Originally Posted by
sbrault
Bob, I think you’ve missed the point (on many levels). First, I’m not concerned about failure of the transponder but to answer your question, virtually all aircraft with at least 8 seats have two transponders because, in fact, they do fail.
And my concern has never been cost. My proposed solution specifically trades out my perfectly functioning GTX32 in favor of the Dynon 261 (at a cost exceeding $2,000). In other words, I’m talking about throwing away a perfectly good transponder solely for the purpose of obtaining a 1090ES transmitter (which is of questionable value in a float plane that never flies high or fast, so complying with the 2020 mandate using a 978 transmitter makes at least as much sense as using a 1090).
And I Never said the Echo cost $200. But the fact is that the Echo costs just $200 more than the 472. The solution that you’ve adopted replaces your GTX327 with a 261 and replaces your Navworx with the 472. That’s a perfectly workable solution and similar to the one I spoke to Rob about months ago (replacing my GTX32 with the 261 and replacing my Navworx with the 472). I’ve been waiting for months for the 472 to become available in order to do exactly that.
However, I’ve now added a new wrinkle. The thought is, I can spend $200 more than you did (ignoring any discounts afforded beta testers such as you), getting the Echo now rather than waiting for the 472, and the bonus is that I get all of the capabilities you have PLUS a second transmitter which is NOT DEPENDENT on a radar interrogation in order to broadcast my position to other aircraft in my vicinity. Once again, it’s not a failure of the transponder that I am concerned with, but rather the fact that I spend more than 90% of my flying time OUTSIDE of a radar environment (eliminating the transmissions from the 261) is my concern. So, my 2020 compliance is better accomplished with an Echo, which I believe transmits independently of radar interrogations, provided it is hardwired to my transponder (be it the GTX 32 or the Dynon 261). If cost was my concern, I’d simply keep the GTX 32 and go with the Echo, which would still give me two transmitters (albeit only one that is transmitting ADS-B info on the 978 frequency). It seems to me that spending an extra $2,000 to get 1090 capability is of dubious value in my particular circumstances, but that’s not preventing me from proposing to do just that because we don’t know if or when Canada will impose an ADS-B mandate nor in what form. Of course, I could always swap transponders in the future if that happened. The principal reason to do it now would be to obtain (hopefully) the capability to hardwire the 261 to the Echo at 115K baud in order to avoid having to purchase and install the SkyFyx. In other words, avoid spending $450 for the SkyFyx by instead spending $2,000 for the 261 and getting 1090 as a bonus.
It seems your reply reflects a perceived need to defend against an attack, as though my comment about a better mouse trap somehow denigrated your approach. That was never my intent. To the contrary, all aircraft owners have their own needs and circumstances which could lead them to many different approaches/solutions. My question to you was simply, “Do you think in my situation, where I am rarely in radar coverage, would get a benefit from tansmittting on 978 (in addition to having 1090 capability) for a marginal cost of just $200 extra?”. And maybe more to the point, is my analysis correct that leads me to believe that the 261 is not broadcasting ADS-B info when not interrogated but the Echo will be transmitting continuously whether in radar coverage or not?
My intent is not to argue with you or criticize your approach. Rather, it is my belief that you (and Shawn who suggested the Echo as a viable alternative) know more about ADS-B than I do, so maybe either or both of you can clear up any misconceptions I may have or otherwise bring clarity to a confusing array of options.
Thanks,
Steve
Reply With Quote