ADS-B Compatability

Can y'all (Avidyne) post a list of non-proprietary ADS-B devices known to be compatible with the IFD series please?

Edited by ddgates - 10 Aug 2016 at 12:53pm

I'm sure as time permits they'll update their website

Edited by LANCE - 13 Aug 2016 at 7:34pm

The following list is true as of Release 10.2:

What about Freeflight RANGR??

You have got to be kidding me!! I got the Freeflight because Avidyne was saying it would work , prewired and reprewired (when they did it wrong)....now it still won't work?

Steve, is there any difference between the MLB100 and the SkyTrax 100 other than the name change?

This list appears to be ADS-B In?  

I would say Mike is mostly correct.

The IFD family of boxes will output ADS-B compliant GPS position for various ADS-B Out transponders to use.   Those transponders can use that GPS output just fine and be donating their position into the ADS-B network and look and feel like full-up ADS-B participants including being able to receive ADS-B data from other network participants (presuming a piece of equipment capable of receiving that ADS-B data is on the airplane).

The "to be legal" part is where I would say he isn't completely correct.   The FAA mandate (the "legal" thing here) requires an FAA recognition of compatible compliance by Dec 31, 2019.  That typically is delivered via an STC vehicle (but it doesn't have to be).   So, between now and Dec 31, 2019, you can basically do whatever you want and not be "illegal".

That nuanced set of statements is important operationally.  You are a full-up ADS-B participant with an IFD and an ADS-B Out transponder combo, now.   You just need to make sure, presuming the FAA doesn't change their rules between now and then, that by Dec 31 2019, you have a combination of GPS position source (e.g. IFD540, IFD440, etc) and ADS-B Out transponder that is a FAA-recognized acceptable pair.  

As of Release 10.2, that will include:

IFD4XX/5XX - AXP322
IFD4XX/5XX - AXP340
IFD4XX/5XX - GTX330ES
IFD4XX/5XX - GTX345

Avidyne is the one obtaining the STC that supports those combos.  I would agree with Mike that other vendors are understandably reluctant to seek more STCs that include Avidyne navigators and/or transponders.   They do this for reasons that make business sense to them.

There are other combos that involve Avidyne supplied navigators like R9 and other combos that involve Garmin supplied navigators and Avidyne supplied transponders but I will leave those out of this IFD-centric post.

An important note is that some installers inappropriately take a position that until there is a STC that shows the navigator-transponder combo is FAA recognized as 2020 mandate ADS-B Out compliant, then it is not a legal installation.   They are wrong, plain and simple.  But, sometimes, you are just pushing on a rope in spite of actual facts and so the mis-perceptions propagate.

A lot of that will be moot as soon as the STCs are in place in the very near future.

Make sense?

AviJake, Ok this is (good) news to me.

And.....

Is an "anonymous mode" actually allowed? I didn't think it was.

It's not just "big brother" that will be able to track us, it will be anyone and everyone. This is a serious concern of mine about ADS-B. Corporate competitors, gossip columnists, stalkers, etc will be able to track where people are going and when. Would John Q. Public stand for this is it were being applied to our cars?

I believe the GDL88 does have anonymous mode.   Only when squaking 1200.   BH

berndsenco wrote: Jake/Simpson, Any progress on getting the IFD 540/440 units to interface with the Lynx NGT-9000R remote ADS-B transponder?  Lynx tells me they have provided Avidyne all the info, and it is now in Avidyne's court. I have to use a remote transponder in my Cirrus since I took up space with the 540 upgrade.  The AXP322 remote transponder isn't certified for ADS-B out so that isn't a solution for me.

berndsenco wrote: Jake/Simpson, A...The AXP322 remote transponder isn't certified for ADS-B out so that isn't a solution for me.

Edited by oskrypuch - 24 Aug 2016 at 6:07pm

Does anyone have the KT-74 installed. I have it with the IFD 540 and

AviJake wrote: As of Release 10.2, that will include: IFD4XX/5XX - AXP322 IFD4XX/5XX - AXP340 IFD4XX/5XX - GTX330ES IFD4XX/5XX - GTX345 Avidyne is the one obtaining the STC that supports those combos.

Jake,

I notice that those are all 1090ES solutions for ADS-B Out compliance.  My understanding is that release 10.2 will also include some back-process GPS improvements that will allow the IFD to be a position source for a UAT solution for ADS-B Out compliance.

While it's very nice, I understand that Avidyne is not responsible for pursuing STC support for any of this.  My understanding is that STC approval of any position source is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the ADS-B transmitter.

So I applaud you and Avidyne for going above-and-beyond in this regard.

David Bunin

Yes, thanks for the GTX330ES correction.  I guess I should have genericized the title and said here are non-active traffic sources as of 10.2.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

I'll start by saying that while I am a fan, I do not agree with everything NavWorx does or says.  In particular, their web site can be a source of frustration (both for them and for their customers).  It is my opinion that in this case, the word "supported" has little meaning.  The anonymous mode is not EMBODIED in the current product.  It doesn't DO anonymous mode today.  Is the hardware capable of supporting it?  Certainly.  Do I think the functionality will appear in a future software release?  Yes, I do.  When?  Don't get me to lying.

The lack of mention in the documentation is ... accurate, if not enlightening.

David Bunin