Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
#1847342
Straight Level wrote:@gaznav yet again hijacks another EC thread with his incessant PAW bashing.
Give it a rest Gaz, it's getting rather tedious.


Because it takes a while to get after the real facts?

So I had a re-read of @leemoore1966’s post (thanks Lee, I get what you are saying now) and can see that the latest build Stratux EU can act as an airborne OGN receiver - from within that OGN capability comes the ability to receive FANET, FLARM, OGN Trackers and P3i. Further, a Beta is ongoing to build a transmitter that Rosetta can receive using an 868 TTGO T-Beam board fitted to enable transmission, too. But there is quite a bit of effort needed to get in-use Stratux boxes in the EU to do this as I understand it? But it is a very interesting development as it looks like if you build the latest Stratux EU box then you get a receiver that sees almost everything without the use of ground stations (hallelujah!):

1090 ADS-B
978 UAT FIS-B/TIS-B
Mode S bearingless warnings
OGN capability to detect FLARM, OGN Trackers, FANET and P3i

So that is pretty much a full-house on all of the protocols for receive only. As a self-build device then it would be unlikely to meet the Declaration of Capability and Conformity (DoCC) with the CAA to have a transmit capability on 1090Mhz below 40W. But if it did, and it was packaged up into a robust design then it would meet the “Holy Grail” of portable EC devices. As it stands, then only “Build 3” variants of Stratus EU transmit, and even then they appear to be transmitting P3i, so not very many detect that signal standard - so you still need an ADS-B enabled transponder or a CAP1391 transceiver to be seen by the majority of other air users.

Thanks for pointing to this interesting development - I wonder if FLARM will stay silent on licence-free airborne detection of their signals? That will be in addition to SoftRF, which was a smaller enterprise. But it then begs the question why some of us are paying FLARM for a licence fee to decode FLARM signals within our chosen electronic flight bag software, when others are not! We’ll have to wait and see how that plays out, I guess?

[edited extra] It might be more transparent to state this with my highlighted extras:
Every OGN station in Europe can be modified to detect PilotAware

Every Atom station in Europe detects PilotAware (although there aren’t that many in continental Europe yet)

Stratux EU can be modified to detect PilotAware

SoftRF detects PilotAware
#1847358
MattL wrote:What on earth is FANET?

Brief explanation here https://naviter.com/2019/09/how-it-works-fanet/

It's popular in the paragliding world and FANET+ also transmits Flarm (which I guess is why Flarm users are seeing more paragliding symbols popping up this year).

You might say yet more confusion, unfortunately while the CAA prevaricate others will innovate :wink:
#1847362
gaznav wrote:[edited extra] It might be more transparent to state this with my highlighted extras:
Every OGN station in Europe can be modified to detect PilotAware

Every Atom station in Europe detects PilotAware (although there aren’t that many in continental Europe yet)

Stratux EU can be modified to detect PilotAware

SoftRF detects PilotAware


Again - you have it wrong, I am beginning to think deliberately so ?
Every OGN station in Europe can be modified to detect PilotAware

I already told you very clearly, the OGN stations (not ATOM) running v0.2.8, will detect
- OGN
- Flarm
- PilotAware
- Fanet+
Please tell us which are these stations that need modifying to detect PilotAware ?

From my analysis there are 898 stations (ATOM + OGN) which are capable of receiving the emissions listed above - I would have put the list in the posting but that would seem an unnecessarily long post

Every Atom station in Europe detects PilotAware (although there aren’t that many in continental Europe yet)

This is a rather subjective term, could you furnish us with a number - so we can quantify what many means in your terminology ?
Then we can compare and contrast the numbers against your advocacy for "UAT in the UK" which began 4 years ago in August 2017
#1847377
Gaznav, if you look at the photo I posted of the various devices you will see the latest Stratux EU that both receives and transmits Fanet+ & Pilotaware. It can receive everything direct that Pilotaware can direct or relayed with the exception of MLAT but can get this relayed from an ATOM the same as Pilotaware. I believe there are normally about 160 ish ATOM stations full available at anyone time as many are either down or running old software. Also some do not receive 1090 so they do not provide local MLAT but may get this off the ATOM Grid.

It is all quite complicated and as always the devil is in the detail.
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847402
And now there is a new player in the market with all the issues of all the others (and more) but also very much more accessible (read effectively free) and as it's anonymised data no reason not to put it on. Relies on ground stations for collection and relay of all non GSM based data. Just another indication that like them or not ground stations and especially OGN are here to stay for the foreseeable future. https://www.safesky.app/en
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847405
@russp: That one fails on the reliability & availability of a mobile internet connection in flight.

And very probably latency, too.

I would disregard it immediately as a player.

But anyway... 10 pages in, most discussing the same old guff (@GrahamB is right), and we still have no case made for mandatory EC.
Sooty25 liked this
#1847411
Dave W wrote:@russp: That one fails on the reliability availability of a mobile internet connection in flight.

And very probably latency, too.

I would disregard it immediately as a player.



Completely agree, skysafe app is a gimmick that once again panders to people too attached to their phones to actually look behind it an realise the technology is totally unsuitable.
#1847443
Straight Level wrote:@gaznav yet again hijacks another EC thread with his incessant PAW bashing.
Give it a rest Gaz, it's getting rather tedious.


That is a bit harsh! Whilst I've disagreed with @gaznav in the past, there are issues with PAW.

From the PAW website
The frequency PilotAware has adopted is 869.525Mhz. This is a recognised ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) ISM band for use all European countries and other ETSI member states. This is not an Aviation Frequency and does not meet an aviation standard.


The 863 - 870MHz band is used for all sorts of equipment and there is no restriction on who uses which frequency as it is designed as a short range frequency. You could easily find call buttons in a nursing home suddenly using the same frequency! 869MHz sits in the High Band and shares the frequencies as follows.
Image

So, unless you can get the frequency ringfenced for aviation, it will be useless if EC became mandatory, regardless of the P3i Protocol.

Straight Level wrote:@gaznav Any company or individual with half a clue about programming would in combination of the protocol document simply analyse the data stream between the radio module and processor as part of the development. It is a trivial task as RFSoft TTGO demonstrates with their Flarm and PAW capability.


That is NOT the way to develop a new product or software, certainly within NMEA standards numerous manufacturers use proprietary sentences which are not covered by industry standards, they are also known for "adjusting" sentences to suit themselves, which whilst they still work, don't meet standards. To rely on the output of another manufacturers equipment, as a standard to build your own is a recipe for disaster.

Straight Level wrote:If this isn't a trivial task for the developer then they shouldn't be mucking about trying.
If you are looking for a Ladybird book "How to do P3i" I doubt you will find it.
P3i is open and no threat to take any new developer to court.


The 13 page document previously linked to, IS the "Ladybird book" you refer to.

For a protocol to become a standard, it needs to be fully available to all that want to develop hardware. Its modification also needs to be controlled, so that a change to the protocol remains backwardly compatible so that existing suppliers are not suddenly incompatible should P3i release a new version, or even a tweak, overnight.
#1847449
VinceGod wrote:Gaznav, if you look at the photo I posted of the various devices you will see the latest Stratux EU that both receives and transmits Fanet+ & Pilotaware. It can receive everything direct that Pilotaware can direct or relayed with the exception of MLAT but can get this relayed from an ATOM the same as Pilotaware.

This is not strictly correct
It will not receive Mode-S/3D(MLAT) or METAR data from the ATOM ground station network
thx
Lee
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847451
Given that evidently nobody wishes to address the OP in this thread, and yet again an EC thread descends into religious wars, I will close it.

There are many other EC threads available: This is not an attack on anybody's "right" to free speech!

(Now unlocked again)
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10