ADSB 472

[mrdaud]

Dear Dynon folks, I appreciate your kind words, understanding, attitude, and fantastic Skyview product. I hope that you will also still consider to give 472 purchasers who chose so a way of going back to your flawless 470 product. I’m not inclined to have uAvionix-anything in my plane or have them make a penny off my purchase.

George, here is a simple solution: Don't use Dynon ADS-B at all. Go spend $3500 on a standalone system. There are a number of them out there now. Better yet, as I mentioned before, just sell your entire Dynon system on eBay and go buy a $40K Garmin system.

 

[Schorsch]

N214ST, your advice doesn’t strike me as genuine nor respectful of your fellow posters and aviators, but you’re hopefully free to foollow it yourself, if it was earnest.

I already voted with my heart & wallet away from uAvionix, and Dynon is amazing in letting me do so. Thank you, Dynon!   

 

[rleffler]

But we can't just roll this out instantly, as the 472 uses a different software updater than other devices, so we're in the process of writing that loader for SkyView. There are current beta test units out there, but they've all been manually updated here at Dynon.

I assume that the AFS is working on a loader for their platform as well.

 

[Dynon101]

What is the features difference in the 470 verses the 472?

>11/06/2017 (I can't say exactly how much longer, as we will want to prove them out completely before releasing. But getting close.)

I have the 470 and am on the waiting list for the 472. Any word on how much closer?

 

[Dynon]

At the simplest level, the 472 is a dual band 978 MHz (UAT)and 1090 MHz ADS-B receiver, while the 470 is only 978 MHz. Since aircraft have the option to equip with an emitter on either frequency, it lets you see more ADS-B equipped aircraft directly when you're in line of sight of them. However, that's not the whole story. Most US aircraft aren't equipped with ADS-B Out yet, and although that'll change, no ADS-B receiver can directly see aircraft that aren't equipped with an ADS-B Out device. Even once 2020 comes around, there will be many many aircraft that choose not to equip, and neither the 470, 472, or any other ADS-B receiver can see those aircraft directly.

BUT, the designers of the ADS-B system saw this problem, and also needed a way to beam up weather information to aircraft. So the network of ADS-B ground stations actually collect all of the aircraft in the vicinity of ADS-B Out emitters, and send you back a nice package of info that includes the "full" traffic portrait, including targets that are only being picked up by a terminal or regional FAA radar. The net effect is that when you're in coverage of a ground station AND are an ADS-B Out emmiter (ie equipped with our SV-XPNDR-261, and after 2020 the SV-GPS-2020 for compliance), you basically get all of the aircraft whether your receiver is dual band or single band.

If you're not in range of a ground station, which is most likely to happen when you're low to the ground or in a very mountainous region, then a dual band receiver is theoretically better than a single band receiver. But then you're right back up against the fact that there are a LOT of aircraft that aren't ADS-B Out equipped, and you won't see them period. So to compare, with ADS-B ground station coverage, you'll see 100% of aircraft that the FAA can see. Let's invent some numbers and say that 30% of aircraft in a particular area are ADS-B Out equipped (today, this is actually generous). Let's further assume that of those, 70% of them are 1090 equipped and 30% are 978. That's a random guess and might be very wrong, but in the aftermarket transponder (1090) based solutions look to be more popular than 978 versions, although recent product introductions may shift that over the next view years. So outside of ADS-B ground station coverage, if you have a 470, when you stack up the above numbers, you'll be able to see 21% of the aircraft around you in this scenario. If you have a dual band receiver, that goes up to only 30%. Both of those are rather incomplete traffic pictures. Once you emerge into ADS-B ground station coverage, that number goes way up if you're in a radar coverage zone. And even if you're not, the aggregation of all of the ADS-B targets alone gets you that higher 30% of traffic regarless of whether your receiver is single or dual band.

Anyway, the overall point is that being in range of a ground station AND being in radar coverage is when ADS-B traffic works best. Any other time, you're missing out on a lot. And the difference between single and dual band receivers with in today's equippage rates isn't all that much.

 

[GalinHdz]

Except that if you fly outside the US (Bahamas, Canada, Mexico etc..) 1090 provides some coverage while 978 provides no coverage. I will take some coverage over no coverage any day of the week so the difference between single and dual band receivers can be significant. Bring on the 472 fix!

 

[Raymo]

The region in which I fly most (eastern USA) is well covered by ground stations so the 470 (978 in only) is fine for me. I am on the waiting list for the 472 but in no hurry to make the change since I won't see any benefit where I fly.

I am mostly upgrading because of the trade-in opportunity but also to pick up 1090 out traffic directly if I am flying out west.

 

[Dynon101]

Dynon...That was a very good explanation...well done and certainly way above industry standard support.

Yes...dual band for me. On the waiting list. When will you begin shipments again?

 

[jakej]

Major Tom to Ground Control - there IS another world out here.

 

[ChiefPilot]

OK, I held my tongue yesterday, but enough is enough.  Obviously, the individuals that are complaining have absolutely no clue what they are talking about when it comes to electronics and troubleshooting.  Especially, when it involves antennae and wave propagation/transmission theory.  It can be very complicated and take awhile to fix.  As an example of complexity, just to take a wave propagation course at Rice University (pretty good engineering school) at the undergraduate level, one must have already taken multivariable calculus  and calculus IV classes.  THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A TRIVIAL ISSUE.  I also suggest that if you don't like the pace of the fix, sell your Dynon on eBay and go spend $40K on a Garmin system!

I agree 100% with this.

Yet, at the same time, I have put together a stratux-based solution, fabricated a custom enclosure for it behind the panel, installed it's own dedicated antenna, and wrote some custom code for it which gives me a dual-band solution for traffic and weather being displayed on my Avidyne IFD540. I'd love to have this on my Skyview, since Dynon has no workable solution, but Dynon has ensured that won't happen.

I really like my Skyview system, but a pox upon Dynon for not embracing a published protocol (GDL90) unlike organizations like Avidyne, Advanced, GRT, and others have done. Dynon can't deliver, and their proprietary approach has negatively impacted their customers because of it.

 

[mrdaud]

Yet, at the same time, I have put together a stratux-based solution, fabricated a custom enclosure for it behind the panel, installed it's own dedicated antenna, and wrote some custom code for it which gives me a dual-band solution for traffic and weather being displayed on my Avidyne IFD540.   I'd love to have this on my Skyview, since Dynon has no workable solution, but Dynon has ensured that won't happen.

Accolades for your work, but your ingenuity really proves nothing.  Will your system work on every airplane out there?  You have no clue without extensive testing and deep pockets.  And that is Dynon's problem as I understand it, getting it to work on every plane.  Not necessarily a trivial matter.

 

[krw5927]

Yet, at the same time, I have put together a stratux-based solution, fabricated a custom enclosure for it behind the panel, installed it's own dedicated antenna, and wrote some custom code for it which gives me a dual-band solution for traffic and weather being displayed on my Avidyne IFD540.   I'd love to have this on my Skyview, since Dynon has no workable solution, but Dynon has ensured that won't happen.

Accolades for your work, but your ingenuity really proves nothing.  Will your system work on every airplane out there?  You have no clue without extensive testing and deep pockets.  And that is Dynon's problem as I understand it, getting it to work on every plane.  Not necessarily a trivial matter.

All ChiefPilot is requesting here is the ability for Dynon to read and display TIS-B and FIS-B from a published protocol over a serial line.  Advanced Avionics (a Dynon company) already does it.  Most (all?) other EFIS manufacturers do as well.  That leaves us users free to design our own systems or use something off the shelf that already works, rather than being stuck with only one partial solution.  (I say partial because, no matter what happens with the -472, it still doesn't get traffic and weather to your favorite EFB app.  Some of us reeeeally want that feature, so we use another solution.  It would be mighty nice if we could also use that source to feed the Skyview.)

Yes, it may cannibalize sales of the -472, which I suspect is why Dynon isn't interested.  But sales are currently zero, and have been for some time now.  And like others, I have zero interest in ever putting a uAvionix thingamajig in my aircraft now, regardless of who tests it and says it's great.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Accolades for your work, but your ingenuity really proves nothing.  Will your system work on every airplane out there?  You have no clue without extensive testing and deep pockets.  And that is Dynon's problem as I understand it, getting it to work on every plane.  Not necessarily a trivial matter.

As krw pointed out, the point is that Dynon has goofed not once but twice: aside from the -472 debacle, the decision to lock customers in using proprietary stuff only means that Dynon customers get nothing.  The stratux approach wasn't my first choice, I would have preferred a Dynon solution, but it's become clear that no one knows when that will happen. 

And I'd agree that I have no idea if my solution will work on every aircraft out there.   Dynon doesn't either, apparently, and chose a partner that can't seem to figure it out either.   Meanwhile, I *do* have a solution that works great in *my* plane.  I wish it was possible for more Dynon customers to have that.

 

[GalinHdz]

FWIW: I disconnected my 472 unit and am using a STRATUX dual band receiver I built for just under $200. It sends traffic & weather via WIFI to my Android tablet running the free FltPlanGo app. Ok, so I don't have the data on my SkyView screen(s) but I have it in my airplane which is the idea.  YMMV

 

[Schorsch]

Back on the 470, I am happy to report zero problems with ADSB reception with all the same antenna and other setup - seems like “wave propagation” had zero to do with the 472 problems and it’s all uAvionix hardware and/or software bugs and rip-off.
I feel I finally gained back proper traffic annunciation through Skyview plus redundancy with the additional portable dual-band receiver.

And uAvionix other ADSB products are supposed to keep us Pilots safe from drones??? I see another NavWorx in the works, hopefully before something serious happens. Should the FAA take a close look at their bug-wares?

 

[Raymo]

I see another NavWorx in the works, hopefully before something serious happens. Should the FAA take a close look at their bug-wares?

Since ADS-B in is not required equipment, the FAA would have nothing to say about it.

Early adopters often feel pain when products do not meet expectations. I held off ordering the 472 for other reasons but now happy I did and also happy that Dynon is near a solution.

I work in the software industry and understand that with many hardware and/or software bugs, finding the root cause can take a very long time and cost many thousands of dollars to fix. We do the best we can to get to the fix in the shortest time possible.

 

[Garrett]

That is so true!

 

[dlloyd]

Garrett, one of the posts I saw concerning TIS OK with several towers in view was post #35. There was at least one other.

 

[swatson999]

And uAvionix other ADSB products are supposed to keep us Pilots safe from drones???

No, that's what your Mark I eyeballs are for.

 

[CGameProgrammer]

You will never see drones with your eyeballs; even other airplanes can be difficult to spot. ADS-B / TIS show me so much traffic that I cannot see even when i know where it is.