Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 44
#1535466
G-BLEW wrote:
ChrisRowland wrote:What all these EC devices do is demonstrate very clearly that the GA community wants EC. It also shows the type they want,something that allows them to get notified of other traffic. The type that's mandated - transponders - doesn't do this because all it provides is information to controllers.


Indeed, but to every other pilot we are the other traffic, so we need to broadcast something, and that's very likely to be ADS-B.

Ian

We are broadcasting something.

ATC can receive P3I and FLARM if they wish. The RAF do this, they fit their Tutors with FLARM and have receivers in the OGN network. I think I've heard that the BBMF also uses FLARM. Benson has a OGN display in the tower.

Eventually ADS-B but light, cheap ADS-B in/out seems even newer than PAW.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1535470
ChrisRowland wrote:ADS-B and transponders are not the same.

I guess Ian knows that. :)
ChrisRowland wrote: A transponder does not receive ADS-B.

This one does and it's only a matter of time before the other manufacturers follow suit IMHO (especially at that price!)
G-BLEW liked this
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1535472
Chris Rowland wrote:ATC can receive P3I and FLARM if they wish.


This kind of illustrates my concerns with P3i. I would be amazed if P3i or FLARM became an official part of an ATC feed alongside radar, and if it was used to provide traffic information or transits.

Ian
shuttle liked this
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
SkyDemon developer
#1535475
ChrisRowland wrote:ATC can receive P3I and FLARM if they wish.


Absolutely not! I don't think ATC could ever act on unverified information received over unregulated parts of the spectrum.

Certain organisations may have chosen to equip their fleet with PAW and FLARM as belt and braces but that just illustrates the problem.

Future transponders will do both adsb in and out, and unlike that Garmin device linked above, will connect to popular apps and not cost the earth. I think uAvionix have already linked to theirs earlier in this thread which will cost a fraction of the Garmin thing.

In the meantime we have PilotAware offering the best variety of reception and the ability to power your transponder's adsb out, and the SkyEcho which offers simplicity for adsb in and out.

The future is bright for electronic conspicuity, and it's adsb.
shortwing, velostar liked this
#1535478
    Tim Dawson wrote:The future is bright for electronic conspicuity, and it's adsb.


    Earlier in this thread it was suggested that there is a likelyhood of adsb being overloaded with transmitions?
    Anyone who understands the technology part of that argument like to comment?
    #1535484
    Tim Dawson wrote:In the meantime we have PilotAware offering ............ the ability to power your transponder's adsb out.

    Afraid, Tim, that sadly the above statement is still a little bit premature.

    Yes, it can be done (GPS NMEA data feed into a Mode S ES transponder from PAW or any other NMEA data output capable GPS device) in a LAA or BMAA Permit-to-Fly aircraft (provided that your Mode S ES transponder is of a make/model/hardware/firmware that will accept this type of GPS NMEA SIL=0 data feed).

    However, as well as transponder compatibility, there are a number of other issues preventing such non-certified GPS/Mode S ES connectivity in CofA aircraft, despite the proof of accuracy that NATS did (with GA PtF community help). Still pressing the powers that be on this.
    #1535485
    Crash one wrote:I think the PAW device is an excellent piece of work as it is, and looks set to improve coverage. My only concern is the physical design of the package, Tupperware boxes indeed!!
    If the enclosure were redesigned to fold the antennae down flush, all dangly dongles enclosed, a battery pack included with recharge input, so the unit could be Blu takked to something, or dropped in the flight bag safely. Would that make it more attractive to the masses?
    At the moment it seems a little fragile compared to a handheld radio or PLB frinstance.
    Keep up the good work Lee.


    Would you like to venture a price point for that package ?
    #1535489
    Without the market research and the tooling costs 12 years after I retired from the industry, no.
    But a wild guess I'd go for an extra £50 per unit. It would depend on numbers take up.
    A big enough enclosure to house everything, rehash the antennae folding bit, add a 4hr rechargeable battery, an on/off switch. Basically a mechanical improvement, no upgraded electronics involved. Had I been in the toolmaking business today, right up my street. Cost inflation today I know not.
    User avatar
    By Dave W
    FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
    #1535492
    I'd certainly like a single box solution with options for either external or on-board battery power.

    But it would need the ability for cabled antennas, given how critical antenna positioning has turned out to be (for me). (To clarify that comment: I suspect that for many installations, antennas "on the box" would result in blind spots and so antennas located away from the main unit may be necessary.)
    Last edited by Dave W on Mon May 15, 2017 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    #1535495
    The RAF installed and used FLARM after a collision between a Tutor and a FLARM equipped glider. I'm not sure how much use they make of it but they have an OGN feed in the tower.

    But it looks as if the PTB would rather that people were killed than use what is available now.

    I wonder how many people's deaths it will take.
    User avatar
    By G-BLEW
    Boss Man  Boss Man
    #1535501
    But it looks as if the PTB would rather that people were killed than use what is available now.


    Sorry Chris, but that's a ridiculous statement. I don't know anyone, in power or not, who would rather see people killed.

    Nobody is saying 'don't use PAW or FLARM, but some people (including me) are saying that P3i is not the solution that will provide an integrated electronic conspicuity solution.

    Ian
    Flyin'Dutch' liked this
    User avatar
    By Tim Dawson
    SkyDemon developer
    #1535503
    Good point shuttle. I should have mentioned that if it's not legal in your airframe to connect the PAW to your transponder you may need the SkyEcho solution. I believe it currently offers SIL=1.
    By chrisadams
    FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
    #1535505
    Regarding form factor for a carry-on PAW to enclose the various dongles, there is a wide range of cases commercially available for Stratux that do just this. I imagine it likely that some of these would be suitable for PAW without need for adaptation. If so, perhaps a fully enclosed PAW could be offered as an option, at appropriate additional cost. As both antennae have to be vertically polarised I don't see how these could located inside the unit unless a puck type antenna was used for P3i.
    • 1
    • 16
    • 17
    • 18
    • 19
    • 20
    • 44