You guys had me confused on the "Stratux" thing, vs the "Stratus" thing. I bought a Stratus 1S last year, for the annual trip to OSH. I had it on the entire trip to OSH. I never received ANY data, traffic, weather, etc on the thing until about the time I hit the Minnesota State line.

Now, this was in a no electric Cub, and most of the trip was at or below 1000 feet. Around here, it's all mountainous....hell, weather radar is even useless here in Bozeman, since the nearest doppler weather radar is Great Falls, and there's a lot of rock tween here and there.

Mountainous terrain and ADS-B don't work well unless you're really high or in the same valley with the GBT.....for weather, and NON ADS-B out traffic.

Again, ADS-B MAY be helpful going in and out of ANC. There are probably a LOT of folks in Fairbanks and some in ANC that still don't have transponders. I suspect those folks are not likely to equip with ADS-B any time soon.

But, again, with discipline, these things can work. I think you're going to want a fairly large MFD or equivalent, though. Trying to find and read traffic on something the size of a Garmin 496 would be tough.

MTV

Not Alaska but Montana. Lose ground station contact on almost every flight in my cub.

akschu wrote:......, the airplane is orange, so that helps.
.................I'll put much higher power strobes on the bearhawk since it's not stupid expensive, and I'll probably paint it orange too. Trick is to find the right shade of orange. Might do a McLaren P1 Orange...

FWIW the most visible airplane color is yellow IMHO.

I installed the gdl 82 to get the 1/2 amu rebate. It works great except my transponder continually reports an aircraft 100 feet below me. My 182 has both in and out. It does take discipline to look outside and not at t he magenta line. You can use anonymous mode when out of class b, c and d airspace. You are still using the mode c signal but no adsb out.
Ron

MTV,
Your Stratus 1s will receive info only for 978 mhz whereas the 2s will receive for 1090 and 978. So you would only receive traffic notices for whatever percentage aircraft are equipped with 978. The 2s would give you more traffic since it is monitoring both bands. Also, without ADSB-out, you will only get reports if you are within 30 miles of an ADSB-out equipped aircraft that is receiving GBT responses, where your ADSB-in receiver is just eavesdropping on that conversation. If you are unequipped for out, your aircraft won't trigger a GBT response for traffic broadcast.

DeltaRomeo wrote:MTV,
Your Stratus 1s will receive info only for 978 mhz whereas the 2s will receive for 1090 and 978. So you would only receive traffic notices for whatever percentage aircraft are equipped with 978. The 2s would give you more traffic since it is monitoring both bands. Also, without ADSB-out, you will only get reports if you are within 30 miles of an ADSB-out equipped aircraft that is receiving GBT responses, where your ADSB-in receiver is just eavesdropping on that conversation. If you are unequipped for out, your aircraft won't trigger a GBT response for traffic broadcast.

Yes, I am aware of all that. This was mostly an experiment to see if I could get weather. My cub is no electric. I was hoping I could get “free” ADSB weather.

I’m keeping the X-MEN weather subscription.

MTV

Moss farmer wrote:..... You can use anonymous mode when out of class b, c and d airspace. You are still using the mode c signal but no adsb out.

I'm not sure that's correct.
I read the GDL82 users manual, and noted the "anonymous switch" option.
It will not be anonymous when squawking anything other than 1200, so by default you're correct about B & C airspace.
I've only rarely had to squawk something other than 1200 in class d airspace though.

And my take is that when in anonymous mode, the GDL82 is still putting out an ADS-B signal--
It's just that your N number information won't show up to other aircraft.
I assume that Big Brother will still be able to get it if he wants it.

I am having second thoughts about not having the mode s 1080 version since I do go to Alaska. Is Canada going to permit us to use this version or am I going to have to take the water route to Alaska instead of the trench? Does anyone know the status at this point?
Ron

I don't think Canada has an ADS-B "mandate".

hotrod180 wrote:I don't think Canada has an ADS-B "mandate".

No we dont. They have a sattelite system in the works, which makes way more sense then ground based to me. I'm just hoping the 2 systems can work together so we dont have to get 2 complete systems to cross the border...

There are airspace use rules. While Canada may not require ADS-B for 'C' registered aircraft, there may be a rule to use US airspace mandating having one. For example, Europe mandates tighter frequency spacing on radios and restricts access to aircraft not so equipped. Canada has mandated equipment requirements as well. You must be inspected and have certain equipment elements onboard to depart Goose Bay to fly east. Naturally, you can't get inspected at Goose Bay, but rather must go to another airport, back the way you came, to be inspected.

While there is a mandate to have 'N' registered aircraft so equipped, I suspect the mandate for airspace use may be a ways off, considering the glacial pace the FAA is installing ADS-B able ground equipment. Up here in the high country, we have no radar coverage below 14,000', yet we have frequent scheduled commercial traffic. While I was an airport commissioner, it was discussed getting an ADS-B in-out ground station antenna, not radar, but the radio. Well it was a few years out then, and apparently in my recent conversations, still 5+ years out.

The FAA has declared the ADS-B ground based system fully built at this point. Doesn’t mean they won’t add GBTs in future, but frankly this system was never designed for bug smashers.....it’s a flight level system.

MTV

Actually my point is we have scheduled RJ flights in 10 times a day, along with 757's, BBJ's and F35's & Tiltrotors on a daily basis. There are enormous gaps in the system on an approach/departure point of view, which is where 95% of the accidents happen. Which was precisely why we want one up here before somebody from one of the myriads of flight schools here in AZ clips an RJ or one of the many large assets that frequent our airport daily.

dogpilot wrote:Actually my point is we have scheduled RJ flights in 10 times a day, along with 757's, BBJ's and F35's & Tiltrotors on a daily basis. There are enormous gaps in the system on an approach/departure point of view, which is where 95% of the accidents happen. Which was precisely why we want one up here before somebody from one of the myriads of flight schools here in AZ clips an RJ or one of the many large assets that frequent our airport daily.

I have a feeling the FAA's response may well be "Bring money". GBTs are expensive to install and maintain.

Frankly, this "system" was a joke from day one. The FAA, when asked why they didn't develop ADS-B as a space based system, said that would be too expensive..... This system is VERY expensive, AND it doesn't even come close to providing the coverage needed for your airport, and dozens of others throughout the country.

It's a failed exercise, in my opinion. But, then we all know about opinions....

MTV

akschu wrote:Any suggestions on a pulsing LED landing light?

Not sure the differences between a 170 and a 185 but I used a MaxPulse Controller
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/maxdimdimmercontrola.php?clickkey=66382

As far as LED lights Reeves Airmotive at Merrill Field has a nice operating light display you can try out.

.

One more reason not to maintain a scan and visually see and avoid...outside the cockpit. What are the stats regarding air-air collision in Alaska per flight hour? Yes it's labor intensive and requires training for those without them, and device displays are an obsession on the ground or in the air. But is the tech a guarantee nobody's near? I think not until it's space based with everyone transmitting and receiving.

Next will be texting while flying. Heads down where the sun don't shine.

Gary

PA1195 wrote:One more reason not to maintain a scan and visually see and avoid...outside the cockpit. What are the stats regarding air-air collision in Alaska per flight hour? Yes it's labor intensive and requires training for those without them, and device displays are an obsession on the ground or in the air. But is the tech a guarantee nobody's near? I think not until it's space based with everyone transmitting and receiving.

Next will be texting while flying. Heads down where the sun don't shine.

Gary

A while back, I was doing a checkout. Three GPS, a G 5, IPad, etc......couldn’t keep the fellow from fiddling with stuff in the pattern. Head down IN the pattern! Turned everything off, which irritated him.....said he needed to learn to operate that stuff too.

Fine, do it on the ground witha GPU.

A recent accident photo posted somewhere showed two Cirrus, one landed on top of other......where do you suppose their eyes were?

MTV

mtv wrote:....A recent accident photo posted somewhere showed two Cirrus, one landed on top of other......where do you suppose their eyes were? MTV

Bottom one pulled the chute but it didn't help much.

My comments above weren't meant to be negative or sarcastic re ADS-B in Alaska. Any valid warning alert of potential airspace conflict would be worth noting and confirming via visual.

FAR 91offers regulations to help avoid others, but that assumes visual contact is possible at low level or in potentially marginal weather conditions including sun in the eyes. We as well as nearby aircraft may not be in level flight or turning so FAR 91.159 may not apply.

The problem I can see is not having any current alert doesn't guarantee a lack of conflict is potentially imminent. Until such time as there's complete coverage keep an eye out of the airplane.

Gary