uAvionix SkyBeacon installation in Canada

[boeingboy]

I'm not sure antenna diversity was ever specified, rather that space-based ADS-B was. Does NavCanada care if it takes 2 antennae to do this? Antenna diversity was thought to be the answer by the manufacturers. It meets the requirement but is not the only solution.

Yes it was specified.

Because the system is space based only - Nav Canada is worried about antenna shadowing due to the satellite not being able to see the belly antenna. Although the manufactures are trying to tell them it should not be a problem - Nav Canada so far is not wavering from their initial requirements.

[ahramin]

I had a long discussion with TC about this at Oshkosh. My takeaway was:

1. TC is the regulator but NavCanada is the service provider and sets the level of service provided in a given airspace and what the requirements are for that level of service. TC can put their oar in but at the end of the day NavCanada decides. It's unfortunate that neither TC nor GA have a seat on the board.

2. NavCanada has moved away from a diversity antenna required to a performance based requirement. It likely this will be the final rule. If your ADS-B box works with the space based system with one antenna, or a paper cup and string for that matter, it will meet the requirements.

3. For high traffic density areas NavCanada is considering ground based antenna. The example he gave me was that if you have a ground station only system you will probably be ok in YVR class C, but not in YLW class C.

[AirFrame]

3. For high traffic density areas NavCanada is considering ground based antenna. The example he gave me was that if you have a ground station only system you will probably be ok in YVR class C, but not in YLW class C.

Maybe broadcasting on 978, like the US? With Wx, Notams, etc.?

I know, I know, NavCanada isn't going to give anything away for free....But a man can dream, can't he?

[Helno]

3. For high traffic density areas NavCanada is considering ground based antenna. The example he gave me was that if you have a ground station only system you will probably be ok in YVR class C, but not in YLW class C.

It seems silly not to do this for the high density airports.

Picking up 1090 ADS-B OUT traffic is so inexpensive that they would be foolish not to have a few receivers setup just in case they lose the datalink to the satellite provider.

Maybe broadcasting on 978, like the US? With Wx, Notams, etc.?

Doubtful. They seem pretty uninterested in helping the people working on weather broadcasting trials.

I have a test transmitter on 915 MHz setup that can broadcast weather to Stratux users but crowdsourcing a ground network is going to be a lot of work compared with Nav Canada setting up transmitters at existing sites. More information here. viewtopic.php?f=128&t=130728

They give the excuse that Canada is to large to affordably service but realistically you only need towers in areas were there is weather data to broadcast. Only broadcasting weather in areas where data exists really cuts down on the number of stations needed.

[dougj]

Why is the FAA flight test verification of ADS-B coming up here? I thought that was required for US aircraft to qualify for the FAA rebate. I doubt Uncle Sam is going to send his money north.(?)

[flyguy73]

Why is the FAA flight test verification of ADS-B coming up here? I thought that was required for US aircraft to qualify for the FAA rebate. I doubt Uncle Sam is going to send his money north.(?)

In fact, this was what I was originally asking about. Is this performance flight unnecessary? Certainly the ADS-B rebate is not applicable to non N-registered planes. But I would have expected that the FAA would require some documented proof that the ADS-B actually works in order to fly in Class C airspace? Perhaps not.

[Helno]

It is really easy to do a verification flight. You don't even need to land in the US.

Just fly across the border in a place that has Radar and ground station coverage.

After the flight you enter your details on the following website and you will get a report shortly.

https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/paprrequest.aspx

[ahramin]

The documented proof comes from the ADS-B system being installed properly and testing out properly on the ground. I've installed several and while doing a papr is fun it's not required and it's never done anything other than confirm what we already knew on the ground.

[flyguy73]

The documented proof comes from the ADS-B system being installed properly and testing out properly on the ground. I've installed several and while doing a papr is fun it's not required and it's never done anything other than confirm what we already knew on the ground.

Good to know, thanks. So I guess the "documented proof" is just the appropriate entry in the maintenance log. Done!

[broken_slinky]

The documented proof comes from the ADS-B system being installed properly and testing out properly on the ground. I've installed several and while doing a papr is fun it's not required and it's never done anything other than confirm what we already knew on the ground.

Ahramin, were those installs on experimental or cert. aircraft (private or commercial)?

[ahramin]

Amateur built but the rules for confirming proper operation are the same.