their product. (Remember what they did to Apollo?)
I now have four examples of uAvionix products in my hangar undergoing installation. I do have a concern regarding flight into Canada using the UAT protocol, but that's not an overriding factor for me. My understanding at present is TC has no plans to prohibit UAT operators from their airspace. Jim…???

TC really hasn’t indicated where they’re going George and they likely take their time about this. I doubt it will be a requirement for light aircraft in Canada. I also doubt they would ban anyone from entering mode “c” airspace whereas I won’ t be so lucky next year in the US. I’d like to buy a 1090 unit at a reasonable price so it has a purpose in both lands but that’s just wishful thinking on my part.

The oddest conversation (via email) has transpired between Karl Towle and myself regarding the UAT solution of uAvionix.
I was under the impression that the uAvionix unit utilized the navlight wiring to connect thru the aircraft electrical system, using it as a form of databus to exchange information between the skyBeacon and the Txdr.
But Karl reports that a uAvionix person told him that the unit actually only uses the navlight power wire as an "antenna" to pick up the reported squawk when the txdr is hit by ATC radar... and that the ADS-B Out does no reporting at all unless in a radar environment.

I responded that was unworthy of belief if it's also true that ADS-B is supposed to provide traffic info to ATC even when not in radar coverage.(Wasn't it the Alaska Capstone project that instigated all this?)

Karl responded that when the uAvionix person was asked about that... they responded that "If you're not in radar then you don't need ADS-B".

Well, it turns out the Fellows Against Aviation and the Avionic Organization Promotions Assoc'n have colluded. The ADS-B program does NOT provide universal coverage. ADS-B is still only available in certain areas and above certain minimum altitudes. (see the link to the map below) In other words, for those of us who operate little taildraggers and only wish to go UNDERNEATH Class C airspace.... we've been sold a bill of goods! (ATC already had the ability to see our Mode C transponder returns to determine we were not inside the Class C airspace... ADS-B Out is not necessary to provide that info to ATC. But as of Jan 2020 we are required to have ADS-B Out to operate into thousands of small airports which lie beneath/within the Mode C veil even tho' we have no intention of entering Class C airspace.)

By switching ON or OFF the available buttons one can see where ADS-B services is actually available. AS you can see... it ain't everywhere or even at all altitudes.
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/ICM/

and that the ADS-B Out does no reporting at all unless in a radar environment

That is not true. I have a SkyBeacon and can see my own 986 signal on ADS-B "in" even when the transponder is powered off. What does happen is the squawk is not emitted as part of the the ADS-B out, but callsign, pressure altitude, and geometric altitude (from the SkyBeacon GPS) are reported.

brianm wrote:

and that the ADS-B Out does no reporting at all unless in a radar environment

That is not true. I have a SkyBeacon and can see my own 986 signal on ADS-B "in" even when the transponder is powered off. What does happen is the squawk is not emitted as part of the the ADS-B out, but callsign, pressure altitude, and geometric altitude (from the SkyBeacon GPS) are reported.

I certainly hope that your understanding is correct, Brian. But Karl's report of the uAvionix representative implies that without radar interrogation there is no ADS-B.

In any case, the FAA map certainly has limitations, and if your understanding is correct... then the coverage limitation must be similar to cell-tower limitations.

Technology is advancing at such a rapid rate it’s mind blowing . We all want the latest and greatest avionics but at little cost . There are many costs in bring a product to market and many products are made obsolete while gaining acceptance to the consumer. I have a poster on my wall in my office produced by CASA [similar to the FAA] advising about using GPS when navigating around the country . It’s saying it’s unreliable ,with many dropouts and dead areas and that the GPS signal can be switched off at any time . [the poster is about 10 years old ] With so many products hitting the market it’s not financially viable to support all products that are obsolete . GPS has now gained acceptance and is reliable and products that use it are changing constantly . I am under the impression that Garmin didn’t design Apollo but bought the company that produced it.

That is correct, David. Garmin was originated by a King radio employee named Gary Burrell* who teamed up with a Magnavox employee Min Kao* and evolved into a company with a habit of acquiring existing technology companies and after getting them isolated and learning their details, quit supporting those products while substituting a newer Garmin product. Apollo owners who first saw the acquisition as a good, saving-measure later discovered they were actually being orphaned. What better way to get rid of competition, heh?
If that doesn't work, then sue them to raise their costs of production and delay a competitor from entering the market.

* Originally the rumor was Garmin was an acronym for General Aviation Radio Mfr'g INterests… but the reality was the combination of the two founder's first names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmin

The expression of opinion herein is my own.

gahorn wrote:I certainly hope that your understanding is correct, Brian. But Karl's report of the uAvionix representative implies that without radar interrogation there is no ADS-B.

Just to double check what I saw in my own experiments I emailed uAvionix support. Here's what they said:

me wrote:I have a SkyBeacon and it seems to be working well. I have a question about when I'm operating in areas without radar coverage and the transponder isn't being interrogated. How does the SkyBeacon operate in this situation? Does it continue to output UAT data?

Kurt at uAvionix wrote:Yes it does. It will use the internal baro for altitude and transmit the last squawk it had while in radar coverage.

That makes a lot more sense, Brian, than what Karl was told. Thanks.

My My this is getting interesting.

The heat is on.

Who really won the K D.?