Before you buy your Ads-B 1090ES to fly into Canada

A

ahypnoz

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
137
Location
oklahoma city
Display Name
Display name:
ahypnoz
For those that are thinking about buying the generally more expensive 1090es devices instead of the cheaper 978 devices, in case you might want to fly into Canada’s controlled airspace in the future, make sure you get a top mounted antenna (as well as a bottom antenna for the USA)
From AVWeb:
Most U.S. general aviation operators will Not be able to fly in Canadian controlled airspace and vice versa when Canada mandates ADS-B according to Nav Canada. The not-for-profit corporation is also majority owner of Aireon, a recently activated space-based ADS-B tracking system that requires ADS-B 1090ES transmitters with antennae on the Top of the aircraft to properly track them. The U.S. uses a ground-based system that requires belly-mounted antennae. Aireon has tested belly-mounted antenna with its system and they don’t work. Nav Canada is telling Canadian pilots that its system will be exclusively based on the satellite system and they should be making their equipage decisions accordingly. In most cases, it’s not as simple as adding a second antenna to be able to fly in controlled airspace in both countries. Only a few GA systems offer the so-called “antenna diversity” ability.
 
Thank you, an excellent article that clearly demonstrates my concerns, unfortunately it does not only apply to larger aircraft.

(The problem is that the bottom mounted 1090es adsb antenna does not work with the satellite system, you need the top mounted system)


"The AOPA wrote in a letter also signed by the Aircraft Electronics Association, Alaska Airmen Association, Canadian Business Aviation Association, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, National Air Transportation Association, and National Business Aviation Association. Garmin also signed the letter. “We do not believe that our concerns, which were voiced during the consultation phase, have been fully considered.”

Here is the letter that the AOPA wrote:

March 5, 2019

Mr. Neil R. Wilson
President and Chief Executive Officer Nav Canada
77 rue Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, ON K1P 5L6

RE: General Aviation and Business Aviation Concerns with Canadian ADS-B Out Performance Requirement Mandate

Dear Mr. Wilson,

On behalf of the many general aviation and business aviation companies, operators, the hundreds of thousands of pilots our organizations represent, and manufacturers, we are writing today to express our collective concerns about one requirement of Nav Canada’s recommended ADS-B mandate. We believe that the proposed antenna diversity requirement will have a significant negative impact on Nav Canada’s most cost-sensitive users. As the representatives and advocates of large segments of the Canadian and U.S. aviation industries, we support ADS-B and the efficiency and safety benefits it will provide when it is adopted in a manner that supports general and business aviation on IFR and VFR flights. We do not believe that our concerns, which were voiced during the consultation phase, have been fully considered.

Contrary to an assumption that was mentioned, the majority of the Canadian general aviation fleet are not equipped with TCAS II (ACAS II) systems which requires antenna diversity. While some high-performance general aviation and business aviation aircraft may voluntarily equip with TCAS II, this system is only mandated in Canada for commercial turbine-powered transport aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats or weigh more than 33,000 lbs., or for aircraft that operate in RVSM airspace. There are currently no CAR general aviation rules requiring Private

Operators (Subpart 604 of the CARs) to equip with TCAS II equipment, so a limited number of private aircraft are TCAS II equipped. Thousands of non-commercial aircraft without diversity regularly fly above 12,500 feet, which makes the assumption that TCAS II equipage is predominant on the private aircraft fleet that flies above 12,500 feet erroneous. Implementing anunwarranted diversity requirement as part of Nav Canada’s ADS-B proposed mandate would have a significant adverse impact on many general aviation and business aviation aircraft owners and companies.

The cost to equip small aircraft with diversity today is significant and installations of this type of system are rare. Per the leading general aviation and business aviation ADS-B equipment manufacturer, diversity-compatible systems comprise only 1.6% of non-TCAS II-equipped aircraft sales. The cost of a diversity-compatible system is presently several thousand dollars more than a non-diversity system.

The shop time to install the second antenna is high since the headliner must be removed to gain access to install the top antenna. If the aircraft is pressurized, the installation will need additional approval for the pressure vessel penetration, which can cost thousands by itself. Additionally, Canada lacks a simplified path for installation and approval, so it is expected that a supplementary type certificate would be required for approval if there is no existing approval for installation of a diversity-compatible transponder. Given the aforementioned low number of diversity shipments, there are few existing approvals, which will add further expense and time.

Not to mention that a lot of Canadian operators were early adopters and have already equipped with ADS-B systems to meet the U.S. ADS-B mandate, which does not require diversity. Many of these ADS-B systems are not readily compatible with diversity and cannot be easily retrofitted, meaning these operators will need to almost immediately replace the ADS-B system they just installed.

As stated at the Nav Canada-hosted webex on January 11, 2019, further engineering analysis is being conducted to determine whether diversity is required at altitudes below 12,500 feet. However, we believe that Nav Canada should conduct additional, complete, and extensive analysis at all flight levels before imposing what we consider could be an unnecessary and expensive equipment requirement.

Additional discussion with industry is warranted to ensure that the Canadian ADS-B mandate is realistic. Should diversity be justified in specific airspace and levels, we believe that the mandate proposal must allow enough time for operators to be educated, solutions approved, and installations to take place; the current timeline is not realistic for a successful mandate implementation.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that Nav Canada conduct additional engineering analysis to determine if antenna diversity is required in any airspace, including Class A and Class B. Nav Canada should also acknowledge the significant increase in cost for diversity ADS-B systems amongst the non-commercial aircraft fleet in their justifications for an ADS-B mandate, and should work with the aviation industry to find suitable mitigations. It should be Nav Canada’sgoal to seek safe and economical solutions that support the general aviation and business aviation

communities. With many questions about the validity of a diversity mandate still unresolved, the general aviation and business aviation industries will suffer from the repercussions of a premature and unnecessary ADS-B mandate.

Sincerely,

Aircraft Electronics Association
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Alaska Airmen Association
Canadian Business Aviation Association Canadian Owners and Pilots Association

Experimental Aircraft Association
Garmin Ltd.
General Aviation Manufacturers Association National Air Transportation Association National Business Aviation Association

CC: Mr. Boyd Barnes, National Manager, Level of Service, Navigation & Airspace, Nav Canada Ms. Christine Gervais, Manager, Level of Service, Navigation & Airspace, Nav Canada
Mr. Robert Sincennes, Director, Standards Branch, Transport Canada
Mr. Pierre Ruel, Chief, Flight Standards, Transport Canada




The reason I bring this up is that I have many friends that are upgrading to the more expensive 1090es standard and are spending several thousand dollars more in their upgrade cost thinking that they might fly into Canada or outside the United States in the future because they have 1090es system installed, they might not be able to do this unless they have a top mounted antenna. Also they never fly above 18,000 so they have no other need for the 1090.

If you are planning to upgrade to the 1090es standard because you might fly into Canada,
only the Garmin GTX 33D ES and GTX 330D ES, and the L3 Commercial Aviation Lynx NGT-9000, has the top and bottom antenna.
 
There’s also GTX 335D and 345D versions available soon.
 
From:

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products...mmendations/Study Final Report - ADS-B-EN.pdf

"Aircraft that are not affected by ACAS/TCAS II regulations and do not currently have antenna diversity will be required to meet the recommended performance requirements set
forth in this proposal to operate in ADS-B airspace"

4.1.1
Performance Requirements
The following performance requirements align with ICAO’s recommendation of the
RTCA/DO-260B (equivalent to EUROCAE/ED-102A), Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz ADS-B as the preferred standard.

So, if you're not in the flight levels, as long as you have a transponder that complies with 91.227 / TSO-166b / RTCA DO-260B, you don't need antenna diversity.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/research/airspace/
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installation/equipment/
 
If someone really needs it just put an antenna on top and use a coax switch of some type..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ahypnoz said:
Thank you, an excellent article that clearly demonstrates my concerns, unfortunately it does not only apply to larger aircraft.

(The problem is that the bottom mounted 1090es adsb antenna does not work with the satellite system, you need the top mounted system)


...
Click to expand...

Much ado about nothing, at this point. AOPA, of all organizations, should know better.

Not sure how many more times I have to post this info on this forum (this is far from the first):

A) Nav Canada is NOT the regulatory agency in Canada. It is the air navigation service provider. Period. The equivalent to the FAA (e.g. legal regulatory authority) for aviation in Canuckland is Transport Canada. Nav Canada can publish any study it wants and propose anything it pleases, with whatever dates it wishes. TC has the sole authority to allow any of it to happen.

B) At the moment TC remains unconvinced ADS-B is necessary in Canada other than in the flight levels.

C) Read the study carefully. Among other things:
  • The implementation of a performance requirements mandate based on the Aireon space-based ADS-B system for Canadian Domestic Airspace initially limited to Class A airspace with an implementation date of January 1, 2021, will result in safety and efficiency benefits for our customers’ operations;
  • To achieve the maximum benefits of a performance-based mandate within acceptable timelines, the performance mandate should be expanded to include Class B airspace on January 1, 2022. Beyond this date, expansion of a performance requirements mandate to other Canadian Domestic Airspace will be based on an assessment of the safety and efficiency requirements for specific airspace and through the modernization of our surveillance systems, which includes the expansion of surveillance coverage, decommissioning of select radars and other ground-based surveillance systems
You will notice it does not say "will be", "shall be", "must be" or anything of the sort. Nav Canada wants to start ripping out radar sets as quickly as it can to cut its own costs (none of which will be passed on the GA, be assured), so it keeps publishing stuff urging TC to adopt its recommended deadlines...using the "tug on the heartstring" safety angle. Transport Canada is asking "What's the justification?" Even Nav Canada has had to acknowledge that anything beyond Class A airspace is going to be an increasingly difficult sell, and there is no concurrence from Transport Canada at this time. And Transport does understand some of the self-serving arguments Nav Canada is making.

C) Nav Canada is a large shareholder in Aereon LLC, the space based ADS-B provider that uses the Iridium satellite system to host its payloads. Thus, ADS-B in Canada is and will be 1090ES and satellite based. To my knowledge the USA is the only country in the world that has a second frequency and the only one that decided to go with a ground based system. Blame it on the Russians, I guess.

D) The only Canadian aircraft owners I know (in the west) that are installing ADS-B Out in their airplanes are those that want to be able to fly their planes in US controlled airspace after 01.01.2020. Nobody in the western side of the country is installing ADS-B to fly their light GA airplanes in Canada, unless they fly in Class A (18,000 ASL and higher in southern Canada). There is some initial, voluntary, installation activity going on with light GA planes that fly in the some of the remote regions of Quebec and eastern Ontario, but the driver is enhanced SAR location tracking, not float plane collision avoidance at 1500 AGL in the hinterland.

Chill out. It might be six to ten years, or longer, before you need ADS-B of any kind to fly your plane in Canada, other than in Class A.
 
Last edited:
A lot of good points. While I may well be «jumping the gun», I'm obviously not alone as uAvionix is investing considerable $$ to develop their version of a technical solution.

Indiana Pilot: Thanks for mentioning. A cockpit controlled switch is a solution I forgot to mention in my post, however my 60 year old neurons would prefer a system that is «idiot proof».

NavCan bureaucracy debate aside, I'm still interested in gaining a better understanding of the technical aspects and wondering if there is, from the technical standpoint, a cheaper and more elegant solution. I'm a homebuilder and interested in something I could build/install myself. I already have a Trigg T22 transponder with ADS-B ES capability installed.

My simple reasoning leads me to think that the problem with wiring two antennas to a regular transponder is that only half of the signal strength would be transmitted by each antenna, so I'm thinking that a small powered amplifier doubling the strength of the signal so that each antenna receives 100% of the original signal, may be a solution. But it is probably more complicated than that, given that Garmin and others have redesigned a transponder for the task. If my suggestion is too naive a solution, I'm hoping someone who is knowledgeable can explain why this would not work and suggest something that might.

Best,

Normand
RV8 C-GNGN
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top