Dynon Transponders and ADS-B in Canada

Colin Pazdzior said:
The one thing that I think is settled is that, outside of the US, 1090ES will be the ADS-B standard that all, or the vast majority of, countries will adopt when moving to ADS-B based ATC surveillance.
Click to expand...
FWIW: 1090MHz is, and has been, the only ADS-B standard outside the US since being adopted by ICAO in 2003. It became operational in 2006 with ICAO making it the official standard in 2013. The US delayed the mandatory ADS-B requirements until 2020. The US currently is the only nation in the world where 978MHz is an ADS-B OUT option. It is doubtful any other nation will adopt 978MHz as an alternative to 1090MHz.

Since I often fly international, my aircraft has been 1090MHz ADS-B compliant since 20013.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
One other thing to note on diversity 1090ES - every TCAS II equipped aircraft has diversity antennas and mode S transponders, and has since the 90's. 1090ES is just an update to the mode S transponder standard (which does require the hardware being tied to a suitable position source, etc). Most airliner or business jets, most IFR turboprops, etc delivered for the last 10-15 years were delivered with 1090ES diversity OUT from the factory.

Most of the older aircraft were updated to 1090ES at some point.... Point is, it's mostly light GA flying around with Mode C or Mode C + UAT in the US now. Also a fair bit of 1090ES OUT without diversity in the light GA fleet now, I think.

The neat thing about space based ADS-B, other than it working globally, is it's really just a standard ADS-B receiver mounted on a satellite. Nothing special on the airplane, other than that top antenna which many aircraft already have....
 
vlittle said:
It's not just Canada. It's most every country except the USA that will be using space-based ADS-B. There is no downside from mounting a diversity transponder. In fact, it provides superior ship-to-ship traffic detection (hence the dual mode Dynon ADSB-472). Since the diversity transponder is backwards-compatible with the US requirements, there is no down-side and a big upside to using one (better traffic detection and international compliance).

Unfortunately, Dynon does not directly support the uAvionix tailBeaconX (although AFS does). This is more of a political issue than a technical issue. Apparently there was a bit of a falling out between uAvionix and Dynon, much to the detriment of Canadian customers. I have the integration guides for the tailBeaconX, so I can write my own control head code for one of my flight displays, but it would sure be better for Dynon to support it directly.

One the other hand, I have been waiting 9 months for the TSO version of the tailBeaconX, despite their announcment. The experimental version is available as a fall-back but both are the same price.

Oh... Aerion will also provide a breadcrumb trail to SAR if you ever go missing. Almost makes an ELT redundant.
Click to expand...
Have a look at the SV-ADSB-472 sticker. It says right on it: Powered by uAvionix. I doubt there are technical issues, just purposeful protection of market position.
 
So, it's now official: Dynon (SkyView) has NO TRANSPONDER SOLUTION for Canadian aircraft under construction. I have been pestering them for years on this issue, and I did get a vague promise that they will have a solution. Now, it is clear that we (Canadian builders) will have to pursue a different solution. Oddly, the Advanced Flight Systems division supports the uAvionix tailBeaconX, but the flagship SkyView EFIS systems do not.

The reason for this is bad-blood between Dynon and uAvionix, derived from the ADSB 470/472 development program (which was a partnership between Dynon and uAvionix). So here we are, with no Dynon supported transponder solution for Canada (or the rest of the world).

I would love to give Dynon my $$ for a compliant transponder solution, but it looks like Garmin or uAvionix are the only practical choices. As a long-time developer of Dynon compatible avionics devices, this hurts.

I do have the integration guide for uAvionix transponders, and I can write software to control their devices from a dedicated microcontroller, but that is a whole lot of extra work. I would be so much easier for Dynon to support them.... they have the code at Advanced!

(From AvWeb):

Aircraft using controlled airspace above 12,500 feet in Canada will have to be equipped with ADS-B capable of transmitting to Nav Canada’s Aerion space-based ADS-B system by Feb. 23 of 2023. The firm date was announced jointly by Nav Canada and Transport Canada. To be compliant, aircraft must have ADS-B antennas on the top of the aircraft capable of transmitting 1090 MHz extended squitter signals to satellites. Belly-mounted antennas used to communicate with the U.S. ground-based systems will not be enough. Many of the airliner, charter and business aircraft that routinely use Class A (IFR-only controlled airspace above 18,000 feet) and Class B (controlled airspace between 12,500 and 18,000 feet for IFR and CVFR traffic) included in the mandate likely already have the “antenna diversity” required for Aerion. But Nav Canada has warned that a future mandate for low-level controlled airspace is on the way and that will be a costly obstacle to many U.S. light aircraft operators who want to fly to Canada.

The company said the mandate for Class C, D and E controlled airspace will be phased in starting no earlier than 2026 to allow time for equipage. For Canadian light aircraft operators who want to use controlled airspace around major airports and larger cities, the mandate will require installation of both belly- and roof-mounted antennas or the use of a device, like the uAvionix TailBeaconX, that can transmit both up and down. That requirement ensures Canadian aircraft will also be compliant with U.S. requirements. But for U.S. operators, the vast majority of whom have already spent thousands of dollars to install ADS-B systems that do not have antenna diversity, it means installing a device that can power a roof-mounted antenna or buying one of the dual-purpose systems before they can conveniently fly to Canada.

Nav Canada suggests that the U.S. is the outlier when it comes to ADS-B because the rest of the world is going with space-based systems. “The equipage requirements of Canada’s ADS-B mandate are in line with a growing number of other countries in the world, and the adoption of satellite-based surveillance technology ensures long-term alignment with the global aviation system,” the company said in its announcement.
 
It appears that we still have a lot of time as long as you don't fly above 12,500' in Canada. They'll phase in the requirement for C, D, and E after 2026. Hopefully Dynon is working on something. Honestly, it is a better system than what we have here in the US and most other countries will be using it too. I imagine a space-based system will make search and rescue really easy.
 
Yeah, I suspect we'll see more countries signing on to space based ADS-B in the future. Next year is class A/B over 12,500 in Canada, with 2026 as the earliest for lower.

At the moment, as others have said, Dynon has no offering capable of 1090ES diversity out.

As an outside observer with (currently) no Dynon equipment, the thing that I think would start to make sense would be to look at integrating with what the non-Garmin GA world has coalesced around; the L3 ACSS Lynx NGT-9000.

Available as panel mount as the NGT-9000 or as a remote mount model as the NGT-9000R, it's a single box that does a lot.

In most basic trim, it's a 1090ES OUT transponder with ADS-B dual-link IN. Add the "D" licence unlock and a top antenna, and it adds 1090ES w/ diversity (unlike the Garmin units, all HW version support all features - it's a SW unlock code to enable additional functions). What's really cool about it, is that, with an additional unlock code and correct directional antenna, it becomes a TAS active traffic system. Slightly higher end unlock code and antenna makes it a TCAS-I.

Supports traffic out over ARINC as well as serial for Capstone format data, as well as full remote xpdr control. Aspen has integrated the Capstone feed to allow it to feed traffic and UAT weather to their displays, as has Avidyne. Avidyne also has full remote xpdr control. Even the Garmin GTNs can remote control the NGT-9000s now, and display ARINC traffic (loses ADS-B directionality, and they don't support non-Garmin UAT weather display).

So....what I'd love to see would be Dynon doing some SW development and working with L3 to add STC'd NGT-9000 support the same way others have - this could allow for a full remote mount option with satellite based ADS-B, UAT IN, active traffic.... all controlled through SkyView display. HW interfaces are already all there, just needs SW for it.
 
For over $16,000, this is not a reasonable solution... and there is no software integration with Dynon. The uAvionix solutions are about the same cost as Dynon's existing transponders, but support space-based ADS-B out. The only thing missing is the SkyView integration. But as I have pointed out, the Advanced Flight Systems division of Dynon already has the software to support it.

I already have the Dynon dual-band ADSB-in (472) device in my new build. There is a giant gaping hole in their offering for space-based ADS-B out.

A few years ago, I chewed the ear off of a senior uAvionix person at Copperstate, lobbying for the development of a diversity transponder. He argued strongly against it, but within a year we had a prototype in our hands for a beta trial in Canada. I like to think my arguments made sense.
 
Spunk said:
It appears that we still have a lot of time as long as you don't fly above 12,500' in Canada. They'll phase in the requirement for C, D, and E after 2026. Hopefully Dynon is working on something. Honestly, it is a better system than what we have here in the US and most other countries will be using it too. I imagine a space-based system will make search and rescue really easy.
Click to expand...
Basically, don't take off or land anywhere in the civilized portion of Canada by 2026? And don't fly over the mountains. This is, in effect, a mandatory equipment upgrade, without the subsidies that Americans received with their cut-over to ADS-B.
 
vlittle said:
For over $16,000, this is not a reasonable solution... and there is no software integration with Dynon. The uAvionix solutions are about the same cost as Dynon's existing transponders, but support space-based ADS-B out. The only thing missing is the SkyView integration. But as I have pointed out, the Advanced Flight Systems division of Dynon already has the software to support it.

I already have the Dynon dual-band ADSB-in (472) device in my new build. There is a giant gaping hole in their offering for space-based ADS-B out.

A few years ago, I chewed the ear off of a senior uAvionix person at Copperstate, lobbying for the development of a diversity transponder. He argued strongly against it, but within a year we had a prototype in our hands for a beta trial in Canada. I like to think my arguments made sense.
Click to expand...

So - I understand your point - and the NGT-9000 is higher cost than the uAvionix solutions. My rebuttal is this:

-the NGT-9000D (panel mount w/diversity enablement) or NGT-9000R D (remote mount w/diversity enablement) are around $8,000 USD - NOT $16,000
-the TAS traffic enablement adds about $1,600 USD, and about another $1,600 USD for the TAS traffic antenna, so about an extra $3,200 for TAS active traffic

Point is, the non-TAS/TCAS/TAWS NGT-9000 with diversity is about $8,000 USD, which is less than a diversity enabled GTX 345D..... And has dual link ADS-B IN, like the GTX 345D. It's definitely more than a uAvionix option, or the existing Dynon options - and it would be good if Dynon had their own branded option or the ability to control a TailBeaconX. Aside from the TailBeaconX though, the NGT-9000 seems like the right choice to me, and is what the other non-Garmin GA folks seem to have focused on, for good reason. Also, outside of areas where there are universal ADS-B mandates, having TAS active traffic or TCAS-I, while not required, is *really* nice.

The other thing is, if a non-Dynon xpdr is required for ADS-B 1090ES diversity out, it'd be really nice if the dual-link ADS-B in that is often included with these units like the NGT-9000 can be gotten into SkyView.

In terms of SW development or STC approvals-

1. For remote xpdr control - I *suspect* this will already work between SkyView HDX and NGT-9000, if RS232 is connected - it's not documented and not on STC approval, and likely not tested, but - V4+ of NGT-9000 SW supports remote xpdr control by GTNs over RS232.... and those GTNs only list Garmin transponders as supported, including GTX327 and GTX330 - which the SkyView HDX can explicitly control. So my guess is that everything is already there for the remote control/display from SkyView, though not tested or approved.

2. External traffic/wx input to SkyView - older traffic input formats are supported and have been for years - GTX 330 TIS format, Ryan TCAD format, etc... Just nothing more modern.... Capstone over RS232 would give traffic w directionality and potentially wx, ARINC could give traffic..... Point is, I suspect a lot of the required pieces are there, so adding this support is not likely to be as ambitious or time consuming a goal as adding a totally new feature or integration.
 
Just released from COPA.......Like I have said before, little wonder why they have spent over a half century trying to figure out the legality of turning right on a red light in places like Quebec. The bureaucracy is staggering.


"NAV CANADA has now published its Mandate requiring ADS-B Out equipage for Canadian airspace. Requirements in Class A and B airspace are identified to start February 23, 2023, and no sooner than February 23, 2026, in Class C, D and E airspace.

Over the next weeks, COPA will publish a series of articles that will highlight concerns with the proposed implementation of the NAV CANADA mandate of ADS-B. These legitimate concerns have not been addressed, at least not publicly, by the air navigation service provider, NAV CANADA, and the regulator, Transport Canada.

Is a Mandate really a Regulation and Whose Authority is it?
NAV CANADA represents this Mandate as being issued on behalf of Canada for users of Canadian Airspace. Aeronautical Information Circular 2/22: “Notice of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out Performance Requirements Mandate in Canadian domestic Airspace” states:

“Beginning 23 February 2023, Canada will commence an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast out (ADS-B out) performance requirements mandate for applicable Canadian Domestic Airspace (CDA).”

This statement raises the first concern: “What authority allows NAV CANADA to impose a mandate on behalf of the State?”

To begin to understand the question, one must look at the definition of Mandate. The definition, or any example of a mandate, is not included in the Aeronautics Act, Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) or Canadian Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) so one must look to a dictionary.

NOUN: “An authoritative order or command”. VERB: “To require as by law; make mandatory”. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition)

These definitions clearly describe something that holds authority or requirement based on law. Without a specific alternate definition of Mandate in Canadian aviation legislation, one can only assume this definition makes “Mandate” synonymous with “Regulation” if it holds legal authority. This then makes it difficult to understand how NAV CANADA can publish a Mandate and why Transport Canada is not making these changes through CARs or Standards?

The Aeronautics Act states the “Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics.” On the other hand, CANSCA allows “the Corporation may plan and manage airspace” yet specifically identifies “the Governor in Council’s right to make regulations respecting the classification and use of airspace.” In simpler terms, the legislation designates Transport Canada, and the State, has the authority to make regulation or legal requirements and NAV CANADA can plan and manage airspace.

Without clear authority then how can NAV CANADA’s mandate be legally enabled? How will NAV CANADA enforce compliance?

AIC 2/22 “states that the “..mandate will be enabled through airspace classification designation and amendment to transponder airspace requirements, as described in the Designated Airspace Handbook (DAH), TP 1820E.” This statement is interesting as it seems the intent is to amend existing transponder airspace requirements to include the addition of an ADS-B equipment requirement in the DAH and not to make actual regulatory change but instead do so by some sort of reference.

This approach to enablement is confusing as the DAH currently has no equipment definitions in its content and instead is a document defining the boundaries of different airspace and not operating requirements. How can the DAH be used to delegate regulatory authority to NAV CANADA to mandate specific equipment if it has never done so before? It seems even more strange to assign operational equipment requirements to the DAH when the precedent is that equipment requirements, related to airworthiness or operations, have always been defined by TC and included in CARs or associated Standards.

Based on the preceding observations it is difficult to understand how a mandate by NAV CANADA can be enabled or implemented instead of regulation by TC. Instead, it seems that significant change is intended to be implemented without TC needing to define requirements in CARs or Standards. This approach would also seemingly allow TC to avoid the need to follow legislated processes like CARAC or Gazette to make change (which can take more than two years)? This optic is disturbing as these legislated processes are meant to allow public comment on proposed changes and avoid arbitrary changes to regulation without consultation. Would the CARAC process not highlight in public record all user concerns, including operational and cost impacts of this mandate, that need to be considered? It also might identify a better implementation approach, that would minimize operational penalties and millions of dollars of costs to users across the industry.

After consideration, the original question remains “What authority allows NAV CANADA to impose a mandate on behalf of the State?” There does not seem to be any clear connection to regulation that provides legal authority for NAV CANADA to act on behalf of the state.

Representing the single largest group of Canadian airspace users, COPA reasons that the concerns raised and the questions identified in this article (more to come in subsequent articles) need to be addressed, answered and explained, publicly, before this “Mandate” can be imposed, in less than one year."
 
Well, here is some good news. I have developed a tailBeacon/SkyBeacon control head that will talk to Dynon D1x or SkyView systems to obtain serial altitude information, add in transponder configuration and control the uAvionix devices.

The control head is a HuVVer-AVI device from MakerPlane (currently $200) plus a custom software load that I will provide. It will be free for evaluation, with a modest charge for the full version. It won’t be open-source like the flight instruments provided with the huVVer unit, because it is a tightly regulated function, and I need complete control.

Watch this space for availability of the software load. In the meantime, contact MakerPlane for the hardware.
79C9C026-1004-4B91-B2A3-B0E589B75F2D.jpeg
 
Last edited:
uAvionix now offers the tailBeaconX for about $2500, which has diversity, but it's a mode S transponder/ADS-B out solution only. There's no ADS-B in.
 
So, in a fortunate turn of events since I wrote the original post for this thread last year, my avionics installer forgot to buy me the Dynon transponder for my panel upgrade. Now I'll be able to get the tailBeaconX, which has been out since April. It's a great product and currently the best and cheapest ($2499+895 vs. Dynon's at $2375) satellite-based solution. It can be controlled using an AV-30 or an AV-20-E which I was going to buy anyway to have a stand alone clock, Hobbs, AOA, G meter and standby ADI. It runs $895. Great product too. Hopefully, Dynon will integrate the tailBeaconX into the HDX someday.
tailbeaconx-tso-d.png


https://uavionix.com/products/tailbeaconx/

AV-20.jpeg


https://uavionix.com/product/av-20-e/
 
Last edited:
Been looking at that seup myself, since the AV-30 is a standby everything in a small package. Unfortunately the tailBeaconX doesn't have ADS-B in, so I'd still need something for that.
 
Rhino said:
Been looking at that seup myself, since the AV-30 is a standby everything in a small package. Unfortunately the tailBeaconX doesn't have ADS-B in, so I'd still need something for that.
Click to expand...
I'm using Dynon's ADSB In (SV-ADSB-472). Now that I think about, I wonder if that will work. Does the HDX need the Out from the Dynon transponder to make the In work or can I use any brand Out transponder?
 
I won't try to pass myself off as an expert in that regard, but technically you should be able to use the 472 for In only. How to accomplish that, or any difficulty that might or might not be involved, I can't currently say. But I'm sure others here would know the answer to that. In a worst case scenario, you could just switch one off and the other on when crossing the border, since Canada doesn't use ADS-B In. But that would be a serious pain, and you'd miss out on some functionality when close to the border. You wouldn't want to operate both in Out mode at the same time. In fact, it's probably not legal to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top