Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13
User avatar
By stevelup
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1644528
Of course it's technically possible. Anything is possible. The issue is that it will cost way more money to do than the PAW team could ever hope to recoup. Developing a product that broadcasts in these licensed aviation bands is a completely different kettle of fish to the unlicensed band that the P3i protocol uses.

Ironically, uAvionix now do single-chip ADS-B transceivers, so would be the perfect people to partner with on this!

Imagine a device that did P3i in and out, ADS-B in and out, and FLARM in and out. Everyone would be happy...
#1644529
@TC_LTN

^^^Me too. It is the obvious answer. The CAP1391 document allows manufacturers to build their own low power ADS-B Out solutions. Seeing as PAW is such a great receiver of all things, I am somewhat staggered by what I perceive as a technical stubborness not to have at least an ADS-B Out option for those without Mode S or Mode S ES transpknders.

By the way, I still stand by my earlier posts - let’s play the ball peeps and not the player? Let’s try and keep the personal angle out of the comments and banter the tech rather than the person :thumright:

[edited - I did not mean individual stubbornness - more a perception of technical stubbornness “we have taken time to develop this solution so we don’t want to entertain another technical solution” . I am sorry if this came out as a personal attack]
Last edited by gaznav on Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
Nick, shortwing liked this
#1644536
@stevelup

That would be great to have all of those but the significant cost at present is the P3i with a ‘Bridge’ being sold at roughly half the price of the Classic PAW. Further if you want ADS-B In/Out, FLARM In/Out, P3i In/Out and UAT for the weather then I suspect that the Raspberry Pi computer that is used would run out of I/O Ports.

As for the cost of developing an ADS-B Out capability - the development should be reletively cheap for a SIL=0 solution - it’s when you get into meeting TSO/ETSO standards that it starts to get expensive. The PAW seems to be the bringing together of parts from the Maplins/Farnell/RS/Tandy catalogue married to the ‘Bridge’ that is their own bespoke piece of electronics and is the P3i portion. If, and sadly it is an if, they had channelled their efforts into low power CAP1391 ADS-B Out coupled to their great reception capability they would have had a better solution from my personal viewpoint - but then many with Mode S (without ES) would not have been able to emit that ADS-B Out until these somewhat lengthy trials are complete.

All in my humble opinion of course and from own particular viewpoint. :thumleft:
#1644538
Dave Phillips wrote:Simple question - if the regulatory framework were receptive, could PAW shove ADSB out?

You already have lots of choices don't you ?
Trig, Funke, Garmin (other transponders are available) - what are you hoping to achieve by adding yet another ?

Dave Phillips wrote:...... and there lies the problem. PAW is great at sucking-in data from various sources and talking with itself but, like others, falls short on squirting-out stuff; EC is a two-way street. International, ANSP/government investment in infrastructure is with WAM/ADSB.

The rollout I have seen for WAM and ADSB is a long long way off unless there has been an acceleration in the rollout ?
besides, what does this add to Air-to-Air Electronic Conspicuity ?
So we are trying to deal with the world as it exists today, not how we would like it to be, with the mix of EC from all emitter types - this is interoperability.

In the US, the goal is to get anything under 18,000 on UAT/978Mhz, and anything that flies above 18,000ft on ADS-B/1090Mhz. This is done by a stick and carrot, a mandate, a rebate, and the offer of additional services (weather traffic re-broadcast)

So the elephant in the room is this Dave, please tell me, why have the US been so adamant to formulate this approach ?

To build a CAP1391 (basic) device is not difficult, to get through the regulatory process is costly and time consuming, the net result - another device on the market which can do the same as the others (an also ran) - so what is the net gain, over your existing choices, please tell me ?

Thx
Lee
#1644542
There is WAM at RAF Coningsby and RAF Shawbury with more RAF stations to follow. This is part of Project MARSHALL which is funded for at least the next 22 years. There are ADS-B display trials at 3x GA airfield towers by Airspace4all and then there is WAM at Edinburgh, Aberdeen and East Shetland.

So I would suggest that it is very much NOW rather than a future pipedream?

Also, it appears that the military ATC regulations allow for the use of ADS-B as an alternative to SSR (ie. Mode 3/A or Mode S).

Automatic Dependant Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) and Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) are acceptable alternatives to SSR.


Source MAA RA 3222 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ssue_2.pdf

And

ATS Surveillance System: Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR), Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), Automatic Dependant Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) or any comparable system (Wide Area Multilateration (WAM)) that is used to determine the position of an AS in range and azimuth. However, units who provide Radar Control Service inside CAS where only SSR, WAM or ADS-B is available should ensure local orders define procedures to cover the eventuality of an AS whose transponder is unserviceable while operating in CAS.


Source MAA RA 3223 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ssue_2.pdf

So it is definitely a NOW thing ADS-B. I would also see that a CAP1391 portable ADS-B Out device (SIL>=1) could give you access to airspace if the ATC RADAR Unit has an ADS-B In capability. :thumright:
shortwing liked this
#1644543
@gaznav
@Dave Phillips
Hi Gaz, Dave
I was thinking through your questions on ADSB out, we have a pretty large user base now, and actually if you look on our forum you will see lots of feature requests, and this request rarely, if ever appears :shock:
The closest is about connecting Pilotaware to transponders as the GPS source for an extended squitter, and you will find quite a few of these posts, as it gives users the ability to have ModeS with ADS-B

I think that is an interesting sign of where the users requirement are focused

Thx
Lee
gaznav, neilmurg, PaulSS liked this
User avatar
By shortwing
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1644546
leemoore1966 wrote:I was thinking through your questions on ADSB out, we have a pretty large user base now, and actually if you look on our forum you will see lots of feature requests, and this request rarely, if ever appears :shock:

I think that is an interesting sign of where the users requirement are focused


Lee - as you know I was an early adopter.

Is the above down to the fact it's been said before it's too expensive so people are just accepting that.

If people thought it was an option - do you think that would change?
gaznav, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1644548
@leemoore1966

Yes, for permit aircraft, but no for a CofA aircraft. That’s the problem. If I had a Permit aircraft with a Mode S ES then I would definitely think favourably of PAW - but I don’t. If I had a CofA aircraft then I would look at a TABS capability like the TN72. Then I would not need some of the PAW capability and so I would probably buy a Stratux or Scout.

At present a CAP1391 low power ADS-B In/Out device is the no-brainer for those without a transponder - gliders, microlights, vintage and permit to fly machines. Once (and I say that as I am still confident) the use of these is allowed concurrently with a Mode S then I would say that CAP1391 devices for all that can’t fit, or are unable to afford, transponder-based ADS-B will be the format to opt for.

Again, my humble opinion. :thumleft:
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1644550
leemoore1966 wrote:@gaznav
@Dave Phillips
Hi Gaz, Dave
I was thinking through your questions on ADSB out, we have a pretty large user base now, and actually if you look on our forum you will see lots of feature requests, and this request rarely, if ever appears :shock:
The closest is about connecting Pilotaware to transponders as the GPS source for an extended squitter, and you will find quite a few of these posts, as it gives users the ability to have ModeS with ADS-B

I think that is an interesting sign of where the users requirement are focused

Thx
Lee


Well Lee,
If that is what your customers would like to have then go for it. Anything that makes more aircraft visible to each other has to be a bonus. But keep your eyes out, use it for assistance only.

And while I am posting. Why are we getting all the negativity and personal attacks? This is not helping.

Nick
gaznav, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1644557
Lee, I'm trying to be objective.

My point - I want EC where I can 'see' everyone, regardless of where I am. I don't want one system that is only of use outside CAS and another that will be a requirement within CAS. I actually don't care whether this a clever device that melds various technologies/protocols or a simple one-stop-shop.
Shoestring Flyer, shortwing, TC_LTN and 2 others liked this
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1644562
Dave Phillips wrote:Lee, I'm trying to be objective.

My point - I want EC where I can 'see' everyone, regardless of where I am. I don't want one system that is only of use outside CAS and another that will be a requirement within CAS. I actually don't care whether this a clever device that melds various technologies/protocols or a simple one-stop-shop.


Hear hear. :thumleft:

Nick
gaznav, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By chrisadams
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1644568
@gaznav

Interesting that you mention the TN72 GPS TABS source. I’m unsure how the TABS system differs from Mode S ES, but I note see from EASA NPA 2018-10 concerning CS-STAN Iss 3, the following;

CS-SC002c — Installation of Mode S elementary surveillance equipment (amended)
This SC has been amended to clearly allow for the individual installation of an altitude encoder. Additionally, the purpose of this SC has been expanded to further clarify that the installation of traffic awareness beacon system (TABS) equipment by means of this SC is not sufficient to permit the pilot to fly into transponder mandatory zones (TMZs).
#1644576
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
mo0g wrote:
My point to you was more that you seem to think those same Human Factors do not apply to your chosen EC, I assume you mean the idea that because you think you can see everything you forego lookout etc? I assume because you havent actually said what it is, but based on that assumption then if you think "everyone" can see you, they can/will avoid you.

In actual fact of course, we all use EC as ANOTHER tool to keep us safe, we don't use it exclusively to keep us safe, hence people asking if there is any evidence to show any "Human Factors" risk to using PAW.

Oh, I forgot, us "fanboys" are super human, so it doesnt affect us, because we know that PAW doesnt give us the full picture on its own, nor does our lookout, nor does our nav software, nor does our service from ATC/LARS. You scare me, the thought of all these other mortals flying about, heads in, because they have an EC solution which makes them visible to everyone else.

:roll:


My chosen EC can see Transponders and FLARM - by something that does not rely on a circuitous routing, and it will do so wherever I fly, in the UK or elsewhere even where there are no ground stations, either because there are physically none or those that were, are off line.

Adding ADSB to this, the same paradigm will apply.

See and be seen, using and contributing the same spectrum and only depending on a direct broadcast for safety critical information.

Will I see everyone, no. But I know that for a 100% of my flight time and don't think for half of it that I can see others electronically where I might not - either because there is no ground station or it doesn't work.

Knowing you don't wear a safety belt makes you behave different than having one on and feeling it - even though some of the time it doesn't work.


Nope, missed the point again :roll:

How is PAW flawed in that we presumably have a false sense of security, yet Skyecho users (and the like) don't?

Perhaps I am super human after all, as I don't "feel" any different with or without a car seatbelt on, my driving habits are exactly the same. The wearing or not of a seatbelt has zero effect on whether I have an accident. Of course, you have evidence that those not wearing seatbelts are statistically less likely to have an accident dont you. Dont you? :roll:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13