Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1695763
I might start asking uAvionix whether their efforts might be better spent receiving PAW


I seem to remember their initial advertising (before it had actually hit the streets) said it would do this very thing.

Clever wording of their Flarm reception claim. It may be low cost to receive it but you then have to display it. Isn't the cost of Flarm on SD > licence fee for PAW?

I know, I'm just evilly turning the long-standing mill wheel :twisted:

PS:
We had something similar on the Tornado radar warning and homing receiver that was eventually ditched as it just was not accurate enough as there were just too many variables.


I'm surprised they had difficulty designing an RWR that only had to look in your 5-7 o'clock.....'cos that's where everybody was, saddled up and gun tracking :D
#1695779
PaulSS wrote:
I might start asking uAvionix whether their efforts might be better spent receiving PAW


I seem to remember their initial advertising (before it had actually hit the streets) said it would do this very thing.

Clever wording of their Flarm reception claim. It may be low cost to receive it but you then have to display it. Isn't the cost of Flarm on SD > licence fee for PAW?

I know, I'm just evilly turning the long-standing mill wheel :twisted:

PS:
We had something similar on the Tornado radar warning and homing receiver that was eventually ditched as it just was not accurate enough as there were just too many variables.


I'm surprised they had difficulty designing an RWR that only had to look in your 5-7 o'clock.....'cos that's where everybody was, saddled up and gun tracking :D


LOL - once a gobby Matelot, always a gobby Matelot... :clown: :thumright:

Yes, we tried range estimation on received strength from emitters but actually triangulation through interferometer arrays and fine angle of arrival fused to RADAR/data-link tracks were far better. Obviously, these days there is far more automation involved but the principles are just the same. Received power to try and indicate range when the power is variable, the antennae placement is random, free-space path loss provides further variance and other laws of physics are always going to make this a very random result.

I guess the guys at uAvionix decided that receiving PAW was not worth the squeeze after originally looking at it. That is probably why they spent some time on the Mode C/S receive function (against a far higher number of aircraft fitted with transponders than PAW) that they decided would not really offer any benefit in the end. Seeing as Lee’s PAW is now getting towards 3,000 then it might be better to put that antenna and receiver in SkyEcho 2 to use to look for PAW because at least the signal comes with a position.

As I said before, if I can see a PAW and they can see me then that has to be a good thing. Even if it it is sharing detection cycles with the receiver detecting FLARM that are using adjacent frequencies. :thumright:

Outwards turn for combat, go! :thumright:
Image
#1696519
It seems that things are moving along for simple and cheap ADS-B for GA.

https://www.nats.aero/news/enabling-ads ... hers-pace/

Enabling ADS-B OUT for General Aviation gathers pace

18 April 2019
Efforts to help private pilots enhance their situational awareness continue to progress following analysis of the CAA’s simultaneous surveillance trial and the release of new EASA standard modification procedures.

The trial took place last year to understand the consequences of transmitting Mode S and ADS-B data from different on-board devices at the same time. Analysis delivered promising but also unexpected results, which required further investigation and delayed publication of the report until now.

It was found that some Mode S extended squitter capable transponders actually transmit ADS-B data without the pilot’s knowledge under certain conditions. This can essentially corrupt the reported position accuracy, quality indicators, level data and Mode A code when received alongside the intentional ADS-B data from the separate on-board transmitter.

In all other respects, the original trial delivered very promising results, but it is important to ensure that aircraft do not transmit ADS-B from two devices at the same time. NATS, the CAA and Airspace4All have worked together to find mitigations for the problem and a new trial to prove their effectiveness is now underway. With these mitigations in place, simultaneous surveillance may offer some General Aviation pilots another way of helping themselves to be seen, and to see others.

The simultaneous surveillance trial report comes as EASA moves to encourage the transmission of ADS-B by introducing a standard modification to connect a GPS source to an ADS-B capable transponder. Three different GPS types are covered by the standard modification to suit a range of budgets.

NATS, the CAA and EUROCONTROL worked with EASA to draft standard modification CS‑SC005a, and a significant number of aircraft owners with ADS-B capable transponders can now take advantage of it, with the view that the more aircraft that are electronically conspicuous to other airspace users, the safer it is for everyone in the air
#1696598
gaznav wrote:It seems that things are moving along for simple and cheap ADS-B for GA.

https://www.nats.aero/news/enabling-ads ... hers-pace/

Enabling ADS-B OUT for General Aviation gathers pace


Gaz,

Am I reading CS‑SC005a correctly :scratch:
Does this really say that each transponder manufacturer has to list every GPS source that is compatible.
i.e To use the CS-STAN, I also need another piece of paper from the transponder manufacturer stating that the GPS I have can be connected to my transponder in order to enable ADSB?

Configuration 1:-
The compatibility of the combination of the transponder and the GNSS receiver for conformity to AMC 20-24, including for latency, is explicitly stated by the manufacturer of the transponder.

Configuration 2:-
The compatibility of the combination of the transponder and the GNSS receiver is explicitly stated by the manufacturer of the transponder.

Configuration 3:-
The GNSS receiver is not approved or its installation is not certified. However, the compatibility of the combination of the transponder and the GNSS receiver is explicitly stated by the manufacturer of the transponder.
#1696703
Configuration 3:-
The GNSS receiver is not approved or its installation is not certified. However, the compatibility of the combination of the transponder and the GNSS receiver is explicitly stated by the manufacturer of the transponder.


One needs to be reasonably sure that the transponder is capable of processing the GPS input. For example, in section 5.6.9 of the Trig transponder manual, (https://www.trig-avionics.com/library/0 ... Manual.pdf), for GPS position input, Trig specify that the TT21/TT22 transponder can recognise the NMEA 0183 protocol.

I believe Becker have a similar statement in their transponder manual. If in doubt, check with your local aircraft maintenance facility. My local engineer said he would be happy using SC-005a to connect up a TT21 using configuration 3.
gaznav liked this
#1696798
Some interesting recent articles on ADS-B and GA here:

From uAvionix: https://uavionix.com/blog/drone-repellent/

From AOPA: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... h-ads-b-in

There are some great links and info in the uAvionix posts that I had not read before. Also, the headline fact in the AOPA article is “A study that examined the effect of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In on general aviation and air taxi accident rates found a significant reduction in the likelihood of an accident, which decreased by 53 percent, for aircraft equipped with ADS-B In. It also found that the likelihood of a fatal accident decreased by 89 percent for aircraft using ADS-B In.

The research that concluded as such was independent and academic - something that I have been banging on about for a while now. Here is a link to some of it: https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2019 ... 1559241002

Great stuff... :thumright: