Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1612587
Snipped
I'm of the opinion that is could be mode A,C,S, PAW, ADS B, combinations of all of them, or even witchcraft, I don't care!

If it keeps me, and others, from getting hurt then it has to be a good idea. In the scheme of things , any item sub £2,000.00 , is a lot more cost effective than a funeral bill.

G-JWTP.


I totally agree. . . Just get something to broadcast your position now.

You can argue what is the best later.

Nick
By LUFTY
#1612588
PaulSS wrote:
Once the CAA and EASA allow simultaneous Mode S and ADS-B transmissions then for me it is abundantly clear there will be only one standard of 1090 ADS-B Out.


Ah, good, I've been looking for someone to clear this all up. Since there will be only one standard:

Will the ADSB be Mode S extended squitter or just 1090?

SIL 0,1 or 3?

I have no doubt the CAA will eventually allow simultaneous Mode S and ADSB but, for me, the above are not abundantly clear, so perhaps you could put me straight.

Thanks :thumleft:


The 1090 MHz frequency is the international standard for ADS-B transmissions and therefore ADS-B transmissions on 1090 MHz will eventually prevail once the CAA allow simultaneous Mode S and ADSB Out Transmissions.

This is regardless of whether a Mode S transponder with Extended Squitter is used or a standalone box such as the SkyEcho or dare I say it a new PAW device using 1090 MHz is used.

SIL (Source Integrity Level) is simply the defined integrity (reliability for accuracy) of the ADS-B transmission and clearly the higher the better but SIL 1 has benefits for TCAS equipped aircraft and whilst I do not think this will become a standard in the short term SIL 1 must be the preferred option for being good neighbours with TCAS equipped aircraft.

My point really was we can all continue to debate the current advantages of PAW over ADS-B out but for me it is abundantly clear that all of these debates will be academic once the CAA allow the simultaneous transmission of Mode S and ADS-B.

None of this negates the fact that PAW has been a game changer in moving the market to affordable Electronic Conspicuity devices and more importantly for GA to realise the need for these solutions.
Nick, exfirepro, G-JWTP and 3 others liked this
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1612589
Probably like others I have a Skymap 3c ( certified bit of kit) linked to a Trig transponder ( another certified bit of kit). I've no idea whether the 9" bit of wire is certified or not but it's exactly the same as all the other bits of wire in the loom.

It just seems bonkers to me that the SIL has to be set to 0 as it's a permit aircraft.

The CAA rearly needs to have a good look at all of this and come up with some sort of guidance.

G-JWTP
Nick liked this
User avatar
By exfirepro
#1612592
The CAA have already updated the CAP 1391 standard to allow the broadcast of SIL 1 where a certified position source is used (e.g. the one used in the SkyEcho or Trig’s new TN72 - other devices are of course available), however there seems to be some confusion as to whether the ‘approving organisations’ (LAA / BMAA) are going to allow this in PtoF aircraft.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7275

As it is allowed under CAP 1391, I fail to see how they can refuse to - Anyone?

CofA and EASA Aircraft are of course yet another matter!

Regards

Peter
Last edited by exfirepro on Sun May 20, 2018 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1612595
Just on the Mode C/S bearingless detection. Whilst it is better than nothing, it does come with some significant limitations:

1. It estimates range on the recieved strength of the signal. So a weak signal from a closer aircraft will be estimated at the same distance as one that is further away but emitting a stronger signal.

2. It does, I believe, decode altitude. But if there are two or more aircraft out there reporting similar altitudes with similar received signal strength then the picture gets confusing - when you think you have seen the conflicting aircraft the other one hits you!

3. It gives you no idea on whereto look. Now this could be sectorised with 4 or more antennae, but that would add massive expense and the need to route cables all over the aircraft. Not really in the ‘carry on’ kit class any more!

So whilst the bearingless detection could save you from hitting someone, it could also lead you to your doom. The only thing it can really do is make you look out even more.

Finally, I agree with Dave Phillips. Working together on a solution is the way ahead. There are great features on FLARM, PAW and SkyEcho. If I could take the best from each it would be (with the downsides in BOLD):

1. FLARM - simple warnings, with a very low false alarm rate, given to the pilot with a small and simple display and very simple aural warnings. (expensive, locked down protocol and pretty niche to the gliding community))

2. PAW - cost vs capability is primarily the reason for its popularity with great innovative ideas constantly rolled out - like the new Rosetta. (until the recent release of Rosetta it was an ‘explosion in a Maplins shop’, used another bespoke protocol as its only emission and doesn’t appear to have had any formal Authority-endorsed trials to assure its quality.)

3. SkyEcho - the ability to utilise an Internationally agreed aviation standard with both ADS-B and UAT; it is the only product in the range to do ‘carry on’ ADS-B Out. The new SkyEcho 2 provides a significant increase in extra capability. (the display of conflicting aircraft is only done via a simple aural warning and the need to look at a large and complex SkyDemon screen, plus it also needs to be able to work with the aircraft’s Mode S at the same time.)

So if I could have a SkyEcho at a PAW price with the ability to warn me simply like FLARM with an ability to see all three then I would have arrived in Electronic Conspicuity Utopia!

That said, I personally think that SkyEcho2 is the closest to arrive at that Utopia when, and if, it is authorised to transmit when carried in a Mode S emitting aircraft.

Best, Gaz
G-JWTP, Wide-Body liked this
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1612598
exfirepro wrote:The CAA have already updated the CAP 1391 standard to allow the broadcast of SIL 1 where a certified position source is used (e.g. the one used in the SkyEcho or Trig’s new TN72 - other devices are of course available), however there seems to be some confusion as to whether the ‘approving organisations’ (LAA / BMAA) are going to allow this in PtoF aircraft.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7275

As it is allowed under CAP 1391, I fail to see how they can refuse to - Anyone?

CofA and EASA Aircraft are of course yet another matter!

Regards

Peter


Thanks Peter, I missed that one!

92 pages to say, what in the real world, takes 1 sentence.

The trouble is that it reads very much like a wish list of the now defunct LPST.

That's a low power s mode transponder, ( for people not of a certain age).

That didn't go too well either!

G-JWTP
User avatar
By exfirepro
#1612601
Gaz,

1. I can’t disagree re the signal strength issue with Mode C/S. That has always been the bugbear, and is one of the reasons PilotAware doesn’t attempt to ‘guesstimate’ an actual distance from your aircraft, but we (particularly Lee) have done a lot of work which has considerably improved the reliability of ‘bearingless’ alerts and have ideas to try to improve this area further. Personally, the ability to differentiate between the alert pattern from an approaching GA and a further out (and hence possibly ‘invisible’) high power CAT Mode S comes with experience using the devices.

2. / 3. PilotAware definitely reports accurate relative altitude for Mode C and Mode S equipped aircraft, which certainly does help direct visual scan to look for them and also helps to inform you whether they are for example moving away from your altitude or descending above you (viz. my comment in my earlier post re my near-death experience last year), but having identified an aircraft, that as you say, merely confirms that you know where the one you have seen is, that may not be the one your device is warning you about, so you need to continue to focus on visual scan outside the cockpit until you can guarantee that you are looking at the correct aircraft, or until the alert prompts cease.

The one you have seen may not even be transmitting any EC warnings. Unless/until all aircraft (including drones) have some form of mandatory EC, this will continue to be the case, which is why you need to maintain effective visual scan. The same thing of course applies to a greater or lesser degree to the warnings from all EC devices at our (GA) level. EC is there to support and provide some ‘direction’ to improve and complement visual scanning, not to replace it.

Regards

Peter
gaznav, G-JWTP, Nick liked this
User avatar
By Ian Melville
#1612617
tomshep wrote:SkyEcho does but ground infrastructure has not yet caught up with it.


SkyEcho does not need 'ground infrastructure' for EC. UAT is only used for weather.
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1612618
3. SkyEcho - the ability to utilise an Internationally agreed aviation standard with both ADS-B and UAT; it is the only product in the range to do ‘carry on’ ADS-B Out. The new SkyEcho 2 provides a significant increase in extra capability. (the display of conflicting aircraft is only done via a simple aural warning and the need to look at a large and complex SkyDemon screen, plus it also needs to be able to work with the aircraft’s Mode S at the same time.)

Am I not right in thinking that SD offer a simplified clock face type display in the bottom right corner, which would be easier than interpreting a complete screen full of other data?
User avatar
By exfirepro
#1612651
FBM,

You are correct, SD runs a 'Radar Type' display in the lower right hand corner on most display systems, which can be 'expanded' to about 1/4 screen size by touching on it, though it won't IIRC expand to 'full screen' as that would obscure their Nav Display - which is of course the main reason for their software.

PilotAware also does a 'Radar Type' display option, which is 'Browser Based' - accessible by logging onto the main 'PAW screen' via the PAW WiFi Hotspot on 192.168.1.1 and selecting the 'Radar' 'Tab' .

This is a simple traffic display, which is independent of any Nav system you may be running - i.e. it can be run along with a nav system or entirely on its own and will run on pretty much any 'smartphone' or tablet - even an older model which is no longer in 'normal use'. It doesn't need a SIM card or a Nav System subscription - it just needs to be able to power up and run.

There are also other excellent 'display options' available such as the 'RADAR 3D' App developed by 'James Rose' and available for iOS or Android devices. James is also busy developing a 'stand alone' display based on a standard 80mm instrument fitting, which also includes an artificial horizon and heading indicator and will be 'future upgradeable' to allow additional functions to be added.

So you don't even need a tablet or a Nav System subscription to 'see' traffic on PilotAware.

Best Regards

Peter
G-JWTP liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1612657
Yes but the PAW and the SD displays are not what I am looking for. I want something small, easy to interpret and attention grabbing in my eye-line when I am looking out. So far only FLARM has a solution that I like. Even on a small smartphone the ‘radar’ displays are too big.

Here is the simple FLARM mounted at eye level.
Image
Image

Here is probably the best so far on a smartphone - but in my humble opinion it is still too busy compared to the FLARM.
Image
Last edited by gaznav on Sun May 20, 2018 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rf3flyer liked this
User avatar
By tomshep
#1612658
The ideal EC system has no display. Where do you look? inside or out? What ratio?
No room for a screen? Just plonk it in front of the engine dials, then.
No, this isn't the way.
IF PAW are as smart as I hope they are, they are looking at an an audio output that locates the other aircraft around you and just injects into your headset feed

"Three o'clock Level"
"Ten o'clock low"
"Six o'clock Level converging"

Being told where to look is faster than looking at a display then relating that to a sky in front of you.

Outputting ADS-B to ATC ground stations would be the ideal because they then have all the information that could be provided by a much more expensive transponder.
Were that sufficient to permit access to controlled airspace (and it jolly well should be,)
the additional benefits of Sky Echo would handsomely justify the price difference between it and PAW.

It will simply not be possible to mandate the fitting of mode S transponders to all aircraft
so it will not happen.
There needs to be one alternative. It will not be FLARM. Without ADS-B out, it is unlikely to be PAW, either, alas.

It makes no sense to have a system that promotes EC if it cannot also open controlled airspace because, once it does so, choke points are reduced in traffic density and therefore the risk of MAC is reduced with it which is the sole reason for the existence of EC.
User avatar
By tomshep
#1612660
Thanks Gaznav for posting that. Flarm has four lamps to the left I don't need then three pieces of information to decode and process before it is any use. What bearing, what height ,
how far away.
It is far from ideal. The smartphone screen is just a heads down machine. I shudder to think how many lives that will cost. You need 88 per cent of your input circuitry to watch telly and eight to listen to the radio.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9