What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

ADS-B Again

David Z

Well Known Member
Looks like NavCanada is at this again:
https://www.navcanada.ca/en/air-traffic/space-based-ads-b/ads-b-performance-requirements.aspx

About a year to equip if you want to fly in class A or B airspace. The non-oxygen equipped planes (class B) have a few more years.

They seem pretty clear that we need a diversity antenna:
"The aircraft system will require an antenna able to broadcast out toward space-based ADS-B receivers emitting 1090 MHz Extended Squitter. This requirement can be met either through antenna diversity (the use of a top and bottom antenna) or with a single antenna that is capable of transmitting both towards the ground and up towards satellites. Bottom mount transponders alone are insufficient.".

Now if only NavCanada could staff the surveillance capabilities they already possess. Not sure how they plan to provide ADDITIONAL coverage.
 
So it begs the question that I asked last year at this time on avionics......I’m getting ready to spec stuff out for a Garmin package so what makes sense? Go with the GTX 335 or the 335D which is diversity and will meet compliance in 4 years ...if this timeline stays as is?

The cost difference is about 4 k....not chump change. Maybe in 4 years my whole panel will need an upgrade the way technology is changing.

Keith
 
And don't think that if you don't live in Canada you don't need a diversity ADS-B out antenna. If you fly to/from the lower 48 to Alaska and penetrate Canadian ADS-B mandated airspace you will need to be equipped with 1090ES diversity ADS-B. This could be avoided by staying in Canadian Class G airspace below 12.500 feet using uncontrolled airports with Class G for stops. That could limit IFR operations in IMC.

This is also applicable to any aircraft of any country of registration....

"US and European aircraft that plan to fly in Canadian mandated airspace will have to meet the earlier-described antenna performance requirements"
 
Last edited:
Near as I can tell, the tailBeaconX is still the cheapest option. Single antenna that broadcasts both up and down.
 
A question from the cheap seats down south - does NAV CANADA get to dictate aircraft equipage requirements and standards to Transport Canada?

Just curious...

Dave
 
Short answer: No.

Long answer: Sort-of. NavCanada decides on airspace classification, meaning they can decide if airspace is controlled or uncontrolled, transponder airspace or otherwise. NavCanada can't change the regulations dictating aircraft equipment requirements in existing airspace. In this case, being ADS-B requirements in the different classifications of airspace. However, this press release appears as though Transport Canada and NavCanada are cooperating this time.
 
Short answer: No.

Long answer: Sort-of.
Thank you David!

I really like the idea of space-based ADS-B and I understand why it's so desirable in Canada and in remote environments. I hope there's eventually some time-limited accommodation for those of us who want to visit Canada without spending serious ducats on diversity ADS-B Out or a tail unit.

Dave
 
They seem pretty clear that we need a diversity antenna:
"The aircraft system will require an antenna able to broadcast out toward space-based ADS-B receivers emitting 1090 MHz Extended Squitter. This requirement can be met either through antenna diversity (the use of a top and bottom antenna) or with a single antenna that is capable of transmitting both towards the ground and up towards satellites. Bottom mount transponders alone are insufficient.".

I recall a post on VAF from someone involved with the satellite testing reporting they can receive adequate mode S signals from the lower mounted antennas but I can not locate it at this time. (Was in the last few years)

If a top and bottom is required, another option may be to mount an additional Transponder antenna on the top of the fuselage and use a 50 ohm 2 port power divider. This would allow the use of a standard mode S Transponder.
The coax from each antenna to the power divider would have to be the same electrical length to keep the antennas in phase.
I have constructed them for both 144 and 432 MHz and they perform well. http://www.pnwvhfs.org/conference/2018/pdf/power-dividers.pdf
 
Archer Model 5?

Anyone know if something like this Archer Model 5 antenna mounted with proper vertical polarization in a wing tip might satisfy Nav Canada/Transport Canada's requirements for ADS-B? It seems to me that if it was mounted in a wing tip it would transmit both "towards the ground and up towards the satellites".

11-21005.jpg
 
I recall a post on VAF from someone involved with the satellite testing reporting they can receive adequate mode S signals from the lower mounted antennas but I can not locate it at this time.
That might have been me. I sat on an ARINC executive committee before I retired from my first job and Aireon presented some test results at one of our conferences that showed good reception of ADS-B from non-diversity GA airplanes. I have a hazy memory of posting something about it on VAF.

It would be neat to test a combiner. I think you'd have to be careful about where the top and bottom antennas go even if the electrical lengths are perfectly matched. You'd essentially be making a phased array and there could be some areas around the airplane where the antennas cancel each other out.

Dave

ps - apologies for the thread creep!
 
Last edited:
Anyone know if something like this Archer Model 5 antenna mounted with proper vertical polarization in a wing tip might satisfy Nav Canada/Transport Canada's requirements for ADS-B?
Only time will tell whether an installation like this will comply with the standards that TC will publish but from an electrical/RF perspective it should work. You may have an area off the opposite wing where there isn't as much gain, but I can't imagine it being significantly worse than off-the-nose losses with an antenna on the tail as with the TailBeacon.

Beyond the regulations, one thing to watch out for would be coax loss in a wing-mount installation. Most coax used in GA applications is lossy at ~1 GHz ADS-B operating frequencies. My Garmin GTX-45R install manual specified a maximum coax length to ensure enough transmit power at the antenna. The length varied with coax type - thicker, heavier coax often has lower loss and can be used for longer runs. It's best to go with whatever your transponder manufacturer recommends.

HTH,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Only time will tell whether an installation like this will comply with the standards that TC will publish...
A very long time, perhaps. Whatever regulations come out of this, you can be sure that they will cover the lowest-common-denominator installations, which will be the installations that work the best on the most types of aircraft. I can't see them allowing even amateur-builders the leeway to "try their own thing and see how it goes." We'll all be mandated to use one or two options, that will likely match what's available on the market. Anyone wanting to try something else will have to show through documented testing and certification that they have something equivalent.

Beyond the regulations, one thing to watch out for would be coax loss in a wing-mount installation. Most coax used in GA applications is lossy at ~1 GHz ADS-B operating frequencies. My Garmin GTX-45R install manual specified a maximum coax length to ensure enough transmit power at the antenna. The length varied with coax type - thicker, heavier coax often has lower loss and can be used for longer runs. It's best to go with whatever your transponder manufacturer recommends.
I wonder if it would be better then, to remote mount your transponder in the wingtip along with the antenna. Then run power and data lines back to the fuselage/EFIS instead of a coax.
 
Since most U.S. GA aircraft only have the lower antenna, does this mean GA U.S. flights into Canada will be no longer be possible once it’s implemented.
 
Since most U.S. GA aircraft only have the lower antenna, does this mean GA U.S. flights into Canada will be no longer be possible once it’s implemented.

Without only a Mode C transponder you can still cross the border and then fly in non-mandated airspace, which is effectively below 12,500 feet everywhere inside Class G including any uncontrolled field in Class G. So if you are going to a fishing lodge or small uncontrolled field or stay in Class G, the you are fine without ADS-B of any kind. If you want to refuel at a Class E uncontrolled or any type of controlled airport (or Class A,B,C,D or E) you would have to have an approved two-antenna diversity ADS-B out system. Rule of thumb: G = "Go for it".
 

Attachments

  • canadian-ads-b-mandate-phases-en-011-copy.png
    canadian-ads-b-mandate-phases-en-011-copy.png
    76.2 KB · Views: 101
Last edited:
Without only a Mode C transponder you can still cross the border and then fly in non-mandated airspace, which is effectively below 12,500 feet everywhere inside Class G including any uncontrolled field in Class G.
So... How do you cross the border without clearing customs at a Class C controlled field? At least, everywhere near me the airports of entry are all Class C.
 
Yea, but that screws up your night lighting requirements. Wish they would have put a strobe on it.

Nothing says your strobe has to be on the rear edge of your rudder. Your rudder moving back and forth changes the distribution pattern so possibly doesn't strictly meet the lighting requirement unless you're not turning... :)
 
So... How do you cross the border without clearing customs at a Class C controlled field? At least, everywhere near me the airports of entry are all Class C.

We do it all the time on the border with Mexico. For example at KDNA. Don't know about Canada. Perhaps there is not such thing in Canada. But it appears that both Nanaimo BC and Penticton BC are airports of entry and uncontrolled. However, Penticton is Class E. My charts don't cover Penticton.
 
We do it all the time on the border with Mexico. For example at KDNA. Don't know about Canada. Perhaps there is not such thing in Canada. But it appears that both Nanaimo BC and Penticton BC are airports of entry and uncontrolled. However, Penticton is Class E. My charts don't cover Penticton.
Yeah I've been looking at that since I like visiting BC - you can squirrel around underneath class C to get to Nanaimo (E) but it forces you to stay low over water, or circumnavigate to the west over mountains and through Alert areas. Hooray for safety!
 
So the CA mandated system won't include weather?
Nope. No Wx, NOTAM, etc. It's a one-way system, to get you into NavCanada's radar, not for them to give you anything. NavCanada doesn't give anything away, they only charge for it.
 
I met with uAvionix last weekend (Feb 19/22).

I asked the question "will the experimental version of the tailBeaconX be acceptable to Nav Canada to meet the forthcoming requirements?".

The answer "We've been working closely with Nav Canada, and they will accept the experimental version as compliant, but at a lower SIL (Source Integrity Level)."

Also, the tailBeaconX TSO version will be certificated soon. it will require a certified controller (AV-30C or a new version of the 2" controller) for certifed aircraft.

The new 2" controller will only be a control head (not a full EFIS). The experimental AV-20E and AV-30E will not control the certified version.

VV
 
Last edited:
I met with uAvionix last weekend (Feb 19/22).

I asked the question "will the experimental version of the tailBeaconX be acceptable to Nav Canada to meet the forthcoming requirements?".

The answer "We've been working closely with Nav Canada, and they will accept the experimental version as compliant, but at a lower SIL (Source Integrity Level)."

Also, the tailBeaconX TSO version will be certificated soon. it will require a certified controller (AV-30C or a new version of the 2" controller) for certifed aircraft.

The new 2" controller will only be a control head (not a full EFIS). The experimental AV-20E and AV-30E will not control the certified version.

VV

This is most unfortunate news... uAvionix seems to be working hard to drive prices UP rather than down. At least they have stepped away from the AV30C as being the only controller for the TSO'd version...
 
I put the query into Dynon and haven't heard back yet. Anybody know if they are developing anything to meet this requirement?
 
I put the query into Dynon and haven't heard back yet. Anybody know if they are developing anything to meet this requirement?

The Dynon transponder options are actually re-branded Trig Avionics products with a little software tweak to make them exclusive to Dynon. I've been engaged in ongoing dialog with Trig on this topic. So far they are playing their cards very close to their chest.
 
The Dynon transponder options are actually re-branded Trig Avionics products with a little software tweak to make them exclusive to Dynon. I've been engaged in ongoing dialog with Trig on this topic. So far they are playing their cards very close to their chest.

My discussions with Dynon confirm what you are saying. Dynon has nothing to lose by announcing their plans early to keep their customer base happy, rather than forcing them to adopt a competitive solution.

VV
 
Nobody should be "rushing" to adopt any solution at this point. There's four years before it'll be mandatory, and that's a *long* time for products to develop and come down in cost.
 
UAT In Canada

Nope. No Wx, NOTAM, etc. It's a one-way system, to get you into NavCanada's radar, not for them to give you anything. NavCanada doesn't give anything away, they only charge for it.

NavCanada won't provide the weather, but https://cifib.ca/ will. A neat little project.

I fired up the panel and the weather magically appeared. Limited to SW Ontario at this time. Getting closer to being able to drop XM....
 
I wonder if it would be better then, to remote mount your transponder in the wingtip along with the antenna. Then run power and data lines back to the fuselage/EFIS instead of a coax.
I'd wonder how well the transponder case is sealed against moisture and about its operating/non-operating temperature limits. Remote transponders are routinely mounted aft of the baggage bulkhead so maybe temps aren't such a big deal, but I'd be concerned about the possibility of water intrusion and condensation in a wingtip.

ds
 
NavCanada won't provide the weather, but https://cifib.ca/ will. A neat little project.

I fired up the panel and the weather magically appeared. Limited to SW Ontario at this time. Getting closer to being able to drop XM....

It's an excellent initiative, but will take ages to roll out and at significant cost because it isn't happening at a scale necessary to blanket the country (or at least, a contiguous band across the lower regions).
 
Just came across this thread. Found it interesting in reading people’s interpretation of where you actually need ADS-B out. It was stated by someone or maybe more in this thread that only class g airspace is available to non ADS-B out aircraft. That is waaaaay wrong. At least in the US where you can fly in probably 95% of the sky without it. At least for ga craft below 10,000ft. You can fly in G , E ,D, underneath C. Lots of AOE’s outside B and C.
 
FIS-B WEATHER

DerekS DerekS is offline

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 53
Default UAT In Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
Nope. No Wx, NOTAM, etc. It's a one-way system, to get you into NavCanada's radar, not for them to give you anything. NavCanada doesn't give anything away, they only charge for it.
NavCanada won't provide the weather, but https://cifib.ca/ will. A neat little project.

I fired up the panel and the weather magically appeared. Limited to SW Ontario at this time. Getting closer to being able to drop XM....
------------------------------------

Derek
Any idea how much it will cost to set up a system like that??

Thaks

Bruno
 
Just came across this thread. Found it interesting in reading people’s interpretation of where you actually need ADS-B out. It was stated by someone or maybe more in this thread that only class g airspace is available to non ADS-B out aircraft. That is waaaaay wrong. At least in the US where you can fly in probably 95% of the sky without it. At least for ga craft below 10,000ft. You can fly in G , E ,D, underneath C. Lots of AOE’s outside B and C.

This is a thread about the Canadian ADS-B mandate, in the Canada regional forum. Yes, the FAA requirements will be different than Canada’s. In this case, appears vastly different.

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/air-traffic/space-based-ads-b/ads-b-performance-requirements.aspx
 
Hey David, I am aware of difference’s with regard to ADD-B out, US vs Canadian system’s, in terms of how they function. It doesn’t surprise me however that Canada will have to reinvent the wheel in the application of airspace rules that would be totally unnecessary. After all Canada’s airspace is so much more crowded and unsafe to navigate compared the US!!! Lol We have so many more airports,planes etc. Just another example of regulation overkill for nothing. If we align the airspace flight rules with the US it would augment flight safety in the spaces it is really necessary.
 
Hey David, I am aware of difference’s with regard to ADD-B out, US vs Canadian system’s, in terms of how they function. It doesn’t surprise me however that Canada will have to reinvent the wheel in the application of airspace rules that would be totally unnecessary. After all Canada’s airspace is so much more crowded and unsafe to navigate compared the US!!! Lol We have so many more airports,planes etc. Just another example of regulation overkill for nothing. If we align the airspace flight rules with the US it would augment flight safety in the spaces it is really necessary.

After flying in the US, Canada and a few other countries I came to the conclusion that the complexity of a given nation's air regulations is inversely proportional to the complexity of the actual air traffic that it has to handle.

Confirmation of this comes from reading Australian world-rounder Jon Johanson's book Aiming High. Jon's stories of the most backwater countries with the most confusing or difficult ATC experiences and petty bureaucracies is almost laughable at times. And many times he expresses amazement at how much better, smoother and more professionally GA aircraft are handled in the US than anywhere else. Honestly I probably complain about the regs as much as anyone, but when looking around the world I realize we don't have it bad here by comparison.

I'm reminded of when I hired an instructor to go fly a rented 172 with in Ireland to see some sights. Once airborne I noticed some friendly looking uncontrolled strips and asked about landing at them, and he said no on account of, we didn't tell ATC before we took off and something about search and rescue. I said what's the difference since anywhere you might crash in this country would be within shouting distance of a pub? He didn't laugh.
 
Last edited:
If we align the airspace flight rules with the US it would augment flight safety in the spaces it is really necessary.
In the case of ADS-B it's the US that's the "odd man out" here. The rest of the world has embraced space-based ADS-B, courtesy of the Aireon satellite network put up by NavCanada.

The rest of the world is in the same boat as we are in Canada with respect to ground station broadcasts though... Only the US has traffic/weather/notam/etc. broadcast from the ground.
 
Rob, not debating on the functionality difference’s between the US and the rest of the world as I mentioned in my previous post. You must have missed that. What I am referring to is the ridiculous application of airspace flight rules which are totally unnecessary. The US has it correct. Canada proposal of allowing non ADS-B equipped aircraft in G airspace only is stupidity
 
Oh, and Rob, I am a proud Canadian but Aireon is an American company. The satellites were built in Gilbert Arizona and the ADS-B receivers were built by Harris Corporation. Another American company.Not sure who built the SpaceX rocket that carried this stuff to outer space but they were launched from Vandenberg Airforce base. The only thing that Nav Canada launch’s is carried out by Canada Post which is the bill I receive in the mail each year from them for the privilege of talking to ATC
 
Should have known. SpaceX = Elon Musk. NavCanada probably e-transfered him our $$$ so they could try and take some remote type of credit for the whole thing. I’m pretty sure Elon and the rest of the world would have implemented the system with or without Nav Canada.
 
Back
Top