denverpilot
Tied Down
Backward. 1090 is the transponder and radar site (Mode-S). (How the rest of the world does ADS-B.)
978 is the "ground station" (UAT) with higher bandwidth for weather, etc. (The add on that FAA did.)
Garmin Headaches
- Thread starter Flyhound
- Start date
Backward. 1090 is the transponder and radar site (Mode-S). (How the rest of the world does ADS-B.)
978 is the "ground station" (UAT) with higher bandwidth for weather, etc. (The add on that FAA did.)
ircphoenix
En-Route
Ah. Peculiar. The DUAL website has it backwards too.
http://gps.dualav.com/explore-by-product/xgps170/
denverpilot
Tied Down
Maybe that explains why the OPs doesn't work? ;-) ;-) ;-)
For the bored or interested... transponders...
https://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/183231-1.html
denverpilot
Tied Down
By the way, note the optimism in 1998...
"The FAA is now talking about a future ATC system based not on radar surveillance, as is used today, but on "automatic dependent surveillance" in which aircraft continually transmit their GPS position to ground stations which keep track of them and tell controllers where they are. In view of this, it's possible that Mode S may become obsolete before we need to worry about it."
LOL... oh... nope, Mode-S became the original backbone of ADS-B and then someone realized it wouldn't handle all the traffic and bolted on UAT...
LOL. Re-reading that article was fun, but especially that last line. No hints of highly expensive upgrades mandated yet, no kludging of the system via "hockey pucks", no UAT mess, no certified vs non-certified...
"The FAA is now talking about a future ATC system based not on radar surveillance, as is used today, but on "automatic dependent surveillance" in which aircraft continually transmit their GPS position to ground stations which keep track of them and tell controllers where they are. In view of this, it's possible that Mode S may become obsolete before we need to worry about it."
LOL... oh... nope, Mode-S became the original backbone of ADS-B and then someone realized it wouldn't handle all the traffic and bolted on UAT...
LOL. Re-reading that article was fun, but especially that last line. No hints of highly expensive upgrades mandated yet, no kludging of the system via "hockey pucks", no UAT mess, no certified vs non-certified...
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The reason Garmin is practically a monopoly is that, while they do have "competition", their competition sucks. Avidyne's reliability is horrible, and their customer support somehow worse. King has the worst UI I've seen since the Motorola phone I had, briefly, on Nextel in the 90's. Aspen gave me a flicker of hope, but as soon as their synthetic vision came out it was clear that they cheaped out on their hardware.
Garmin is on top because Garmin has figured out how to make a great product that people want, and nobody else really has.
ircphoenix
En-Route
The reason Garmin is practically a monopoly is that, while they do have "competition", their competition sucks. Avidyne's reliability is horrible, and their customer support somehow worse. King has the worst UI I've seen since the Motorola phone I had, briefly, on Nextel in the 90's. Aspen gave me a flicker of hope, but as soon as their synthetic vision came out it was clear that they cheaped out on their hardware.
Garmin is on top because Garmin has figured out how to make a great product that people want, and nobody else really has.
And because the barrier of entry to get into the market is so high, and competition at that level is so scarce because of that barrier.
arkvet
Line Up and Wait
What has been your issue with avidyne's reliability and support? I'm a new avidyne owner and only have experience with the IFD 550 and soon will have in/out ADSB. So far have been nothing but pleased. Part of my reason for going with them was based on pireps that were positive.
bnt83
Final Approach
The reason Garmin is practically a monopoly is that, while they do have "competition", their competition sucks. Avidyne's reliability is horrible, and their customer support somehow worse. King has the worst UI I've seen since the Motorola phone I had, briefly, on Nextel in the 90's. Aspen gave me a flicker of hope, but as soon as their synthetic vision came out it was clear that they cheaped out on their hardware.
Garmin is on top because Garmin has figured out how to make a great product that people want, and nobody else really has.
Bendix/King (Honeywell) decided to essentially copy Narco policy. Dealers were instructed to return all spare parts stocks and destroy or return all service manuals. The flat rates for repairs appear to be about double what Garmin would charge for similar equipment. Makes me think about pulling and selling my very nice KN53 w/GS and the very nice KI204.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
I have two ADS-B Out solutions I am considering since I already have a 430 W and the King transponder that can be replaced with the King solution as almost plug and play. I will be watching this closely. At this time it appears that the King solution is the one that makes sense.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Garmin is where King was in the '70s and 80's. Collins and Narco were "also-rans" by the end of that.
One of the great hurdles any challenger to Garmin faces today is there isn't a 10,000 or 20,000 per year new airplane production demand to sell into. It might be much more difficult to try to unseat Garmin compared to when Garmin took on Bendix/King.
Even Garmin is now catering seriously to the amateur built market. Friend of mine, a retired airline captain, is just finishing an IFR RV-8. He has $30,000 of all Garmin gear, centered around a G3X, going into that little panel.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Three things:
1) In the early 2000's, I had a friend who worked for a company that did third-party reliability testing for both Avidyne and Garmin when they were developing the Entegra and G1000, respectively. He couldn't tell me what he saw, but to this day, he refuses to get on an Avidyne-equipped airplane.
2) This accident. When an airplane has less than 100 hours and is on its fourth PFD, that is a serious reliability problem! (Note: I don't blame Avidyne for the accident, even though it sounds like the PFD may have failed again - What kind of idiot takes off into a 600-foot overcast on the first flight out of the avionics shop where they had a new PFD installed?!?)
3) More recent: Another friend owns a Cirrus SR22 Turbo that originally came equipped with the S-TEC 55X autopilot. He installed the Avidyne DFC90 to replace the S-TEC. One year and two days later, the autopilot failed, requiring a complete logic board replacement - North of $5K. Avidyne refused to even give a discount, even though it was only two days out of warranty (and that's a short warranty too).NTSB report said:
That's more than enough for me to never buy their stuff.
arkvet
Line Up and Wait
Sounds like logical reasoning for your decision. I'll keep my fingers crossed that I have good luck. I like the products enough to justify the increased risk, real or perceived.
I have to wonder, though, with the guy with was on his 4th PFD. If it was truly replaced each time then I would want to think there may have been installation or usage problems. idk. The failure rate certainly isn't that high across the board. Not even close.
I have to wonder, though, with the guy with was on his 4th PFD. If it was truly replaced each time then I would want to think there may have been installation or usage problems. idk. The failure rate certainly isn't that high across the board. Not even close.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not any more, but they did have a lot of issues early on.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I know another reason... and it comes from a Garmin employee... and not any we both know... ha...
The GA avionics division doesn't have to make a profit. Or very little. Research and Development costs are not charged back to the products.
I can neither third party confirm or deny this of course, but it makes sense.
They make money on subscriptions and a small margin on sale of new, but it doesn't have to cover the R&D completely.
This is only light GA of course. Plenty of profit selling integrated flight decks to manufacturers of aircraft, and once you learn Garmin buttonology you're probably going to want it further up the food chain also.
A very Cisco-like approach.
All the other avionics companies, probably can't do this. Well King/Honeywell in theory could, money-wise, but as you've mentioned, they're so far behind on UI, it'd take an enormous effort to catch up. Or they'd need to do like any other tech company does and just steal the technology and plan to sell enough to pay the lawyers and the out of court settlement ten years or more hence, after it went through the court system. Garmin would ask for injunctions and if Honeywell were smart, they'd scream (falsely) "anti-trust" to the press to stop that from happening, and pretend they're just the victim being run out of business by big bad Garmin.
LOL... none of the above is going to happen, though. Honeywell sucks.
Avidyne, they had a lot of problems but they do seem to have the capacity to learn. What they don't have is a huge cash cow of other consumer products to back up whatever they feel like doing in avionics.
You won't find any P&L numbers in Garmin's public filings for light GA products broken out the 10K. I've looked.
Flyhound
Pre-takeoff checklist
Well, it wasn't a Garmin incompatibility problem at all. I had 2 problems working against me in parallel and neither was obvious. That made troubleshooting REALLY hard. The antenna on my Dual XGPS-170 was not making good contact with the receiver. It was good enough to pick up NEXRAD weather from the FAA's ground stations, but not the traffic information. In addition, I had a menu choice 3 levels down on the Droid EFB preferences that was causing an additional problem. Thanks to the Dual XGPS-170 folks for the new antenna and to DroidEFB for instructions on how to run an ADS-B-In diagnostic on the tablet software. The preference I had to turn off in the software was in Preferences/Device Settings/ADS-B Device Interprets Traffic. Once that setting was turned off and the new Dual antenna was installed, I had traffic appearing all around me. Good grief there are a LOT of planes out there! It's amazing how few I see with my eyes. Of course the traffic indicator is showing planes inside a 2 mile, a 6 mile and a 12 mile radius of me. A small white GA airplane against a hazy sky 5 miles away isn't going to be visible to the naked eye at all. What the traffic status lets me do is identify aircraft that are potential conflicts and increase my visual scan of that part of the sky so I actually see them when they get close enough. Or, I can change course long before I need to be vigilant. I'm liking my ADS-B setup now!
SbestCFII
Line Up and Wait
The "In" shouldn't matter as long as you have ADS-B out you should be getting all the traffic.
I have a GDL-39-3D with a King KT-74 squawking ADS-B out with position data from my 430W. The ADS-B out data is all standard data, as is the ADS-B data received from the ground stations by the various receivers. My instrument students using Stratus receivers in my Warrior get the same data as I get on my GDL-39. There shouldn't be any difference with Stratux/Flightbox or DualX units either. I think the issue would have to lie with the DualX unit and not with the transponder.
I have a GDL-39-3D with a King KT-74 squawking ADS-B out with position data from my 430W. The ADS-B out data is all standard data, as is the ADS-B data received from the ground stations by the various receivers. My instrument students using Stratus receivers in my Warrior get the same data as I get on my GDL-39. There shouldn't be any difference with Stratux/Flightbox or DualX units either. I think the issue would have to lie with the DualX unit and not with the transponder.
ircphoenix
En-Route
Glad you got that squared away... and doubly glad you shared with us. It might not be immediately useful for most of us, but some poor soul is going to be Googling this same exact problem in the future, and they're gonna see your solution. Thanks for following up!
BigBadLou
Final Approach
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 5,173
- Location
- TX - the friendliest state
- Display Name
Display name:
Lou
Agreed, thank you for following up with the root cause and solution.
This is brand new technology and more installations are yet to come so if anybody has the same problem, they might get lucky and find your thread.
Glad you got it resolved.
This is brand new technology and more installations are yet to come so if anybody has the same problem, they might get lucky and find your thread.
Glad you got it resolved.
bnt83
Final Approach
Avionics is only like 15% of Garmin's total revenue.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
You think that much! Maybe boat AND Aviation avionics combined, Maybe
Edit. You were right on the money. Exactly 15% of total revenue
Last edited:
EugeneR
Pre-takeoff checklist
Correct. But the OP should still set both 1090 in and 978 in to ON as he has a dual-band ADS-B receiver. If both set to on he would get air-to-air ADS-B from both UAT and 1090ES aircraft + ground radar targets over UAT. If he sets only UAT in capability he should still get all the traffic, but all 1090 targets will have to be re-broadcasted by ground station, consuming additional bandwidth.