Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1591499
uAvionix-Ramsey wrote:Sorry for the premature notice.


Despite your concerns, I picked the data up for the first time today, and was absolutely thrilled with the results.

My setup is Garmin GTX345R transponder (ADS-B IN and OUT, 1090 and 978 enabled), coupled with a GTN750, and a bluetooth connection from the avionics to Garmin Pilot on an iPad. I flew airways today from Cranfield to Lille and back, along a route that runs more or less BPK->DET-DVR->TRACA-LFQQ

Filed level was FL90, but I could already pickup the Redhill UAT climbing through FL70 approaching BPK. The coverage was fairly solid until approaching DVR at FL90 where it conked out.

Image
This shows the relative location of the aircraft (Blue Blob) from the Tower as portrayed on Garmin Pilot

Image
Cranfield METAR picked up from UAT on the way back.

Image
Nexrad-style data showing on the GTN750 - I had to zoom out so far because there wasn't any weather over the South East this afternoon!

The one functionality I couldn't get to work, was the display of METAR/TAF data on the GTN750. Could be finger trouble on my part, since the data is clearly being received and shared with the iPad via bluetooth.

I think this a brilliant initiative and I'm delighted at last not to have to fly down to Skydemon HQ to take advantage of it!
#1591506
That’s actually very pleasing, seeing one of my circles of radar data appearing on kit produced by a competitor. Hooray for standards!
2Donkeys, Dave W liked this
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
SkyDemon developer
#1591528
The time taken to transmit the full radar picture varies with the complexity of the data because of the compression used. It can take up to around fifteen seconds for a full paint to be transmitted. I think at the moment we transmit that once every minute, but that sort of thing can and will be varied in the future as there might be other stuff we want to transmit. In the states the transmission of radar happens much less frequently because there’s loads of other stuff being transmitted like notam.
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1591655
I just flew along the northern edge of the London CTR at 2400 to see whether the Redhill transmissions were receivable at common VFR levels north of London. Sadly not :(

Is the trial accepting volunteers to provide a home and facilities to support additional ground stations?
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1591670
uAvionix-Ramsey wrote:One of the future sites will be at Wycombe Air Park. Perhaps that one will cover your area?


Cambridge or even Cranfield would be good - to start to provide more coverage towards the East. I can offer Chateau 2Donkeys which lies roughly equidistant between the two as an alternative.
#1591672
Tim Dawson wrote:The time taken to transmit the full radar picture varies with the complexity of the data because of the compression used. It can take up to around fifteen seconds for a full paint to be transmitted. I think at the moment we transmit that once every minute, but that sort of thing can and will be varied in the future as there might be other stuff we want to transmit. In the states the transmission of radar happens much less frequently because there’s loads of other stuff being transmitted like notam.


On the G1000 using Iridum for the datalink you can set the download interval for time periods of anywhere between 5min and one hour. You can also set it to manual. The other useful bit is you can set route width for data download. We ordinarily set about 50-80nm either side of track covering the entire length of route. I'm wondering if you can do something similarly smart to limit unnecessary data transfer?

PS. Like 2Ds, I can offer you a bit of Shropshire. :shaking2:
#1591695
At present, we have lots of spare bandwidth. Each tower will broadcast a circle of radar coverage of around 200nm and taf/metar from stations within 250nm (both figures from memory and subject to change).

We can also go beyond what America has done. In the Alps for example we could probably save lives by broadcasting gafor data. It really is quite exciting.
GolfHotel, kanga, velostar liked this
User avatar
By carlmeek
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1591711
How does traffic integrate into this? As in - does it rebroadcast ADSB targets?

If not - is that possible? Could it even be extended to rebroadcast other targets like PAW is doing with flarm?

I know PAW has a big following, but ADSB is the world standard and integrates into panel mount avionics.
#1592271
I don’t often post, but have been following the UAT / SkyEcho threads with great interest. I flew a G1000 fitted C172 back in 2007 in Florida and was very impressed with both FIS-B and TIS-B. The cloud tops were really useful for climbing over enroute weather knowing that one could remain VMC in the decent. I also flew a Garmin TAS fitted G1000 Archer for a hundred or so hours and that was even better than TIS-B so I can understand the focus on air to air detection.

If we could wind the clock back we’d have 1000s of SkyEcho style standards compliant devices on the whole GA fleet, powered and unpowered, but we can’t.

However, there would seem to be an opportunity for the PilotAware community and the UAT/ADS-B community to work together for a really good outcome.

Imagine an ideal world groundstation. The PilotAware system receiving PilotAware and FLARM traffic and uplinking via the Uavionix/Skydemon antennas on 978 as TIS-B. The same system could uplink the ADS-B contacts as FLARM contacts.

PilotAware would still sell their devices to light recreational GA who have no desire for any UAT information and a very basic avionics fit. They could see ADS-B targets with PilotAware.

The SkyEcho users would benefit from FIS-B and uplinked TIS-B FLARM and PilotAware targets. SkyEcho users would potentially have more ground stations for wider coverage.

Gliders fitted solely with FLARM would have a detection system suitable for their specific use, that would potentially have ADS-B and PilotAware traffic displayed also.

One of these multi-link ground stations at GA airfields and major gliding sites would seem to offer so much capability. The airborne equipment may be different, that’s OK - not ideal, but OK for now.

In Ian Seager’s “Eight go flying...” article everybody (in range of a ground station) would see everybody else.

For the individual communities that, separately have the desire to improve electronic conspicuity, why wouldn’t working together work better?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13