Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
By rjc101
#1705215
stevelup wrote:
gaznav wrote: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)


uAvionix almost certainly have spent a 7 figure $$$ in R&D developing their whole suite of products. I really don't find that difficult to believe at all.

They already sell a fully self-contained 20W 1090MHz ADS-B transponder. It weighs 20g and measures just 50x25x17mm.

https://uavionix.com/products/ping20si/

It would be trivial to integrate this into PAW were it not for the fact that it is staggeringly expensive.


I see their Ping1090 standalone ADSB solution is a snip at $2000 a unit. Thats the bare board module, not yet integrated into anything.
User avatar
By T67M
#1705216
Balliol wrote:There’s a lot of tech stuff above that went over my head, but am I right in thinking then that the motivation / benefit of the P3i transmission route is that the electronics to do it can avoid having to go through the detailed certification and testing that ADSB electronics would have to?


Fundamentally, yes.
By dewidaniels
#1705231
T67M wrote: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.


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
C******* B*****: I’ve gone back to PilotAware. Most unimpressed with SkyEcho....

or this
M*** S*****: SkyEcho doesn’t do mode C or S though? It was a ‘coming soon’ in the advertising but they dropped it recently. You just get ADS-B and Flarm (if you’ve paid the extra subscription in SD).

or this
L******* B***: Have you read this pilotaware review? It detects far more than skyecho.
https://www.quizaero.co.uk/.../2019/05/ ... are-Review

or this
D**** B*********: Well I can finally say I'm totally unimpressed by the SE2. Not only does it see very little the WiFi continually drops off

on, and on and on ...


I called out Lee because he slagged off SkyEcho in post #1704944. He was the one who started slinging mud in this thread. At least gaznav had the grace to apologise for responding with negative reviews of PilotAware.

I'm fed up with the religious wars surrounding electronic conspicuity. Why can't we accept that FLARM, PilotAware and SkyEcho are all good products that offer different strengths?

FLARM offers a unique collision-avoidance capability for gliders and has been widely adopted within the gliding community. PilotAware is capable of detecting an impressive number of aircraft types (I'm particularly impressed by OGN-R and MLAT). SkyEcho is the cheapest device to offer ADSB SIL=1 out.
johnm, gaznav, AlanG and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1705249
As this is the MLAT discussion; not my track but: 2 PAw, 1 ADSB, 1 MLAT + the track aircraft
Image I picked this one out as it's the point in a flight when aircraft get close together. BYNK is ADSB but aircrew.co.uk hasn't picked that up.
I'm not trying to say anything about the ratio of PAw/ADSB/Mode S 3D/FLARM, that would be drawing conclusions without a sufficiently rich dataset...
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705260
Those labels are very LARGE, is that configurable?
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705270
Ah, OK! That makes sense.
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1705272
it's a snapshot of an aircrew.co.uk reading of a PAw .trk file done on a home PC, not the in-air picture on SD/PAw radar/(other EFBs are available). Labels are on or off, when they're on it shows the aircraft's track as well. I thought the extra info was worth the clutter, I size it as best I can for clarity.
Obviously it doesn't show non emitters, anything more that 3km away would be very hard to see.
Nonetheless I find it useful.

[edit]ah, crossed while I dithered. Thanks @Paul_Sengupta :) [/edit]
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705285
rjc101 wrote:
Balliol wrote:There’s a lot of tech stuff above that went over my head, but am I right in thinking then that the motivation / benefit of the P3i transmission route is that the electronics to do it can avoid having to go through the detailed certification and testing that ADSB electronics would have to?


I think the original idea was to have something like FLARM but with a longer range and without the encryption. You have to update FLARM every year as they change the encryption keys. FLARM is, from memory 50mW TX power and PAW is 500mW.

When FLARM made the Power FLARM for GA aircraft you will note they didn’t include an ADSB out module either.

Testing is still required for the likes of PAW, you have to be sure it doesn’t interfere with other equipment or be impacted by emissions from other things. That would have taken several days at an EMC testing facility. Even this basic testing is going to be many £1000’s per cycle.

Ironically if you make a product for aviation you can sidestep the normal regulatory testing for then likes of a CE mark. But the testing with be orders of magnitude more expensive, not many sites are certified to handle avionics stuff.


Thanks, can I pick up on the last sentence “But the testing with be orders of magnitude more expensive, not many sites are certified to handle avionics stuff”. It was my understanding that as CAP1391 devices are portable carry on equipment and may be SIL=0 (i.e. not reliable information) then surely the costs are vastly reduced? If you are saying it doesn’t have to be CE marked either, too? Thinking about it, the current ability to attach a £5 un-certified GNSS/GPS position source, as long as it reports SIL=0, to a Mode S ES transponder to give ADS-B Out would also support that.

So are we 100% sure that significant extra certification is needed for this portable low-power ADS-B transmitter? Or is this just a hunch of what people think it might cost? I’m obviously keen for this to be completely discounted as the above statement seems at odds slightly to my understanding last night?

I’m also uncertain of:
Testing is still required for the likes of PAW, you have to be sure it doesn’t interfere with other equipment or be impacted by emissions from other things. That would have taken several days at an EMC testing facility. Even this basic testing is going to be many £1000’s per cycle.


Has PAW really been tested with every single piece of avionics equipment in use today? I am really sorry but I really struggle to believe that.

I’m sorry to rake over this again, and I may have misinterpreted what you have written. :thumright:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By rjc101
#1705296
gaznav wrote:
rjc101 wrote:
Balliol wrote:There’s a lot of tech stuff above that went over my head, but am I right in thinking then that the motivation / benefit of the P3i transmission route is that the electronics to do it can avoid having to go through the detailed certification and testing that ADSB electronics would have to?


I think the original idea was to have something like FLARM but with a longer range and without the encryption. You have to update FLARM every year as they change the encryption keys. FLARM is, from memory 50mW TX power and PAW is 500mW.

When FLARM made the Power FLARM for GA aircraft you will note they didn’t include an ADSB out module either.

Testing is still required for the likes of PAW, you have to be sure it doesn’t interfere with other equipment or be impacted by emissions from other things. That would have taken several days at an EMC testing facility. Even this basic testing is going to be many £1000’s per cycle.

Ironically if you make a product for aviation you can sidestep the normal regulatory testing for then likes of a CE mark. But the testing with be orders of magnitude more expensive, not many sites are certified to handle avionics stuff.


Thanks, can I pick up on the last sentence “But the testing with be orders of magnitude more expensive, not many sites are certified to handle avionics stuff”. It was my understanding that as CAP1391 devices are portable carry on equipment and may be SIL=0 (i.e. not reliable information) then surely the costs are vastly reduced? If you are saying it doesn’t have to be CE marked either, too? Thinking about it, the current ability to attach a £5 un-certified GNSS/GPS position source, as long as it reports SIL=0, to a Mode S ES transponder to give ADS-B Out would also support that.

So are we 100% sure that significant extra certification is needed for this portable low-power ADS-B transmitter? Or is this just a hunch of what people think it might cost? I’m obviously keen for this to be completely discounted as the above statement seems at odds slightly to my understanding last night?

I’m also uncertain of:
Testing is still required for the likes of PAW, you have to be sure it doesn’t interfere with other equipment or be impacted by emissions from other things. That would have taken several days at an EMC testing facility. Even this basic testing is going to be many £1000’s per cycle.


Has PAW really been tested with every single piece of avionics equipment in use today? I am really sorry but I really struggle to believe that.

I’m sorry to rake over this again, and I may have misinterpreted what you have written. :thumright:


To be brief(!), it is the "ADS-B transmitter" element that triggers the really expensive side of things. You are building an intentional radiator, to interoperate on an international restricted frequency, which has very specific requirements to ensure you don't break it for everyone else.

The SIL value is a flag in the ADSB transmission data that other ADSB receivers can (and in some cases should) ignore your position data, such as TCAS. It is based on the level of certification of the GPS source being used, not the level of testing of the ADSB transmitter itself. They are two totally separate elements.

Thinking about it, the current ability to attach a £5 un-certified GNSS/GPS position source, as long as it reports SIL=0, to a Mode S ES transponder to give ADS-B Out would also support that.


No, it doesn't. You are plugging your "unknown quality" GPS source into a Mode S ES transponder that contains an ADSB Transmitter, that someone spent a fortune developing - to ensure it doesn't, for example, go mad when your "unknown quality" GPS source sends it gibberish. The SIL isn't set by the GPS source, it is a setting in the ADSB transmitter itself. You have to configure the Mode S ES transponder with a SIL level to put into the ADSP data packet.

The critical element is the ADBS transmitter itself. CAP 1391 may say, hey, you can self certify that bit, no worries, fill your boots. The question is then, when the responsible, legally liable, person signs the certificate of conformity they state that the ADSB transmitter complies with all the requirements of the technical standards. That it physically generates what it supposed to, and that it is immune from other intentional and non-intentional radiators causing it to not generate only what it is supposed to.

How do you *know* you confirm to all the requirements of the technical standards?
How can you guarantee that your ADSB transmitter is told to issue SIL=0 but actually is sending SIL=2?
I suppose if something bad happens, you could blag it, say you did everything but have lost the paperwork.

Has PAW really been tested with every single piece of avionics equipment in use today? I am really sorry but I really struggle to believe that.

Correct, it hasn't, it doesn't need to as it isn't covered under the likes of a TSO. It has to confirm to the legal requirements not to emit anything it shouldn't, and be immune from failing (or be able to recover) should it be exposed to a blast of RF. Just like your TV, Computer, Mobile Phone, car EMC, fridge etc. It is an item of portable consumer electronics, and has been tested as such, just like everything else.

The whole point of the standards is that everyone tests to the same standard. Both for emissions and immunity, radiated (acting like a radio) and conducted (turning the wires into antenna). If everyone plays by the rules, all the kit will get along just fine. That is what the standards are for, it is their whole reason for existing in the first place. For consumer electronics, the tests vary slightly.

In the EU the CE marking rules given radiated and immunity testing needed for every type of product. The USA, via the FCC, don't seem to worry about the immunity side - but if you sell a product outside the USA you have to do the tests, so in the end everyone does them anyway. When I put a product in the lab for EMC testing, I have to do everything twice, once for the EU and once for the FCC. As the kit has to be powered by 120v for the USA stuff and 240v for the EU (even if it's DC powered by a brick PSU, that's the rules). The limits are also slightly different too.

For aviation, the rules are essentially identical worldwide. They call them different things, but go back through the paperwork far enough and you come back to the same core technical and testing requirements.

There is a "loophole" in that you don't need to perform general consumer emissions and immunity testing (to apply a CE or FCC mark), if the item is covered by and certified to a different set of regulatory requirements, such as those that govern avionics equipment. In fact, you cannot apply a CE mark to such items, as they were not tested to the consumer standards.

Put the rake back in the shed. There is nothing to go over.
Last edited by rjc101 on Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul_Sengupta, gaznav, johnm and 5 others liked this
By Shoestring Flyer
#1705424
rjc101 wrote:When FLARM made the Power FLARM for GA aircraft you will note they didn’t include an ADSB out module either.


There are 2 models of PowerFlarmCore.
PowerFlarmCore- Pure, which only has Powerflarm .
and
PowerFlarmCore-ADSB, which has ADSB in and also PowerFlarm plus Tx A/C/S receive.

PowerFlarmCore seems to me to be the best all round robust solution to EC and starts at around £1300 for the unit which isn't too bad but by the time you have added all the antennas and add-on bits it make a mess of £2k which is a tad expensive.
No on-going subscriptions though does makes it appealing! :D

Edit-Post amended!
Last edited by Shoestring Flyer on Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
By rjc101
#1705429
Shoestring Flyer wrote:
rjc101 wrote:When FLARM made the Power FLARM for GA aircraft you will note they didn’t include an ADSB out module either.


Not correct..
PowerFlarmCore does indeed have ADSB 'out' and 'in'
There are 2 models of PowerFlarmCore.
PowerFlarmCore- Pure, which only has Powerflarm .
and
PowerFlarmCore-ADSB, which has ADSB in/out and also PowerFlarm plus Tx A/C/S receive.

PowerFlarmCore seems to me to be the best all round robust solution to EC and starts at around £1300 for the unit which isn't too bad but by the time you have added all the antennas and add-on bits it make a mess of £2k which is a tad expensive.
No on-going subscriptions though does makes it appealing! :D


Are you sure?
The FLARM website has this...

PowerFLARM Core comes in two variants, Pure and ADS-B. The ADS-B variant has all the functionality of Pure, but with an additional SSR (Transponder) and ADS-B receiver for 1090ES. In addition to FLARM equipped aircraft, you will also be able to see transponder equipped aircraft. Aircraft without 1090ES ADS-B Out capability will be shown with approximate range and altitude difference (Mode-C/S). Aircraft with ADS-B Out will be shown identical to FLARM aircraft.


I read that to say is has an ASDB receiver, and an SSR transponder. No mention of an ADSB transmitter or that the SSR transponder is Mode S ES.

Can you post a link to the version with ADSB Out?
By Shoestring Flyer
#1705439
Lee, rjc1010.
Yes I think you are both correct correct and it it me that has it wrong! :(
Looks like it is ADSB receive only after all.
The PowerFlarmCore manuals and blurb are confusing to say the least! :?

I have amended my previous post. :D
Last edited by Shoestring Flyer on Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12