Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705023
dewidaniels wrote:
leemoore1966 wrote:Everybody has an option today to purchase the existing CAP1391 device, why do you need another ?
More interestingly, take a look at the GA Aviation Community threads on facebook, referring to the CAP1391 device such as this


gaznav wrote:There is equal disappointment from people who have tried using PAW - this from your own forum:


It doesn't reflect well on either of you when you resort to slagging off the opposition. Why can't we focus on the merits of PilotAware and SkyEcho? This thread started with a perfectly reasonable question about the multilateration feature of PilotAware.


Hi Dewi, I partially agree with you. So I will stop now and try to discuss the positive aspects.

I really do think that PAW is a great receiver of others’ electronic emissions, however, it would be even better if it had an option for some users to emit low-power ADS-B to the CAP1391 standard that could not emit ADS-B via other means. That way, I would see PAW users and they would see me - what is not to like about that? Further, if we all had a cheap option via our chosen electronic conspicuity devices to emit ADS-B then there would be no need for ground-stations or MLAT (which this thread was all about) as we would all see each other.

:thumright:
dewidaniels, kanga liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705032
leemoore1966 wrote:I give up, this is an unfortunate waste of valuable time, apologies to the OP, but as always seems to happen on this forum; not so much a thread drift more of a hijacking occurs :roll:


Before you go Lee, then why not offer an option/module for PAW to emit SIL=0 CAP1391 low-power ADS-B Out? That would shut me up on the subject then? :thumright:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1705041
Happy PAW pilot here.

Flew KHF - Duxford and return today and had good service from my Rosetta. It’s wired into a Charge4 USB, tied to SD on my iPad mini and radar on my iPhone.

It works and was helpful as part of my scanning.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705050
Sil = 1 would be even better.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By T67M
#1705052
gaznav wrote:
leemoore1966 wrote:I give up, this is an unfortunate waste of valuable time, apologies to the OP, but as always seems to happen on this forum; not so much a thread drift more of a hijacking occurs :roll:


Before you go Lee, then why not offer an option/module for PAW to emit SIL=0 CAP1391 low-power ADS-B Out? That would shut me up on the subject then? :thumright:


Are you going to pay for it, gaznav? About half a million pounds should do the job, maybe a million for SIL=1. (Note, that's a very wet finger in the wind estimate, but from my experience in another regulated industry, it's realistic if not a little on the low side.)
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705060
If SkyEcho can be brought to the market with a SIl=1 chip by a commercial provider in a product less than 100 quid dearer that PAW then it should surely be possible to stick similar in a PAW?
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705062
T67M wrote:
gaznav wrote:
leemoore1966 wrote:I give up, this is an unfortunate waste of valuable time, apologies to the OP, but as always seems to happen on this forum; not so much a thread drift more of a hijacking occurs :roll:


Before you go Lee, then why not offer an option/module for PAW to emit SIL=0 CAP1391 low-power ADS-B Out? That would shut me up on the subject then? :thumright:


Are you going to pay for it, gaznav? About half a million pounds should do the job, maybe a million for SIL=1. (Note, that's a very wet finger in the wind estimate, but from my experience in another regulated industry, it's realistic if not a little on the low side.)


£500,000 to develop an ADS-B Out transmitter to this spec: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... PR2018.pdf

Why so expensive? The GPS that PAW uses should be fine for SIL=0 so you only need to develop a 20W ADS-B Out module. Are you telling me that SkyEcho 2 took £1,000,000 to develop it’s ADS-B Out transmission capability alone? Crikey, uAvionix will need to sell a lot of units to get that money back!! (NB. I doubt they spent that sort of money).

Sorry, I find those figures hard to believe - I’ve asked my brother in law who runs a company that makes datalink equipment for the emergency services. He didn’t talk about anything like that cost to develop something like this. From what I understand, the Declaration of Capability and Conformance process for CAP1391 devices is relatively cheap and straight forward. So where is the significant cost?
dewidaniels, ls8pilot liked this
By dewidaniels
#1705067
gaznav wrote:I really do think that PAW is a great receiver of others’ electronic emissions, however, it would be even better if it had an option for some users to emit low-power ADS-B to the CAP1391 standard that could not emit ADS-B via other means. That way, I would see PAW users and they would see me - what is not to like about that? Further, if we all had a cheap option via our chosen electronic conspicuity devices to emit ADS-B then there would be no need for ground-stations or MLAT (which this thread was all about) as we would all see each other.

:thumright:


I seriously considered buying either a PilotAware or a SkyEcho. I had an existing FLARM installation in my glider, but was concerned that I was not electronically visible to powered aircraft. I became particularly concerned following the mid-air collision between a glider and a Cessna 150 near Husbands Bosworth in December 2016.

I decided to buy a SkyEcho 2 for the following reasons:

1. I reasoned that a SkyEcho would make me electronically visible to a larger number of aircraft. PilotAware would only have made me visible to other PilotAware users (and they could already see me to a limited extent via the OGN-R rebroadcast).

2. I liked the fact that the SkyEcho 2 is a one-box solution that doesn't use up much space in the cockpit and doesn't need to be connected to the glider batteries.

There were a number of reasons to like the PilotAware:

a. The PilotAware could, at least in theory, be connected to my Oudie flight computer.

b. The developer does seem very responsive and is always adding new features (I particularly like the OGN-R rebroadcast and the multilateration).

They're both good products, which meet slightly different needs. I like the SkyEcho because it was the cheapest way of adding ADS-B out to supplement my existing FLARM installation. I appreciate that others find that PilotAware suits their needs better because it displays the widest range of aircraft types (and they may already have ADS-B out). I would have been much more likely to have bought PilotAware had it transmitted ADS-B rather than P3I.
gaznav, neilmurg, kanga and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By T67M
#1705069
uAvionix have amortised the development and verification costs over their entire product range on the back of a business case based on selling tens or even hundreds of thousands of units across the USA following the ADS-B manage there. My suspicion (no proof) is that they haven't see the return on investment they needed and turned to the UK to try to bridge the gap. PilotAware then undercut their product price by nearly an order of magnitude, so now they're turning to drones. Is their technology good? Yes, absolutely. Was it cheap to develop? No way!

PilotAware is, to the best of my knowledge, set up by a group of philanthropists who are quite rightly getting fed up with all the mud that is being slung at them.

I would like to say a huge public thank you to the PilotAware team for their efforts over the years in the face of constant and unwarranted (IMO) criticism from a very small number of people. If nothing else, they have succeeded in getting the price of SkyEcho down to only 50% more than the Rosetta, and in fact I believe that they have done far, far more than that.
neilmurg, ivor.phillips, kanga and 5 others liked this
By patowalker
#1705076
T67M wrote: PilotAware then undercut their product price by nearly an order of magnitude, so now they're turning to drones.


That is incorrect. uAvionix started out catering for drones and then expanded into GA.

uAvionix was founded in 2015 with the mission of bringing safety solutions to the unmanned aviation industry in order to aid in the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). A fundamental principle of that mission is to provide solutions that allow all airspace users a common situational awareness of the airspace. Through the evolution of our company, we pioneered and now offer low SWaP TSO certified and uncertified ADS-B and GPS solutions for General Aviation (GA), Airport Surface Vehicles and the UAS markets.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705128
The other thing to consider is that at present the CAP1391 20W 1090MHz ADS-B Out transmitter is for the UK only at this time. Most of the uAvionix development for transmitters in the USA are 978MHz UAT transmitters. So they are completely different frequencies and would have required separate development pathways. :thumright:
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
#1705131
It is not reasonable or fair to suggest that PilotAware could have ADSB out added to it cheaply. It would be very expensive for the people that built it to add that sort of capability.
gaznav, Paul_Sengupta, Dave W and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705136
Thanks Tim, that’s a useful statement, is there any reason why it would be so expensive to have a signal output on 1090 MHz rather than 869.5 MHz. I know the waveforms, frequencies and power outputs are different, but I always thought it was the ‘PAW Bridge’ that does the P3i transmission - so wouldn’t it just need a different ‘Bridge’ and a Raspberry Pi reprogram? Seeing as the later PAW Rosetta ‘Bridges’ sold for (I think?) £80-odd plus VAT, I am sure there are people out there that would pay double that if it meant they could output CAP1391 low-power ADS-B without junking the rest of their electronics? Or is that the supporting hardware could not handle that sort of power output rising from 0.5W for P3i to 20W for ADS-B?

Sorry for the 1,000 questions, but I am just keen to understand what would make it so expensive.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
#1705141
Sorry, I have no idea. All this radio stuff is way out of my sphere of expertise. I did have a little insight into how uavionix works though and what resources and expertise they have at their disposal to create the products that they do. That’s the basis on which I felt confident making my above post.

Maybe PilotAware will show me to be wrong!
gaznav liked this
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12