[Marvin]

When more research and data is available on 1090/ADS-B/OOK, this could change, but for the moment I think we (PilotAware) are best placed to carefully concentrate our precious resources on where we can make a real world difference in safety for GA, using a technology which is sustainable, future proof and not lumbered with historical difficulties.
Thx
Lee

Thats business.

With respect I think were we are going to continue to disagree is with the continuation of a 3rd frequency and protocol over and above the ADS-B solution and using the uncertainty principle as a sustainment argument i believe is flawed in the medium, if not short term.

As an in device ok I can see where people are attracted but unless this same people have invested in an ADS-B out solution, or every one invests in a device cable of receiving that 3rd frequency, of some form they will continue to have only one foot in the EC debate and one foot in the "I hope every one else maintains a good look out of the window"

Hey, Ho

[leemoore1966]

.. "I hope every one else maintains a good look out of the window"

agreed

[gaznav]

Hi Gaz,

gaznav wrote:
PS. Overnight afterthought. Just to add that OFCOM and the CAA have signed up to allowing low power portable ADS-B

Can you post a link to this ?

Hi Lee

It’s CAP1391 - page 32 Table 2 “ADS-B Classes” where it discusses a Class A0 as “Lower transmit power and less sensitive receiver than Class A1”. Obviously portable Electronic Conspicuity (EC) and Transmitting Portable Electronic Device (T-PED) is mentioned throughout. Further there is the Declaration of Capability and Conformance (DoCC) Form SRG1757 - this is sent to the CAA for them to approve the portable ADS-B T-PED even if Class A0. The SkyEcho has a valid DoCC which is the T-PED’s approval - seen here:



Then, when you buy one you have two choices - you can put it on your extant OFCOM Radio Licence for your aircraft free of charge, or, if like me, you want to use your SkyEcho in various aircraft then you pay Radio Licencing . They treat it as a “Transportable Radio” and charge £15 for 3 years.

So there you have your answer - low power ADS-B is acceptable to the CAA and approved, plus OFCOM have also approved by licensing the device for use. There are no ‘strings attached’ to the approval apart from, at present (and hopefully not for long), you cannot use the SkyEcho with a functioning Mode S transponder. As both my aircraft do not have one then for me it is the best solution - sadly I won’t see your bit of kit transmitting but at least it will see me.

Finally, Marvin beat me to it. There is, I would suggest, no guarantee that PAW would not be booted off of 869.5MHz as it is also congested and used for a range of other uses - asset tracking systems, meter readers, industrial telemetry/telecommand equipment, data loggers, in-building environmental monitoring/control systems, social alarms, high-end security/fire alarms, and vehicle data up/download. Especially if PAW gets the saturation of the GA market that you hope for - lots of aircraft-borne PAWs in line of sight of lots of other ground based systems may in future cause issues to these ground based users. I believe the whole idea of the 869 so-called “free use” predicated on the fact that it was for short range line of sight work on the ground that is unlikely to interfere with each other? Whilst not a problem right now with an estimated 500-1,000 regular users, might it be that any issues may not have manifested themselves just like the 1090 discussion? I would also be so bold that getting the DoCC for use of equipment on a band reserved for aviation (1090) might actually be a safer bet? But that is entirely based on a hunch and that is all

Best

Gaz

[leemoore1966]

Hi Gaz,
I do enjoy our debates, but I feel I have to pull you up on some of your 'hunches'

There is, I would suggest, no guarantee that PAW would not be booted off of 869.5MHz as it is also congested and used for a range of other uses

Can you provide a reference citation to a similar situation whereby where any user was denied access to the spectrum whilst adhering to all the rules set out in the regulations as defined by ETSI ?
Let me set out my opposing views

lots of aircraft-borne PAWs in line of sight of lots of other ground based systems may in future cause issues to these ground based users

Can I suggest you read the following white paper that describes the susceptibility to congestion of comparative modulation techniques :- On-Off Keying(used in 1090-ADSB) versus Frequency Shift Keying(used in Flarm, PilotAware, UAT) - then maybe you will understand why the congestion issues are not equivalent, alternately, do you think this analysis is flawed ?
https://wireless.murata.com/media/products/apnotes/ook.pdf

I believe the whole idea of the 869 so-called “free use” predicated on the fact that it was for short range line of sight work on the ground that is unlikely to interfere with each other

Reference please ?
As an opposing view I will point you to LoRaWan, this is the Long Range Wide Area Network used over the same ISM band, my reference here, there are lots of others to be found
https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/docs/lorawan

LoRaWAN is a media access control (MAC) protocol for wide area networks. It is designed to allow low-powered devices to communicate with Internet-connected applications over long range wireless connections

...on the ground that is unlikely to interfere with each other

Again, reference please to where it was specified for use on the ground, here is my opposing reference, directly from the ETSI specification itself
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/84970/ir-2030-july-2017.pdf
Publication date: 27 February 2018 : Page 22 IR2030/1/19

Equipment may be used airborne

I think that is pretty clear that its usage as an airborne application, over long distances (subjective terminology) is within the framework of adherence, so to your original point - which of these do you believe to have a valid case for being

booted off of 869.5MHz

Thx
Lee

[leemoore1966]

Hi Marvin,

Thats business.

And that is where we differ fundamentally on our approach ...

We did not start PilotAware as a 'business' we started PilotAware because we are pilots, enthusiasts and wanted to use our skills to solve a problem that we felt was lacking from every other provider

Since starting we have been offered a LOT of 'investment', on many occasions to buy a chunk of what we have done, and to 'encourage' us to follow a particular path, we have politely refused all investment thus far, as we are all in the fortunate position to not require an income from PilotAware

We do this because we think it is important, we have the capabilities, and our users like what we have provided and continue to innovate and provide.

If our users tell us, 'hey that was a great run, but there is some new gadget we are going to use instead' - so be it, no problem. I don't see that happening anytime soon so until that happens, we will continue to be Innovative to solve problems, Responsive to users requirements, and run our operations as lean as possible, for the benefits of as many as possible.

It may not be a great business plan, but we have largely achieved what we set out and continue to do, much to the sadness and misplaced frustration of some, but as John Lydgate points out (later reworded by Lincoln)
"you can’t please all of the people all of the time"

Thx
Lee

[Straight Level]

There is, I would suggest, no guarantee that PAW would not be booted off of 869.5MHz
Best
Gaz

Gaz,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Flarm use the same 868 to 870mhz ISM band?
This section of the band is for general applications including 'telemetry' as detailed in OFCOMs ISM band plan.

So what you are suggesting is that FLARM and PAW could be booted off 868/869.5mhz.
A highly unlikely scenario, and I would suggest that this is less likely than the potential 1090mhz congestion that 'may' happen should we / drone / UAV drivers all go over to ADS-B.
But then that would be just scaremongering
I hope we get some decent wx over the bank holiday so that we can all go flying.
SL

[Marvin]

There is, I would suggest, no guarantee that PAW would not be booted off of 869.5MHz
Best
Gaz

Gaz,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Flarm use the same 868 to 870mhz ISM band?
This section of the band is for general applications including 'telemetry' as detailed in OFCOMs ISM band plan.

So what you are suggesting is that FLARM and PAW could be booted off 868/869.5mhz.
A highly unlikely scenario, and I would suggest that this is less likely than the potential 1090mhz congestion that 'may' happen should we / drone / UAV drivers all over to ADS-B.
But then that would be just scaremongering
I hope we get some decent wx over the bank holiday so that we can all go flying.
SL

SL, I don’t think there is any evidence that any of the frequencies we are currently discussing, PAW, FLARM or indeed 1090 are due to be reclaimed. Although there is evidence that other frequencies have been in the past I.e. the 50cm radar band and the old VHF TV bands are now reallocated.

Many studies have been done as part of Thesis or research as to the effects and possibilities of frequency congestion, I have one in my files somewhere and I’m sure Lee will have dug out many, on 1090 and even the “Open Frequencies”. The studies on the aviation band have mainly been instigated because of the impact on aviation but have not proven anything or instigated any immediate or further concerns to the point of new planning.

I think where I’m coming from, is in the “Scaring of the Horses” by postulation that investment in development of a low powered 1090 out capability for PAW is stalled because 1090 will be withdrawn from use by GA due to congestion.

I don’t see that round the corner, or even the next corner which for most people on this forum is probable far enough.

PS, my aircraft sick so only flying for me is any P1 action in the RH seat for rusty pilots.

Edited to remove Ref to gaznav.

[tomshep]

It makes more sense for the drones to go over to P3l!

[Marvin]

It makes more sense for the drones to go over to P3l!

I agree and there is even co-operation between FLARM and a Drone manufacture for such work.

I must admit I do have an issue with their promotional video though.

Flarm and UAV

[Marvin]

Hi Marvin,

Thats business.

And that is where we differ fundamentally on our approach ...

We did not start PilotAware as a 'business' we started PilotAware because we are pilots, enthusiasts and wanted to use our skills to solve a problem that we felt was lacking from every other provider

Since starting we have been offered a LOT of 'investment', on many occasions to buy a chunk of what we have done, and to 'encourage' us to follow a particular path, we have politely refused all investment thus far, as we are all in the fortunate position to not require an income from PilotAware

We do this because we think it is important, we have the capabilities, and our users like what we have provided and continue to innovate and provide.

If our users tell us, 'hey that was a great run, but there is some new gadget we are going to use instead' - so be it, no problem. I don't see that happening anytime soon so until that happens, we will continue to be Innovative to solve problems, Responsive to users requirements, and run our operations as lean as possible, for the benefits of as many as possible.

It may not be a great business plan, but we have largely achieved what we set out and continue to do, much to the sadness and misplaced frustration of some, but as John Lydgate points out (later reworded by Lincoln)
"you can’t please all of the people all of the time"

Thx
Lee

I think you may mis understand others motives.

Yes you have delivered an interesting and low cost EC capable IN device which in itself is an achievement but let’s be honest so have others, and there are many examples from Stratus, FLARM and even FUNKE which for a range of prices can be installed or carried onto an aircraft.

Many people have bought into that achievement and good luck.

What we are debating is the future of 1090 and specifically ADS-B and its future for GA and I don’t buy into your postulation and speculation that that frequency is doomed for GA in the short or even medium term future.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that what the PAW people have done is brilliant.

BUT

The next stage must be convergence of the various standards in use, so that everybody can see everybody else using electronic conspicuity. That may make a lot of hardware redundant in due course, but it is the only sensible way forwards and, I hope, inevitable.

G

[Rob P]

I have kept out of this largely as I really am not up to speed on the nuances.

I too think what the PAW people have done has been fantastic and am not pleased to see that people who haven't contributed a fraction of what they have are so keen to snipe at them from the sidelines.

Yes it may be redundant tech in a year or five, that doesn't change the fact

THEY HAVE DONE IT NOW!

Please stop whining naysayers and give them their due.

Rob P

[Marvin]

I have kept out of this largely as I really am not up to speed on the nuances.

I too think what the PAW people have done has been fantastic and am not pleased to see that people who haven't contributed a fraction of what they have are so keen to snipe at them from the sidelines.

Yes it may be redundant tech in a year or five, that doesn't change the fact

THEY HAVE DONE IT NOW!

Please stop whining naysayers and give them their due.
Rob P

Rob, I’m sorry if you see two engineers who know each other “Slugging it Out” in the public domain the future of EC and specifically the 1090 element and resulting in “naysayers”.

There is no malice or ill intent in the postings, correct me if I’m wrong, but we are not discussing the what has been but what will be and, as others have said, how everyone can benefit from seeing each other with whatever technology they chosen the future.

Previous discussions on this subject have descended into a slanging match and we have lost a lot of good people from this forum as a result.

I am not of that nature but I will contribute where my knowledge and experience allows and hope others will also.

I can also assure you I have not been a bystander in EC by any stretch of the imagination and continue to actively contribute to activities surrounding the subject matter.

[leemoore1966]

There is no malice or ill intent in the postings, correct me if I’m wrong, but we are not discussing the what has been but what will be and, as others have said, how everyone can benefit from seeing each other with whatever technology they chosen the future.

Totally agree, differences of opinion - nothing personal and no malice intended

Thx
Lee

[Dave W]

It makes more sense for the drones to go over to P3l!

Not exclusively; The commonality argument is as valid for UAVs as it is for GA and CAT.