Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1652386
@gaznav
Been away from the forum, and a lot has happened, and a lot of flip-flopping

I am now totally confused regarding your opinions on traffic rebroadcast, here is what you said on this thread, 16 Nov 2018 19:04
gaznav wrote:...with the benefits of NATS traffic rebroadcast on TIS-B plus also the weather that other UATs output.

Traffic Re-Broadcast GOOD! :thumright:

Prior to this, on the 24 Oct 2018 17:20
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109286&p=1646853&#p1646853
gaznav wrote:Yes, my opinion on UAT has changed since starting to use it. Relying on a ground system for the highest level of safety critical data is what I now believe to be a bad idea and really we want each aircraft sharing their positions with each other directly.

Traffic Re-Broadcast BAD! :pale:

2 days before on 22 Oct 2018 23:30
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109286&start=1230#p1646465
gaznav wrote:Yes Lee, seriously. Anything that relies on a ground station to provide a rebroadcast, that is the single link of failure, is a poor design these days

Traffic Re-Broadcast BAD! :pale:

Back on 10 Sep 2018 06:14
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109630&p=1637030&#p1637030
gaznav wrote:my personall preference would be to use the UAT to rebroadcast the NATS SSR primary contacts that aren’t pushing out ADS-B

Traffic Re-Broadcast GOOD! :thumright:

Can you state your thoughts regarding traffic rebroadcast is it now a good idea :thumright:, or is it now a bad idea :pale: , I just cannot work out what you are saying

Additionally in previous posts you have been in favor of single common 1090/ADS-B as an internationally recognized standard (too many posts to reference here). In which case, do you consider
- 978/UAT as an internationally recognized standard ?
- SRD/ISM as an internationally recognized standard ?

If I recall you were against SRD/ISM (used by Flarm and PilotAware) due to not being protected frequencies (open and subscription-free)
So what are your thoughts now on using these frequencies for UAV's ?
https://uavionix.com/news/uavionix-succ ... tm-trials/
uAvionix: DroneAware is a subscription-free, RF broadcast, “ADS-B like” solution modified for the special needs of security, law enforcement, and media personnel who wish to cooperatively identify drone operations. The DroneAware system operates on non-ADS-B frequencies

So what are your thoughts now regarding operating on an unprotected non-aviation standard frequency ?
Is this still a bad idea, or is it now a good idea ?

Thx
Lee
User avatar
By gaznav
#1653308
Well go figure, I am slightly more assured when I see some of the big names as the partners involved in Op ZENITH as well as the delivery partners rather than some well intentioned individuals who want to do something non-assured and on the cheap. Indeed, this UTM technology is a part of NASA’s work: https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/index.shtml

So let’s just think about this, the ZENITH partners/delivery partners include:

NATS
CAA
Dept for Transport
Dept for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
University of Southampton
University of Manchester
DJI (the largest manufacturer of drones in the world)
uAvionix (the creators of the smallest ADS-B solutions)
Royal Aeronautical Society
Manchester Airport
National Police Air Service
Vodafone
Textron Aviation
Network Rail
Altitude Angel
Etc...etc...

Plus all conducting trials on a technology that is also being collaboratively with giants like NASA.

Do you not see why I see this as something exciting? How it has that academic rigor that I have been asking for, with NATS/CAA and DfT involvement? Why it is actually trying to prove the efficacy of such products rather than a manufacturer telling me it just works and won’t give any straight answers on it’s tested performance?

I would hope that the results of this will lead to a solution to the envisaged drone problems that we have already seen developing with a rise in Airprox in recent years. I would also hope that this trial will show the full benefit of having independent academic institutions assuring the technology through proper test and evaluation profiles. With all that, then of course I would reconsider my humble opinion. :thumright:
East-Bound, kanga liked this
By PeteM
#1653358
Apart from DJI none of the bodies listed above are much more than vocal participants. Especially given that NATS have said no to ADSB in a number of ways.... and any fitments of the equipment are local decisions.

As for the acedemic institutions - what aere they actually doing - the standards already exist?
User avatar
By gaznav
#1653460
PeteM wrote:As for the acedemic institutions - what are they actually doing - the standards already exist?


Each University is bound by a world-wide code to ensure that research is:

1. Excellence.
2. Honesty.
3. Openess.
4. Rigour.
5. Safety.
6. Ethics.
7. Regulatory compliance.
8. Professional standards.
9. Reporting research misconduct.

Each individual University publishes it’s own bespoke version showing compliance to this code:

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/displ ... ID=2804%20

https://spproxy.soton.ac.uk/files.aspx? ... 02017_.pdf

This is why I am so very keen to see independence in this research as Companies tend to tell the customer what they want to hear. Academic Integrity is important to pretty much all Universities; their reputation depends on it, especially top 20 Universities like Southampton and Manchester. :thumright:
kanga liked this
By PeteM
#1653478
Having worked with a couple of universities I can say that whilst those statements are great PR and doubtless many do aspire to them - PR is largely all they are. If you are going to believe that sort of stuff - I have a bridge I need to sell - one careful corporate owner would look really good in a tourist destination!
Steve J liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1653497
@PeteM

How about the Fraud Act 2006 that creates three offences, two of which can be considered. First, under Section 2, fraud by false representation and second, under section 4, fraud by abuse of position. Both could be deemed to apply if there were wrongdoings and are Criminal Law.

The elements of the false representation offence are that someone:

• Dishonestly makes a false representation;
• Intends, by making the false representation to
— Make a gain for himself or a third party;
— Cause loss to or expose a third party to risk of loss.

The Section 4 offence of fraud by abuse of position is made out when someone:

• Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard , or not act against, the financial interests of a third party;
• Dishonestly abuses that position to:
— Make a gain for himself or someone else; or
— Cause loss to another person or expose that person to a risk of loss.

That would do for starters and as I said, both Universities have very good reputations to uphold. Neither would want their Academic Integrity to be called into doubt let alone the potential of a Criminal Law. So I wouldn’t be so bold to say they are purely PR-related and I would certainly not buy that bridge! :thumright:
User avatar
By gaznav
#1653509
patowalker wrote:None of this answers Lee's questions. Is his output ignored because it is SIL=0?


Probably :lol:

He’s kind of answered his own questions. I didn’t know that my opinions were held in such high regard! To be quite honest, my main opinion remains:

1. ADS-B In/Out offers the best solution for Electronic Conspicuity across all types of GA (the CAA seem to believe that too).
2. Aircraft to aircraft is the best method as it minimises the chances of failure due to the drop-out of ground station.
3. If someone produces a proper set of independent trial results for their ground system (preferably via an unbiased source, such as a Govt or Academic body) then I would be prepared to give it a good read and then offer my own opinion, which may be different. As for the use of non-aviation frequencies, then I would need some convincing in that trial report that the likelihood of detection is protected from unintended interference in a ‘free for all’ band. That is why I am impressed with ZENITH in that they are making the effort to properly test and evaluate their proposal - rather than ‘roll up, roll up, come and buy my wonderful invention’ - which takes me back to CAP1391 which meets a particular design standard and the manufacturer has to prove this to get a Declaration of Capability and Conformance from the CAA.
East-Bound liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1653510
PS. The question on 978/UAT as an internationally recognized standard ?

Yes, it is an internationally recognised aviation frequency and standard. 978 is used for DME, TACAN and JTIDS/MIDS. Also, ICAO recognise 978/UAT as a standard as far back as 2002. You can’t really get anymore internationally recognised than ICAO in our past time!
By patowalker
#1653538
gaznnav,

I'm interested in your thoughts on re-broadcast traffic information. Is it good or bad?

Can we remind you of the code of conduct?

• Posts intended solely to bait or stoke the flames.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1653657
patowalker wrote:gaznnav,

I'm interested in your thoughts on re-broadcast traffic information. Is it good or bad?

Can we remind you of the code of conduct?

• Posts intended solely to bait or stoke the flames.


As I said, Lee kind of answered his own question where I have offered my personal opinion that has been showed to vary according to his own research of my posts.

As ever, it depends on the context of the question: Is that from a professionally provided re-broadcast or an amateur one? Is the information being re-broadcast from a known certified source or not? Is the band that is being used to re-broadcast on reserved for aviation use or is it a “free for all” band? Has their been an independent verification on the quality of the datalink and the information it is broadcasting?

Depending on the answers to my questions above then my opinion will vary. It’s a bit like asking for a “simple in/out referendum” when the answer isn’t simple!

Not trying to stoke flames - just keen to establish the truth rather than conjecture, sales talk and early-adopter bias. :thumright:
patowalker liked this
By PeteM
#1653663
Not trying to stoke flames - just keen to establish the truth rather than conjecture, sales talk and early-adopter bias.


Coming from someone who has been extolling the virtues of a gadget which we cannot yet buy, based upon their advertising and switching off a functional transponder, coming from someone who has declined to buy a proper Mode S transponder and so actually fit into the current ATC arrangements that statement really takes the biscuit!