uAvionix skyBeacon: A false sense of security?

Had lunch with a high school friend of mine a month ago. He’s been flying for some 45 years. Suggested I get ADSB so we could, along with some other folks, fly to areas inside of Mode C around the East Coast, where we all live.

So, I picked up a uAvionix skyBeacon. That being the least expensive way to get ADSB, I felt.

Now, all this time later I still have not passed a single FAA PAPR flight test. Failure to pass the test means your system is not in compliance as far as the FAA is concerned. Hundreds of dollars in fuel and some dozen hours of flight time… all for nothing.

As it turns out, the first unit was defective. Only after many emails to tech support (they were not taking calls as they were at some aviation event) and several hours on the phone with them later on did they suggest I return the unit for a new one.

That solved one issue. The missing altitude output.

I still was failing what is called NIC and NACp on every flight. As I have since learned, this has to do with the skyBeacon’s GPS reception failing or dropping out during some portion of my flight. If it does at all, you fail the PAPR test!

With the help of my high school buddy, who happens to be a top avionics service technician, and another flying buddy who is an electrical engineer at a major defense aviation manufacturer…. We came up with the reason for the failures.

The GPS receiver in the skyBeacon is not up to the task nor is it installed
properly within the unit for adequate reception. We did come up with a potential fix and, so far, it appears to work.

Had breakfast with my former CFI. Some 38 years of flying. Also has the skyBeacon on his Cessna 172. Flys all over the coast doing these medical “angel” flights for folks who need fast transportation after an operation or procedure.

Asked him about any issues with his skyBeacon. He said, “nope, works fine”. I ran his tail number and he’s failing just as I am and he does not even know it.

Avionics shops do not want anything to do with this device. Two shops in my area said they do not install them or service them. The idea uAvionix has put forth that the average A&P can verify this is working in 10 minutes is ludicrous. They are deceiving us.

One last thought. Once installed, the ADSB must be on all the time you are flying. That is a formal rule. There is a case where a gal with 60 years of flying did a stupid stunt and her ADSB cut out. She lost her license because the FAA claims she turned off the ADSB so as not to be detected. She said she did not but has no way to prove it.

Did she or did the GPS fail on her?

My advice to anyone looking at purchasing this device to get into ADSB is DON’T!

 

One more data point... My sky beacon passed every test I ran on it for over two years. Did a test every 3 months.

I wonder why avionics shops want nothing to do with a device that installs in 1/2 hour and requires no other changes to the aircraft? Hmmm

I don't blame you for not liking them if you had a bad experience. I'd be the same. But avionics shops don't avoid them because they don't work. Quite the opposite.

And yeah, adsb can fail, but give me a break on the bridge stunt.

 

Yes, I'm sure there will be many who claim their unit works flawlessly.

Shops I talked to said they cannot make money installing them and then have to deal with the come backs... at their expense... when they fail the test.

The unit has a fatal flaw in its design. Compare it to the tailbeacon and maybe you can figure it out for yourself.

 

Yeah we looked into the X for our Canadian plane and all the shops don’t want to deal with it. Likely due to the lack of real interest here without a mandate, and people generally will op for the garmin or l3 solutions instead.

Also doesn’t help the X requires a av30c to control it? Although I saw one example that suggested a garmin gtx was controlling it.

The shops all says the same thing which is the documentation is bad and they felt the quality is low.

 

I asked my avionics shop if they installed AV-20 or AV-30 and he said no...

 

By the way, anybody that expects ADSB (even when working perfectly) to give them a sense of security for anybody or anything is already deluding themselves.

 

lulz, 10/10 for cathartic fallacy-laden emotional exfoliation. Dude even managed to somehow tie Lunken's revocation into a skybeacon wank session. Wow! I mean this stuff is gold.

Where else can I find a free collection of utterings that can deliver for my morning constitutional the way POA can. I was gonna go with the "sir this is a wendys" meme but no, this gold deserves a star.

 

Word that came to mind ... melodramatic

... and you are correct!

 

The X that he's talking about (Tailbeacon X) does indeed require a controller.

 

All the shops around me install them, come to michigan, We just had one installed on my son's plane last month. And add me to the "works flawlessly" camp.

 

OK... whole different animal than the Skybeacon. And, yes, it needs a control head.

 

I've had one say no and another say yes. YMMV.

 

A number of the Av shops in my area have a strict policy of no uAvionix skyBeacon or TailBeacon installations. A percentage of them get very cantankerous to install and maintain. Cheaper in the end to put a Garmin GTX-335 or 345 installed.

 

I installed 3 different ones on my airplane and they never worked right… I have a Stratus ESG now and have no issues

 

Once I read that avionics shops want nothing to do with them I completely ignored everything you were saying.

I see these things on the wing tips and tails of half the planes on the ramp. I had one for 2 years. No issues.

If avionics shops wanted nothing to do with them then I guess all these people are sticking them on themselves?

 

For those of you with them, that say they work perfectly, have you ever actually printed out the FAA report on yours?

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

 

Yes, you had to pass in order to get the rebate that was offered a couple years ago. Mine passed on the first attempt.

 

The great many of these units are installed by the pilot/owner under supervision and signed off by an IA, commonly at time of annual.

I’m glad you have a solution that meets your ADSB requirements.

 

Every three months just to be sure.

 

The FAA contacted me about my tail beacon. New unit under warranty plus changed setting and all good. I wasn’t at home when it happened and had to call around to find an avionics shop that worked with uavionix.

 

Would be great to see a lot more of this.

 

Sometimes things don't work, when the payoff for a successful easy install is really tiny to begin with, how many people are wanting to do them at all?

 

I just saw a work order on an airplane for a guy removing the GTX330 and installing a GTX327, an attempt to get one of these to work. No idea if that solved the problems.

I wonder if there is a something in the QA program that doesn't catch failures or if there some sort of noise in the airplanes that the units can't tolerate.

 

In this case, I'd say it makes sense to have a pilot DIY it till the thing ops checks per the manual, then call their trusty mechanic, IA to inspect and complete the paperwork. There is almost no sense for a mechanic to get involved until you know its working anyway, like phone calling, troubleshooting, returning units for exchanges just eats up time.

 

There’s something that they don’t like. I even tried wiring it straight to the battery, and it still had issues. My guy at UAvionix never could figure it out. I had a GTX327

 

Assuming we are still talking about the skybeacon, that would be what you would do if you wanted it to never ever detect the transponder output.
The skybacon tries to detect electrical noise which results from the current pulses from the transponder - those pulses result in voltage drops across the wiring system due to the resistance of the wires. Going straight to the battery eliminates all that. I took the power for my EchoUAT from the breaker that powers the transponder to give it the best chance of seeing the voltage variation.

 

Does the skyBeacon and the tailBeacon use the same transponder sensing gimmick?
I installed a tailBeacon under supervision on my Warrior and no issues.

 

Interesting.

 

Puhleaaaase. Martha should have lost her license permanently. Did she pay for a line drop in this story? Letting her return to the skies as they have is disgusting and would not have happened for any average Joe. And to make things even better she has absolutely no remorse. Everything she has written about it is deflection and sympathy farming. As to the ADSB?? ::shrugs::

 

^^reported^^

I disagree

 

Reported To Whom?? The Opinion Police?? Is there a Martha Lunken defense hotline on POA? Did anyone have to break glass and pull a lever or something? For Pete’s sake…

Disagree all you want. It’s the Internet after all. You should probably articulate your position a little better though. You just disagree entirely? Thanks for the feedback I guess??

 

She did. All her certificates were revoked. I'm sure you'll find multiple threads on it here, at least one really long one.

 

Incorrect. The key word was PERMANENTLY. She recently completed PPL training and is flying again. You can find the articles about it in the usual aviation mags out there. Anyone who thinks they would get this favored treatment is crazy.

 

Technically she has a new cert. The original one is still revoked. But, as I've said multiple times on the other threads, it makes no sense to me to permanently revoke a cert but allow the person to get a new one.

 

Agreed.

 

Right. She got a new certificate (not license). Her old one was PERMANENTLY revoked. It sounds like you want her permanently barred from, what, flying? Acting as PIC? Holding a certificate? Being in an airplane?

 

You histrionics aside, I was quite clear. In my opinion, she should not be allowed to hold a PPL. Pretty sure that means no PIC. She can passenger all day long.

 

Histrionics aside, Lunken is not the first, nor will be the last who have their certificate revoked, and return to pilot in command.

My mother was one of the college kids on the bridge when a friend flew under. Unfortunately, another of his friends did not realize the serious nature of the Federal response that was possible, and widely shared prints of the pictures taken as the plane passed under, and the N number was clearly legible.

More than a year later, he had retrained, and was again a legal pilot. I have no recollection of his name, but mother had one of the incriminating prints of the event. He did achieve a different kind of fame in the Army Air Corps, WW 2. Not every Federal agency has the same view of the dastardly deed of flying under a bridge.

 

Fair enough.