ADSB diversity update?

[Histolytica]

Hi everybody, does anybody have any updated information about the ADS-B diversity requirements?
Based on the last article I read (I believe it was COPA 2019), phase 1 starts today Jan 2021 this is for class A airspace. Phase 2 includes class B airspace and apparently will start 1 year from now. The Nav Canada website is very vague and down-plays the effect on GA.

Here's my predicament, I'll be buying a new transponder soon. It is for private GA use but I do plan on flying over 12,500. So unless something changes, it looks like I'll need a diversity equipped transponder. The garmin gtx 345D transponder is basically double the price of the regular 345, and then there's the extra expense of adding another antennae on top. So we're talking about spending ~$10k for a vague mandate with very little information (at least that I can find).

Does anybody have updated information?

Thanks
H

[Cessna 180]

If your plane is compatible once certified, the TailBeacon X is probably the most cost-effective option.

[Histolytica]

Yeah the tailbeacon x is an interesting possibility. But that's if it gets approved. It would sure save a bunch of money.

[ahramin]

I would not make any avionics choices based on rumours about NavCanada's future plans. Look at the current requirements and published future requirements and go with that. NavCanada has NO published current or future requirements for ADS-B outside of MNPS airspace.

However if you are looking for rumours to justify spending another 10k, here's the latest I have.

August 2019 from TC: Any diversity requirement will not affect class C airspace around major urban centers because they will install ground based systems.

October 2020 from NavCanada: All ADS-B plans are on indefinite hold until traffic levels resume.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I believe the tail beacon X requires a dedicated panel controller like the Av20 or Av 30. So I would suggest more research. The L3 Lynx transponder is diversity capable at an upcharge of I believe only $ 1000 so it seems to be quite a bit less than GARMIN's units

Personally and an opinion worth every penny you paid for it , It appears to me that Nav Canada has for now, put ADSB in the "too hard" box.

There is no question that space based ADSB is the future solution but it sure looks like folks over promised and under delivered on low altitude GA space based ADSB systems. ADSB is easy in the flight levels not so easy down low hence the diversity antenna requirement. Given that Nav Canada is fighting for its financial life due to the calamitous COVID traffic reductions, I just don't see them making the investment to enable an under 12.5 ADSB requirement any time soon.

I would bet money we are at least 5 years away from any low altitude ADSB mandate.

[Big Pistons Forever]

October 2020 from NavCanada: All ADS-B plans are on indefinite hold until traffic levels resume.

Do you have a reference for this? I can't find any reference to it on their web site.

[Cessna 180]

I believe the tail beacon X requires a dedicated panel controller like the Av20 or Av 30. So I would suggest more research. The L3 Lynx transponder is diversity capable at an upcharge of I believe only $ 1000 so it seems to be quite a bit less than GARMIN's units

Personally and an opinion worth every penny you paid for it , It appears to me that Nav Canada has for now, put ADSB in the "too hard" box.

There is no question that space based ADSB is the future solution but it sure looks like folks over promised and under delivered on low altitude GA space based ADSB systems. ADSB is easy in the flight levels not so easy down low hence the diversity antenna requirement. Given that Nav Canada is fighting for its financial life due to the calamitous COVID traffic reductions, I just don't see them making the investment to enable an under 12.5 ADSB requirement any time soon.

I would bet money we are at least 5 years away from any low altitude ADSB mandate.

I think the dilemma is if you want/need to fly to the US in Class C or B or above 10k feet, you need ADS-B. There's no sense buying a solution that may be incompatible with Canadian airspace in just 5 years.

And the tailbeaconX will require a controller (which looks like it has some sort of EFIS so you can replace your attitude indicator), but they all require some sort of control box. 1090es is more than just an ads-b "signal" like 978UAT. It also a mode S transponder.

It would be great if they would install 978UAT ground equipment for GA aircraft like the US. it would only have to be centered in transponder required airspace and it would save a lot of money for GA aircraft.

[ahramin]

October 2020 from NavCanada: All ADS-B plans are on indefinite hold until traffic levels resume.

Do you have a reference for this? I can't find any reference to it on their web site.

There is little point in looking on NavCanada's website since the company itself is both incompetent and unaccountable. I thought I was clear that I was responding to a request for rumours, not facts. So far NavCanada has been completely unable to come up with a plan so looking for information on the plan is likely to be frustrating.

However since it's you BPF, the reference is an anonymous NavCanada manager familiar with their ADS-B plans. I don't know if it's true, it's just the latest thing I was told when I inquired about NavCanada's plans for ADS-B in Canada. I don't normally repeat rumours but this was a direct request.

[ahramin]

The problem with the TailbeaconX is that while uAvionix claims that it will soon be TSO and meets all the performance requirements for NavCanada / Aireon, it isn't yet compatible with any sort of legal installation in Canada. There are dozens of Canadian registered aircraft flying around with these things installed and no TC approval.

[Histolytica]

I would not make any avionics choices based on rumours about NavCanada's future plans. Look at the current requirements and published future requirements and go with that. NavCanada has NO published current or future requirements for ADS-B outside of MNPS airspace.

However if you are looking for rumours to justify spending another 10k, here's the latest I have.

August 2019 from TC: Any diversity requirement will not affect class C airspace around major urban centers because they will install ground based systems.

October 2020 from NavCanada: All ADS-B plans are on indefinite hold until traffic levels resume.

Is there an official document on what NavCanada's future (or previous) plans are?
I agree that for class C it seems it will likely be quite a while before there's a mandate. However, phase 2 has been previously slated for 2022 (according to COPA article). This is the class B I'm concerned with. Was that an official or tentative plan? I have no desire to spend money based on rumors; I'm trying to figure out what the official plan is. If there's no official plan, then I guess I'll fix my broken transponder and wait for a plan before buying the next one.

thanks
H

[ahramin]

Is there an official document on what NavCanada's future (or previous) plans are?

No.

[Cessna 180]

The problem with the TailbeaconX is that while uAvionix claims that it will soon be TSO and meets all the performance requirements for NavCanada / Aireon, it isn't yet compatible with any sort of legal installation in Canada. There are dozens of Canadian registered aircraft flying around with these things installed and no TC approval.

The skybeacon has an STC for multiple aircraft and I believe the TailBeaconX will be STCd (it's being targeted for the Canadian market). The regular (978) tailbeacon is only STCd for the Cessna 172, and the 337 method is likely no good in Canada.

[ahramin]

The Skybeacon works on 978 and therefore has no installation and maintenance requirements in Canada beyond basic electrical system rules. The TailbeaconX is an ADS-B and Mode S transponder which falls under a whole pile of rules, all of which are currently being ignored while they fly around in Canadian airspace. So far it hasn't caused any problems and TC is turning a blind eye. If at some point one of these systems does cause a problem TC will probably throw the book at the pilot and AC owner and not mention NavCanada's involvement. If there's a midair, the TSB will hopefully point out that TC knew what was going on and ignored it.

[Cessna 180]

The Skybeacon works on 978 and therefore has no installation and maintenance requirements in Canada beyond basic electrical system rules. The TailbeaconX is an ADS-B and Mode S transponder which falls under a whole pile of rules, all of which are currently being ignored while they fly around in Canadian airspace. So far it hasn't caused any problems and TC is turning a blind eye. If at some point one of these systems does cause a problem TC will probably throw the book at the pilot and AC owner and not mention NavCanada's involvement. If there's a midair, the TSB will hopefully point out that TC knew what was going on and ignored it.

The tailbeaconX (1090ES) TSO isn't even for sale yet. There's a version for experimental aircraft, but that falls in a different set of rules. The TSO tailbeaconX is available for preorder.

The tailbeacon (978UAT) is available in both TSO and experimental versions and is installed as a minor modification using form 337 (in the US). It is STCd for the Cessna 172.

The skybeacon (978UAT) is available in TSO and experimental versions and has FAA STCs for a variety of aircraft type and is installed in accordance with the STC.

You are correct that a lot of people have installed tailbeacons and skybeacons (978UAT versions) so they can access US airspace. This has no effect on NavCanada Radar since they do not replace an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder. I talked to Brant Aero about the cost to have one installed and the guy said they have been quite popular.

[ahramin]

The tailbeaconX (1090ES) TSO isn't even for sale yet. There's a version for experimental aircraft, but that falls in a different set of rules.

In what way does CAR Standards 571 Appendix F differ for amateur built aircraft?

[AirFrame]

The tailbeaconX (1090ES) TSO isn't even for sale yet. There's a version for experimental aircraft, but that falls in a different set of rules.

In what way does CAR Standards 571 Appendix F differ for amateur built aircraft?

Who said it did? You can take an amateur-built with a TailBeaconX to an avionics shop and have its performance tested just like any other transponder.

[AirFrame]

I believe the tail beacon X requires a dedicated panel controller like the Av20 or Av 30. So I would suggest more research.

This is correct. uAvionix made a small number of AV-10's, which was *just* a head unit to receive static pressure and control the TailBeaconX, but they decided not to take them to production after the beta program. Which is too bad, as that would definitely keep them in the "cheapest solution" box.

The AV-30, however, is a very nice piece of kit. If I weren't on an upgrade path that will ultimately end with a large piece of glass, I would definitely replace my front and center 3-1/8" instrument with one of them.

The TailBeaconX is really intended for planes that either have an EFIS, or are buying an AV-20 or -30, or have some other head-unit that speaks a standard protocol for remote-control of a transponder. I'm working on a device that will speak the Sandia protocol and provide that control, but it won't be for TSO installations... Amateur-built only.

[ahramin]

The tailbeaconX (1090ES) TSO isn't even for sale yet. There's a version for experimental aircraft, but that falls in a different set of rules.

In what way does CAR Standards 571 Appendix F differ for amateur built aircraft?

Who said it did? You can take an amateur-built with a TailBeaconX to an avionics shop and have its performance tested just like any other transponder.

Yes, if the owner of an amateur-built aircraft didn't want to fly around illegally after installing a TailBeaconX they could indeed take it to an avionics shop and have it tested. Unfortunately, they would then find out that while uAvionix claims that it meets the performance requirements

The tailBeaconX Mode S transponder meets the performance requirements of TSO-C112e Class 1 Level 2els, and 1090 ES ADS-B transmitter TSO-C166b Class B1S

they do not claim that it meets all the requirements. Specifically the ON and ground test functions. There is no way to test the suppression, frequency, power, or MTL of the mode A and C functions. So you can certainly take it to the shop and spend the money, but the shop will not be able sign it off.

So then the owner is faced with not turning the unit on, or flying illegally.

[linecrew]

Is there an official document on what NavCanada's future (or previous) plans are?

No.

Yes, there is.

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-an ... udies.aspx

Fourth one down on that page. In the document that the link opens are links to both the terms of reference and aeronautical study.

[AirFrame]

they do not claim that it meets all the requirements. Specifically the ON and ground test functions. There is no way to test the suppression, frequency, power, or MTL of the mode A and C functions. So you can certainly take it to the shop and spend the money, but the shop will not be able sign it off.

So how does a shop test those things on a "normal" transponder?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Is there an official document on what NavCanada's future (or previous) plans are?

No.

Yes, there is.

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-an ... udies.aspx

Fourth one down on that page. In the document that the link opens are links to both the terms of reference and aeronautical study.

The devil is in the details. From your link

Affected Airspace, Timelines and Mandated Performance Requirements
The implementation of the mandate will be in phases. The phases were selected in collaboration with
stakeholders to ensure alignment and interoperability with domestic and international Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN) plans, ATS standards and procedures initiatives and future traffic management and flow
tools.
• Phase 1: Class A airspace and Class E airspace above FL600.
• Phase 2: Class B airspace.
• Beyond Phase 2, no sooner than January 1, 2023, Class C, D and E airspace as required and
following additional stakeholder consultation

The only firm date for the under 12.5 airspace which is the concern of almost all of GA is "not earlier than Jan 1 2023, which is now less than 2 years away. But and this is a big "BUT" is the caveat "following additional stakeholder consultation". AFAIK this consultation has yet to happen.

If you read the text literally my 2 airplanes which are based at an airport with a Class C CZ will not be able to operate without a compliant, and very expensive ADSB unit in less than 2 years. For one of the airplanes installing a GARMIN GTX345D would represent more than half of the value of the airplane.

Personally I am doing nothing because I think the chance the mandate will come into force on Jan 1 2023 is effectively zero. However it sure would be nice if Nav Canada would provide some definitive guidance......

[Histolytica]

Is there an official document on what NavCanada's future (or previous) plans are?

No.

Yes, there is.

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-an ... udies.aspx

Fourth one down on that page. In the document that the link opens are links to both the terms of reference and aeronautical study.

This link is quite helpful, thanks. If you follow it through to the "Aeronautical Study" document, it is quite a comprehensive report of the proposed mandates.

It clearly states the proposed dates are class A Jan 1 2021, class B Jan 1 2022, and other class airspace is basically TBD but not before 2023.
Also it states the proposed mandatory ADSB diversity requirement.

One issue is that these dates and requirements are just proposals at the time of writing that document. As others have pointed out, it is likely that the timeline has changed due to covid and perhaps other factors. Personally, I've decided to try to limp my old transponder through a bit longer until it becomes clear that the proposals have been accepted and I'm required to buy the gtx345D (or equivalent).

Interestingly, the document significantly underestimates the expense of ADSB diversity retro-fits and over estimates the availability of acceptable avionics. I guess they were thinking more about airliners, but they are clearly clueless when it comes to privately owned small GA aircraft.

H

[ahramin]

Is there an official document on what NavCanada's future (or previous) plans are?

No.

Yes, there is.

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-an ... udies.aspx

Fourth one down on that page. In the document that the link opens are links to both the terms of reference and aeronautical study.

Beyond Phase 2, no sooner than January 1, 2023, Class C, D and E airspace as required and following additional stakeholder consultations.

So a published date less than two years away and the requirement is "as required". The study linked to in that document points out that US and EU ADS-B is ground based, but makes no mention whatsoever of any plans for ground based systems in Canada other than the plan to decommission the existing system. I have been told by both NavCanada managers and TC delegates that a ground based system for major class C areas is being considered, but NavCanada refuses to publish any information despite a possible implementation date less than 2 years away.

Keeping in mind that the FAA published very specific requirements 8 years before their implementation date and the EU 5 years prior, how would you suggest we use this document to plan an avionics upgrade? Should everyone spend an extra ten to twenty thousand dollars on diversity based on the above "requirement"? Or just those that are upgrading anyway? Or nobody in their right minds?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Interestingly, the document significantly underestimates the expense of ADSB diversity retro-fits and over estimates the availability of acceptable avionics. I guess they were thinking more about airliners, but they are clearly clueless when it comes to privately owned small GA aircraft.

H

Sadly that is a pretty consistent theme with Nav Canada, but not surprising given the reality it is run by and for the major airlines. One unfortunate challenge for GA is the Mandate for ADSB in the flight levels is an easy one because 85 % of the aircraft flying in the flight levels already have diversity antennas part of their TCAS system and a 1090 ADSB system to operate in the US. The simpler 972 systems are restricted to below FL 180 in the US so not a factor.

With the airlines already pretty much taken care of the incentive for Nav Canada to sort out the GA fit for low level airspace is IMHO not high.....

[ahramin]

they do not claim that it meets all the requirements. Specifically the ON and ground test functions. There is no way to test the suppression, frequency, power, or MTL of the mode A and C functions. So you can certainly take it to the shop and spend the money, but the shop will not be able sign it off.

So how does a shop test those things on a "normal" transponder?

Old ones you just turn them on. Some new ones you have to disable the auto function. Garmin 345 you have to force into a test mode and reboot. It's all in the manuals.

TailBeaconX, not possible. Maybe someday but in the meantime if someone files a noise or low flying complaint about your aircraft and TC wants to see the last transponder and altimeter checks to corroborate your side of the story I'm not sure "I'm planning on doing it as soon as it becomes possible" will be accepted. Happened to a guy in ZBB recently and TC didn't accept "I've only owned the plane a week" as an excuse for not complying with the maintenance schedule.