Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:15 pm
#1698294
Thanks for the maths lesson.
But you are missing the point entirely with ADS-B in that it does not require more than ONE receiver to get the data. It is the MLAT within WAM that requires many receivers to detect/position fix Mode S. Further, with the advent of high-gain antenna used on the ADS-B receiver then the detection ranges of a 20W ADS-B transmitter is way in excess of 40nm. Indeed, with the amateur set up OGN receivers then detection of FLARM signals with an output of 0.01W (yes 10 MilliWatts!) is normally in excess of 30nm.
Do you not really believe that the CAA and NATS have not thought about this for Project EVA? Do you not think that CAP1391 has just had a teensy weensy bit more thought behind it? Do you really think that the CAA Airspace Modernisation Strategy has not thought through this? Why do you think that singular ADS-B receivers are being tested at smaller aerodromes?
What I find totally staggering is that for a long time GA was faced with mandatory fitment of Mode S (non ES) for all. That was dropped for the planned 2008 date as the proposed cost of technology was railed against by the GA community - many said they wanted a light weight transponder for all air users to use (especially those that would find it hard/impossible to fit). So then we had the 2012 mandate but only for Class A-C and then Project EVA and the Low-Power ADS-B Transceiver (LPAT). Originally LPAT was supposed to be around £500 and everyone discussed that ad nauseam about 5 years ago. But when it became apparent that LPAT would likely be at least twice the cost of the planned price, then it kind of stopped. But the CAA and NATS still held that dream of LPATs and released CAP1391 - uAvionix spent their own money to develop a device that met the specification and we are now able to get that LPAT at sub-£500. It is the only one of a kind so far.
Then we get a whole bunch of people (almost as bad as Luddites from 200 years ago) telling the CAA and NATS in their best Harry Enfield voices - “Now I don’t believe you want to do it like that...”. Are some of us on here really that naive that they have not been developing this plan over a number of years, with trials and various plans as developments progressed? Or are we just going to continue to “Smash the Spinning Jenny” at every opportunity???
I am quite staggered, to be quite honest...
But you are missing the point entirely with ADS-B in that it does not require more than ONE receiver to get the data. It is the MLAT within WAM that requires many receivers to detect/position fix Mode S. Further, with the advent of high-gain antenna used on the ADS-B receiver then the detection ranges of a 20W ADS-B transmitter is way in excess of 40nm. Indeed, with the amateur set up OGN receivers then detection of FLARM signals with an output of 0.01W (yes 10 MilliWatts!) is normally in excess of 30nm.
Do you not really believe that the CAA and NATS have not thought about this for Project EVA? Do you not think that CAP1391 has just had a teensy weensy bit more thought behind it? Do you really think that the CAA Airspace Modernisation Strategy has not thought through this? Why do you think that singular ADS-B receivers are being tested at smaller aerodromes?
What I find totally staggering is that for a long time GA was faced with mandatory fitment of Mode S (non ES) for all. That was dropped for the planned 2008 date as the proposed cost of technology was railed against by the GA community - many said they wanted a light weight transponder for all air users to use (especially those that would find it hard/impossible to fit). So then we had the 2012 mandate but only for Class A-C and then Project EVA and the Low-Power ADS-B Transceiver (LPAT). Originally LPAT was supposed to be around £500 and everyone discussed that ad nauseam about 5 years ago. But when it became apparent that LPAT would likely be at least twice the cost of the planned price, then it kind of stopped. But the CAA and NATS still held that dream of LPATs and released CAP1391 - uAvionix spent their own money to develop a device that met the specification and we are now able to get that LPAT at sub-£500. It is the only one of a kind so far.
Then we get a whole bunch of people (almost as bad as Luddites from 200 years ago) telling the CAA and NATS in their best Harry Enfield voices - “Now I don’t believe you want to do it like that...”. Are some of us on here really that naive that they have not been developing this plan over a number of years, with trials and various plans as developments progressed? Or are we just going to continue to “Smash the Spinning Jenny” at every opportunity???
I am quite staggered, to be quite honest...