uAvionix Skybeacon update...

Whenever a company is dealing with a government regulator regarding a certification it almost always has limited to zero control over the approval timeline. I deal with the DOT in my business (non-aviation) and have an almost constant series of certification or approval processes underway with them. Sometimes things get done in a matter of 2 or 3 months, and sometimes its a year or more, and we have no way of predicting.
 
Buuuuut part 23 re write fixed all this lol
 
GRG55 said:
Whenever a company is dealing with a government regulator regarding a certification it almost always has limited to zero control over the approval timeline. I deal with the DOT in my business (non-aviation) and have an almost constant series of certification or approval processes underway with them. Sometimes things get done in a matter of 2 or 3 months, and sometimes its a year or more, and we have no way of predicting.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I think most people are aware of that, but I find interesting their statement that reads, "have changed our approach to full TSO certification after careful deliberation with the FAA"...
Makes me wonder.
 
To me, it sounds like the FAA isn't going to allow ADS-B Out via NORSEE so now they have to TSO it as an ADS-B Out device.
 
It will be interesting to see how much they charge for this $1500 item once the FAA says they can sell it.
 
tawood said:
Sure, and I think most people are aware of that, but I find interesting their statement that reads, "have changed our approach to full TSO certification after careful deliberation with the FAA"...
Makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

Pt. 23 re-write means that manufacturers can comply with "consensus industry standards" in lieu of TSO.

I think this involves testing to ASTM or similar standards and supplying the FAA with documentation.
 
Last edited:
Still hoping this makes it to market, it will be a great solution for a lot of aircraft...
 
idahoflier said:
Still hoping this makes it to market, it will be a great solution for a lot of aircraft...
Click to expand...
Me too...although I now see they are making a white-rear-light version. I think, if available, that would be the one I choose.
 
tawood said:
Me too...although I now see they are making a white-rear-light version. I think, if available, that would be the one I choose.
Click to expand...

Isn't the tail beacon they're looking into?
 
uAvionix needs to stop trying to predict their own approvals...they missed another of their self imposed deadlines, saying at a Las Vegas trade show, March 27th, that they would start selling to certified aircraft in 4 weeks. Sigh.
 
well, the real deadline is late 2019, so until then, don't light your hair on fire. If at that point they haven't been able to get this through the judases at the FAA then they're toast. At that point their sales would have missed the bulk of the market, since most people would have opted to install something else by then. I'm sure some procrastinating avionics-haters like me may still be around, but it won't move the needle for sure.

I am very interested in seeing how the certification process blows up the price in the end. If they can keep it under the GDL-82, that's a huge win, considering the de facto zero labor required to install.
 
email this morning says end of June for TSO approval
 
Badger said:
email this morning says end of June for TSO approval
Click to expand...
Another self-imposed deadline...more of an annoyance than anything. Reminds me of when I take my car in for service, and they say it will be done in four hours, then after waiting three days it is still not finished.
For me, unfortunately, it looks like I'm out as a buyer for uAvionix: my King transponder seems to have died last night, and if my mechanic confirms its officially dead, I'll be replacing it with a Stratus.
 
Don't know why y'all are beating on Uavionix. I think that it is very interesting what they are doing. I would love to do all of this installation myself. Progress is being made. I will hold off on the GDL82 until I see what comes of this effort.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Don't know why y'all are beating on Uavionix. I think that it is very interesting what they are doing. I would love to do all of this installation myself. Progress is being made. I will hold off on the GDL82 until I see what comes of this effort.
Click to expand...
I applaud what they are trying to do too but there is a reason I removed the echouat within a couple weeks of install.
 
"...expect that skyBeacon installations on non-STC’d models will be a minor alteration which can be signed off on by an A&P holding an IA or a Part 145 repair station."

Why would a minor alteration require an A&P holding an IA? STC's require IA involvement, any A&P can make minor alterations and sign the return to service.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Don't know why y'all are beating on Uavionix. I think that it is very interesting what they are doing. I would love to do all of this installation myself. Progress is being made. I will hold off on the GDL82 until I see what comes of this effort.
Click to expand...
im not beating up on them. im with ya, theyre not putting me out by their trials and tribulations in getting the thing past the obstructuonists at the FAA. so thats only the OP losing his mind over it. Reminds me of that louis ck bit about people ungrateful for the wifi breaking down on an airline flight: "How quickly, the world owes him something he knew existed only 10 seconds ago". :D

FORANE said:
I applaud what they are trying to do too but there is a reason I removed the echouat within a couple weeks of install.
Click to expand...
i know you posted about it a while back. so, lets cut the cryptic stuff. whats the deal with uavionix? is the radio communication technology being employed by these de facto xponder relay units essentially unreliable and or prone to failure? is the so called power transducer (using the wiring of the electrical system to grab the xponder data) basically snake oil? is the hardware cheapest vendor stuff that breaks in a week? come man, spell it out :D

Witmo said:
"...expect that skyBeacon installations on non-STC’d models will be a minor alteration which can be signed off on by an A&P holding an IA or a Part 145 repair station."

Why would a minor alteration require an A&P holding an IA? STC's require IA involvement, any A&P can make minor alterations and sign the return to service.
Click to expand...

i have no idea. my uninformed guess is that it fiddles with transponders, but im not a stc/337 ad nauseam pedant, i think the aircraft alteration/modification system is broken and corrupt, as seen by the snuffing of the primary non commercial category.
 
Who said I'm losing my mind? LOL. I'm just stating the facts: they are not making their own deadlines. I'm not even assuming it is anyone but the FAA's fault. But...here's an idea: they should stop giving themselves deadlines!

Although I will say that after the Navworx debacle, I think we all have a reason to be cautious with new ADS-b equipment.
 
FORANE said:
I applaud what they are trying to do too but there is a reason I removed the echouat within a couple weeks of install.
Click to expand...
And what was that reason, exactly? I'm curious, especially since that's the most appealing solution for our plane right now.
 
hindsight2020 said:
i know you posted about it a while back. so, lets cut the cryptic stuff. whats the deal with uavionix? is the radio communication technology being employed by these de facto xponder relay units essentially unreliable and or prone to failure? is the so called power transducer (using the wiring of the electrical system to grab the xponder data) basically snake oil? is the hardware cheapest vendor stuff that breaks in a week? come man, spell it out :D


.
Click to expand...
DaleB said:
And what was that reason, exactly? I'm curious, especially since that's the most appealing solution for our plane right now.
Click to expand...

The problem I experienced was failed ads-b compliance report due to "Baro Alt" failures. This occurred both times I tried using a sniffer (navworx and echo). If the transponder is not being pinged, it is not putting out anything to sniff by the ads-b unit. This leads to Baro Alt failures. I resolved this issue with the Navworx box by hard wiring serial line from the altitude encoder to the Navworx. As I understand, Garmin got around this problem with their GDL 82 sniffer by giving the GDL 82 the ability to ping the transponder. I was arfaid the failures would lead to an AD on the Echo unit so I removed it. After I removed the Echo they released a new harness with the ability to hardwire the altitude encoder to the Echo. See post 5 here where they talk about it:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=158136&highlight=echouat
More problems still exist with their products however. See posts 211 and 215 here straight from the manufacturer:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=154873&page=22

Bottom line is that I like what they are trying to do but it seems to me at least that a rush to market has led to a product that wasn't ready for prime time.
 
Last edited:
Because of your(Forane's) pirep, I called Uavionix about the baro altitude failure issue. They explained that lessons were learned from the Echo product and that changes were incorporated in the Skybeacon and TailBeacon to avoid the problem if the transponder is not pinged. They said, without a ping, the geo(gps) altitude would be populated to prevent the problem. Their timeline is still June 2018 for certification, and they expect the TailBeacon to follow before the end of this year.
 
Sounds like an improvement but I wonder if the FAA will take issue with a GPS altitude in place of pressure altitude in the system.
 
FORANE said:
Sounds like an improvement but I wonder if the FAA will take issue with a GPS altitude in place of pressure altitude in the system.
Click to expand...
I had the same thought but let it go.
But in thinking about it, if I'm clear on how it would work, if your not getting pinged, your too low and/or too far away from a radar facility and likely a ground based GBT for ADSB also. So no info is being sent to other aircraft around you about your location either unless directly received by TCAS or others picking up your adsb directly with their 978 or 1090 receivers.
 
DaleB said:
especially since that's the most appealing solution for our plane right now.
Click to expand...

It seems fit my experiential very well but I worry would it be very easy to remove by theft? Does anyone know it has any special lock screw or other anti theft design and protection?
 
jpskies said:
It seems fit my experiential very well but I worry would it be very easy to remove by theft? Does anyone know it has any special lock screw or other anti theft design and protection?
Click to expand...

Some of us have been joking about this on the red board. First, the market for these things are finite, especially since UATs are useable only in the US to date. Secondly, theft among the GA community has got to be minimal. Thirdly, I'm sure these units have serial numbers that need to be registered with the FAA in some way( maybe transmitted back to the company on setup though their APP). The same considerations exist for some of the other interesting devices recently available, like the Levil's BOM.
 
MajorTurbulence said:
Secondly, theft among the GA community has got to be minimal.
Click to expand...
Believe or not, there were series of break-ins around 15 some years ago at my home base. Many of those Garmin avionics went missing and never been found. This seems much easier to be remove than the break-in the cockpit doors. If the app only communicates to the device via Bluetooth and only program the mode-S code without pulling the manufacture serial number, I don't think it can prevent the thief. I think the company should take this feature into consideration if it has not done so.
 
jpskies said:
Believe or not, there were series of break-ins around 15 some years ago at my home base. Many of those Garmin avionics went missing and never been found. This seems much easier to be remove than the break-in the cockpit doors. If the app only communicates to the device via Bluetooth and only program the mode-S code without pulling the manufacture serial number, I don't think it can prevent the thief. I think the company should take this feature into consideration if it has not done so.
Click to expand...
Something I never thought of, but you are right...it would be a very quick, easy theft.
 
Maybe install with a security style screw. That would help.
 
I flew the Mooney to the avionics shop yesterday for a GTX345 to complement the 430W so that one is taken care of. I am watching this closely as the compliance solution for my 140. I am thinking that they will get it worked out.
 
This doesn’t surprise me at all
 
MajorTurbulence said:
Secondly, theft among the GA community has got to be minimal.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. Avionics theft can be a real problem. There's even a registry of stolen avionics S/Ns to try to combat it, but what the thieves do now is they steal a box from one plane, break into another plane with the same box, steal theirs and install the first one, and then sell the second one to an unsuspecting buyer. Owner of the first airplane reports it, but that serial number doesn't ever show up because it's in the second guy's airplane and he's none the wiser. Maybe many years down the road the box is removed, but by then the thief is long gone (and probably both airplane owners too).
 
I can only hope someone breaks into my plane and installs a new GPS.
 
They missed their fourth self-imposed deadline of Q2...now saying August. To me, this is comical, and I have some advice: STOP GIVING YOURSELF DEADLINES!
 
I just don't see how they are going to get this done without a TSO'd chip, and they won't be selling a TSO'D WAAS chip unit for $1,500. But I've been wrong before, and will be so again.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I just don't see how they are going to get this done without a TSO'd chip, and they won't be selling a TSO'D WAAS chip unit for $1,500. But I've been wrong before, and will be so again.
Click to expand...

Well, the difference in cost between the GTX 345 with and without on-board GPS is $800, and the GDL 82 sells with an on-board GPS and external antenna for $1795, so their price point certainly seems possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top