What talks to what?
Printed From: Avidyne
Category: Avidyne General
Forum Name: SkyTrax Series ADS-B Receivers & Transceivers
Forum Description: Topics on the Avidyne SkyTrax 978 MHz Receivers & Transceivers
URL: https://avidynelive.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=868
Printed Date: 26 Mar 2026 at 4:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What talks to what?
Posted By: ddgates
Subject: What talks to what?
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2015 at 4:59am
|
There are a lot of different equipment arrays in our airplanes, but the commonality on this board is that we all have (or will have) Avidyne equipment. It would be immensely helpful to all of us if Avidyne would construct a grid showing which non-Avidyne equipments the Avidyne boxes play with. For example, I am wondering if the weather component of the MLB output is standard format (e.g., same as Freeflight or Navworx (dare I say Capstone?) such that I could buy the unlock from Aspen and display the MLB's weather output on my Aspen MFD. Aspen says they don't know. To that end, has anyone on this board tried this combination? David ------------- David Gates |
Replies:
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 5:01am
|
The MLB/MLX series of equipment does not share the same software as the NavWorx ADS600-B. I've been told that the ADS600-B will not work with the IFD series, so that would suggest to me that at least the weather interface is different in some way (i.e. not a standard output). But I am not privy to the technical details. My understanding is that the ADS600-B was as "standard" as NavWorx could make it, which suggests that the MLB/MLX output is not as standard in some way. In any case, I don't know if Avidyne (or NavWorx, or anybody) could make consistent claims as to their interface with third-party equipment at this point in the game. It seems that defining the interface with a CDI or HSI is much more cut-and-dried than an ADS-B datastream. I know that NavWorx tries to keep a list of compatible displays, and what the capabilities are of each (even harder since they started in the Experimental arena and variation there is huge), but it's a losing battle as manufacturers are always rolling out a new software version. I think the best information ends up coming from experienced avionics shops in the field rather than from the laboratories of the equipment manufacturers, who always seem to have out-of-date versions of their competitor's products for experimentation. |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 5:25am
|
David: Thanks for the info. It would have been nice if Capstone had been followed. Guess not. ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 10:38am
|
From what I understand, there were several flavors of Capstone as well. What the FAA/ICAO should have done this time around is defined a intercommunication standard for ADS-B interchange, that is the interchange between sending and receiving on-board devices. Every manufacturer could have been required to respect that standard, and pass certification only if the data was "clean", on the bus. That would have solved a lot of problems for us consumers, and prevented one manufacturer trying to lock out other producers, and so on. Alas. * Orest |
Posted By: ddgates
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 3:39pm
|
Orest: Well said, and my sentiments exactly. David ------------- David Gates |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 05 Nov 2015 at 1:55am
|
The airlines, as a group, have the clout to impose such standards on the equipment manufacturers that supply them. These are known as ARINC standards, and this is where "ARINC 429" data comes from. The downside is that with rigid standards comes lack of innovation. That may be why the airlines still do not have WAAS GPS receivers in their planes, and almost none of the equipment manufacturers makes a WAAS GPS for air transport use. (They have just started development work recently because of the ADS-B mandate.) Even with such rigid standards, there are still cases where one vendor's box does not talk to another vendor's box, and all pieces of a system need to come from one vendor if the operator wants every optional feature to work. David |
Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 05 Nov 2015 at 5:33am
|
Yes, interestingly, many older airliners don't even have GPS, of any kind, on board! That includes many 757/767s (there is an upgrade path). But then they have inertial guidance systems that allow for RNav guidance -- RNP approaches originally came about because the airlines wanted to fly an equivalent to the cool new "GPS" approaches springing up in the 90's. WAAS is now an option on 737 and 777, but is finally standard on 787s. * Orest |
Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 06 Nov 2015 at 8:34am
|
As I understand it, there is only one brand of equipment that is WAAS certified, and it is not one of the big players. Airlines (as fleet operators) tend to be locked in to one brand of equipment in the interest of standardization of spare parts and maintenance practices. So even though it is an option, almost none of the airliners flying today have it. David |
