TAS-A display question (for Avidyne)

Catani -

Catani -

Edited by n7ifr - 16 Apr 2019 at 8:22pm

Catani wrote: Stiletto1 wrote: Which brings us back full circle to my original point when I entered this discussion to correct some of those "facts" you were spewing about one being better than the other.   Rather than get into the mud with you, I'll not make any further comments.  I'll let what I've said, and the language you have used, speak for itself.

Salute!

Catani wrote: Melohn wrote: Catani wrote: Melohn wrote: I had a Skywatch, and decided on a 345 for ADS-B In/Out. Interfacing the Skywatch to the 345 was straightforward, and provides the same TAS+TIS-B dual frequency capability as the Lynx 9000+ at significantly less expense. Right now, I’m seeing TAS on my EX5000, and merged TAS+TIS-B on my navigator. With MFD 8.2, I’ll have both on my MFD. Thanks Avidyne! Interesting, but need a little more info to evaluate for general application.   Is your Skywatch TAS output now routed to the 345 only, or does it connect to both the MFD and 345? What's the model of navigator you have that displays your 345 output? The TAS is currently connected to both the 345 and the MFD. With release 8.2, I’ll be able to connect the MFD to the 345, which should then display converged traffic (TAS+TIS-B+dual mode ADS-B direct reception). I’m currently seeing converged traffic on my iPad in ForeFlight, and on my 430W navigator. I’m likely to upgrade that navigator to an IFD or a GTN at some point, both of which should work. So you have Skywatch traffic on your MFD with 8.1, which we all know is a compatible combination.  But, do you know whether anyone has confirmed that the 345 traffic output will be compatible with the MFD with 8.2? I ask, because once you connect the 345 to the MFD, the Skywatch connection will have to come off.  You can't have both at the same time feeding the MFD.  Also, do you whether anyone has confirmed the 345 traffic output would be compatible with an IFD?  (No question it would be if you put in a 650 of course.)  It seems these Garmin-Avidyne compatibility assumptions at times have not worked out despite promises.  Just wondering if there is any real-world confirmation of the compatibility of these combinations.

Catani wrote: You took my question too seriously, it was just a play on yours.  Mine was intended to be just as irrelevant.

Yes. "Sucky-gauges" was a very serious comment on my part.

Catani wrote: What we actually settle for in GA is what we can afford.  The additional features of the Lynx 9000+ was in my budget, so I got it.

I guess I don't just buy stuff cuz I could.

Catani wrote: It's all a matter of personal choice, of course.  As it should be.  Get the facts about the products, then decide what's right for you.

Which brings us back full circle to my original point when I entered this discussion to correct some of those "facts" you were spewing about one being better than the other.

Catani wrote: Stiletto1 wrote:   How many screens do you need? I don't need any.  I was trained on steam gauges. Stiletto1 wrote: The GTX345 has internal AHARS How many AHARS do you need?

I too was trained on steam gauges some 40+ years ago - but such a comment is irrelevant to this discussion since we are talking about the depiction of traffic awareness on a screen.

As to the number of AHARS you may need, again, it depends on installed equipment. If you are glass panel equipped the answer may be two, unless you are maintaining a sucky-gyro for backup attitude.

If you are only steam gauge equipped, how many sucky-pumps do you "need"? My plane has two, both soon to be relegated to back up AI status only... :)

Edited by Stiletto1 - 12 Aug 2018 at 9:42am

Catani wrote: You don't need the Lynx's extra-cost diversity option with a small GA aircraft.  One antenna works fine.  As it does for the 345 as well, I assume.   The 345 of course lacks a display screen, so they are not strictly speaking equivalent products.  On the Lynx, the screen permits it to display traffic (at shorter display range) and weather while your other display(s) is set to something else (longer range, for instance).  If it's within the budget, the Lynx screen is worth the extra cost and provides redundancy as well.

How many screens do you need? As I said before, which system is best for you will depend on other installed equipment.

If you have a GPS navigator, or two, a PFD (like an Aspen perhaps), one or two iPads, and maybe an MFD as well, you can display all the data that the GTX345 has to offer anywhere you like, and on a much larger display than the little L3 Lynx screen. Of course, if you have one or more of the above options you may display the Lynx data on them as well - which makes the Lynx screen kind of unnecessary in that case.

The GTX345 has internal AHARS - the Lynx does not. With the internal WAAS option and an iPad running the Garmin Pilot or Foreflight app, the GTX345 may act as a completely independent/redundant GPS navigator with backup attitude indicator and synthetic vision on a larger display than even the largest panel mount GPS's have to offer. The GTX is also available as a remote mounted option.

So, if you don't have an alternative display or want an active traffic option at a premium price, the Lynx may be for you if you have the panel space to mount it where you can see it. The GTX offers an alternative feature set that the Lynx does not, but does not have an internal active traffic option.

Both the IFD and the GTN navigators can display traffic and weather data from either unit - but the IFD cannot control the remote mounted version of the GTX.

One is only better than the other depending on your needs and other available equipment.   








Edited by Stiletto1 - 12 Aug 2018 at 6:37am

Melohn wrote: Catani wrote: Melohn wrote: I had a Skywatch, and decided on a 345 for ADS-B In/Out. Interfacing the Skywatch to the 345 was straightforward, and provides the same TAS+TIS-B dual frequency capability as the Lynx 9000+ at significantly less expense. Right now, I’m seeing TAS on my EX5000, and merged TAS+TIS-B on my navigator. With MFD 8.2, I’ll have both on my MFD. Thanks Avidyne! Interesting, but need a little more info to evaluate for general application.   Is your Skywatch TAS output now routed to the 345 only, or does it connect to both the MFD and 345? What's the model of navigator you have that displays your 345 output? The TAS is currently connected to both the 345 and the MFD. With release 8.2, I’ll be able to connect the MFD to the 345, which should then display converged traffic (TAS+TIS-B+dual mode ADS-B direct reception). I’m currently seeing converged traffic on my iPad in ForeFlight, and on my 430W navigator. I’m likely to upgrade that navigator to an IFD or a GTN at some point, both of which should work.

Since you have a Skytrax, waiting for your option 1 to become available may be your best bet from a total installed cost perspective - otherwise you will likely have to start all over to go with an all in one panel mount GTX or Lynx.

You can likely get a GTX345 installed for around 6k or so. A Lynx will run considerably more if you add active traffic and antennae diversity.

HenryM wrote: I have actually looked for the FreeFlight Dual Band RANGR RXD unit, but other than a mention in a FreeFlight brochure, nobody seems to carry it. I also wrote to FreeFlight Systems but haven't received any reply. The single-band RX is also pretty pricey. If you have to buy it plus a transponder, you might as well buy a GTX345. My options seem to be:  1 - wait for something like the FreeFlight RXD to be available to replace my SkyTrax 100, or 2 - replace both the SkyTrax and AXP-340 with something else Hopefully there will be a cost effective dual-band solution. I would really prefer to keep the rest of the stack all Avidyne. It is getting hard to do, though.

FreeFlight does have dual band solutions. You may not get bundling price benefits on the unts, but I would think it should be a drop-in replacment, and work. Something to explore.

HenryM wrote: Radar should be picking up all the mode C traffic. Does it get sent out over ADS-R? However, my issue is sometimes I don’t get ADS-R data to the plane. Last weekend, I flew up to Sherman IFR around the east side of the DFW Class B. Several times I had my portable and the SkyTrax 100 not receiving any towers. Since the SkyTrax is UAT only, it wasn’t getting much traffic either. In those situations, it would have been nice to directly pick up Mode C transponders, though I don’t know how accurate the position estimated by the TCAS part of a Lynx 9000+ is. As long as it is good a mile or two out, I guess it would be helpful. Flying IFR, it wouldn’t matter that much, but there is quite a bit of traffic that would be good to know about when VFR.

My understanding is that you should be seeing any Mode A/C/S equipped targets via ADS-R. Are you sure your installation is totally compliant? That your not receiving any towers suggest an equipment problem.

Of course, when IFR there is probably not as much traffic and ATC provides separation.

You should also be able to use Flight Following when VFR from Fort Worth Center, which can tell you about any non-transponder equipped aircraft as well - a FREE service.


Edited by Stiletto1 - 09 Aug 2018 at 5:28am

I sure wish Avidyne would produce a decent dual band in solution to pair with the AXP and IFD.  Even if they just allowed a dual band in to display on the IFD without having to get a new transponder...  They talked a huge ADS-B game and have been a complete disappointment.  

Radar should be picking up all the mode C traffic. Does it get sent out over ADS-R?

Thank you for the explanation!

The base NGT 9000 is $4999 on Special at Sarasota Avionics. There are two versions of the 9000+: with TCAS $7,849, with TAS Active Traffic $6,499. I don’t know what the difference is between TCAS and TAS Active Traffic. I’m interested in seeing as much traffic as possible when not in contact with an ADS-B ground station. To me that means receiving Mode C traffic in addition to UAT and 1090MHz signals, but I’m no expert. I sometimes fly near the DFW Class B airspace, but mostly I’m in central and southern Texas. 

HenryM wrote: I have an IFD-540, AXP-430 for ADS-B Out and SkyTrax 100 for ADS-B In. I really want to move to a dual-band In solution. Would it be better to try to replace the SkyTrax 100, or rip out both the transponder and the SkyTrax and go for a Garmin GTX345 or Lynx 9000 (+?).  Are you saying the extra cost of a Lynx 9000+ over a Lynx 9000 (adds active traffic) is not worth it?

I'd rip out the AXP and Skytrax and replace with either the GTX345 or the Lynx.

For my money, I'm not concerned about having active traffic along with dual band ADSB-in, Flight following, CTAF, and the eyeballs required to detect non-equipped aircraft that none of the electronic systems can see outside radar coverage anyway, but YMMV.   

Melohn wrote: I believe Active traffic is important now, but after 2020 it will diminish in importance as most people will equip or won’t fly where I do. I believe a dual frequency ADS-B In solution is important, particularly where ADS-R is unavailable, which is a surprisingly large number of places. At some point when I’m no longer seeing TAS only targets, I’ll retire my Skywatch. I’ll never stop looking out the window; some traffic will never have transponders.

There may in fact be many more Mode C only aircraft congesting the airspace below 10k' after the mandate, but looking at the ADSB coverage map where TIS-B services are available - it looks as though coverage is near 100% in the US above 5000'agl - only sketchy in a few mountainous areas - is nearly that good down to 1500'agl as you get over the flatlands - and is available down to 500' in most low lying areas.

Add dual band ADSB-in and you will pick up any other ADSB out equipped aircraft in the sketchy TIS-B coverage areas. TAS might add a few more Mode-C only targets to your screen when operating in the weeds out in the boonies. Flight following can advise you of any traffic, including non-transponder equipped targets, within their radar coverage areas. Your eyeballs are going to have to find all the non-transponder equipped aircraft operating outside radar coverage areas that none of the above systems can see.

If I was installing a new ADSB system I would certainly not do less than dual band in from now on. Don't think I would spend a dime on active traffic unless I spent considerable time flying below 1500' outside radar coverage (or had some phobia about talking to ATC within radar coverage areas) and thought there were a lot of mode-c only aircraft also operating that low that I couldnt see out the window.

I had a Skywatch, and decided on a 345 for ADS-B In/Out. Interfacing the Skywatch to the 345 was straightforward, and provides the same TAS+TIS-B dual frequency capability as the Lynx 9000+ at significantly less expense. Right now, I’m seeing TAS on my EX5000, and merged TAS+TIS-B on my navigator. With MFD 8.2, I’ll have both on my MFD. Thanks Avidyne!

Gring wrote: I don't think you will see aircraft with a primary radar track only or aircraft with a transponder WITHOUT mode C through ADS-R.

Stiletto1 wrote: [QUOTE=Catani] The L3 is better because it does not have to be interfaced with another box to get TAS.  I disagree completely with your position that TAS does not add much.  The reason it does is because most aircraft have Mode C transponders, and many if not most of them will not be ADS-B Out equipped any time soon.  A TAS box, whether separate or like the Lynx part of the box, will interrogate, locate and provide traffic info for those aircraft.....

Edited by oskrypuch - 07 Aug 2018 at 8:56am

The "D" indicates a Lynx that connects to two antennas - one on top and one on the bottom.  It's for large metal airplanes.  Not really applicable to GA 4 to 6 seaters, according to my shop.

n7ifr wrote: ...But to receive full function TAS interrogated traffic (and of course dual ADSB), what are the options for best antenna/traffic reception?

Edited by Catani - 06 Aug 2018 at 12:02pm

Catani wrote: The L3 is better because it does not have to be interfaced with another box to get TAS.  I disagree completely with your position that TAS does not add much.  The reason it does is because most aircraft have Mode C transponders, and many if not most of them will not be ADS-B Out equipped any time soon.  A TAS box, whether separate or like the Lynx part of the box, will interrogate, locate and provide traffic info for those aircraft.  While the FAA's ADS-R will supply the same info, you have to be in range and have enough altitude to pick up those transmitters.  In many airports, the traffic pattern is too low to pick up ADS-R info.  The Lynx saves the day by interrogating both Mode C aircraft (most planes), and ADS-B aircraft (some planes) while in the pattern or remote locations.  It cannot interrogate an airplane with no Mode C or ADS-B Out of course, but that leaves a much smaller fleet of invisible airplanes than does a 345 with no TAS.  You will need to buy some additional equipment.  ADS-B In as your sole traffic source is quite limited if you are unable to pick up the FAA's ADS-B transmitters.

Like I said, they are both good boxes depending upon your needs and other equipment.

The L3 with internal TAS is of course a more expensive option if you are worried about not being able to eyeball the few Mode-C equipped traffic flying down in the weeds that ADSB can't see - of course, this is where most of the non-transponder equipped aircraft are that TAS can't see either. Otherwise, there is little airspace not yet covered by ADSB.

Neither option offers a complete traffic awareness solution - but I'm in the camp of something is in fact better than nothing, especially when flying in haze.

If all aircraft had at least ADSB out then dual band would have you covered everywhere, but there are too many paranoid cowboys for that to happen anytime soon.


Edited by Stiletto1 - 06 Aug 2018 at 6:36am

Catani wrote: The Lynx is better than the 345 because it is compatible with the Avidyne 5000C MFD I have, and can internally merge TAS and dual-channel ADS-B traffic into a single icon for aircraft identifying on both ADS-B and TAS, and display that on my MFD.  Garmin 345 traffic can't do that.  I also doubt any company can beat L3's software logic for evaluating whether a target is a threat requiring an aural alert, or can be ignored.  Nuisance alerts are not a problem with the Lynx.  The Lynx is also better because it has its own screen to show both traffic and weather info, adding real value and utility, and the screen is big enough for what it does.  The Lynx is also better because it has its own internal GPS, which means there are no installation, connection, compatibility or other issues that might degrade ADS-B performance below acceptable standards when your transponder is relying upon another box.  Not only that, but it spares you the need to figure out which box - the transponder or the GPS or the wiring between them - is responsible for the ADS-B performance failure.  With a Lynx 9000+, if ADS-B Out performance fails, troubleshooting is a lot easier.  Finally, the Lynx is better because it has its own wifi network, which can be used to display its TAS and ADS-B traffic to your iPad on ForeFlight, as well as ADS-B weather.  I may have missed a few things.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. The 345 is also dual band in and may be interfaced with a compatible TAS to merge traffic data - though I don't see the cost benefit of doing this when dual band ADSB will see most everything TAS can see (at least in the US) and neither will see non-transponder equipped aircraft anyway.

The 345 is available with its' own internal WAAS (optional), has a Bluetooth connection to provide GPS position to an iPad App, and will display traffic and weather on your iPad, navigator, and most PFD/MFD's. The 345 can also revert to a GPS position source provided by a compatible navigator should the internal source loose integrity. 345 also has traffic threat audio warnings - don't know if one is better than the other but the 345 can be set by the user to annunciate traffic within certain proximity of your aircraft. The 345 has no screen of it's own but is available in both a panel mount or a remote configuration - remote is of benefit to many to save panel real estate but is not compatible with IFD's.

The L3 and 345 are both good "full suite" boxes - which is "better" is more a matter of your needs and compatibility with other equipment.

Edited by Stiletto1 - 05 Aug 2018 at 6:59am

Catani wrote: I've had an L3 Lynx 9000+ and IFD440 installed for years now.  ...