Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
#1810086
See my comments about being able to be seen.

MAC Is place number 7-9 in the top 10 but with the CAA sub it is now a sub 3 flying hours investment in your and other's safety so really a non-brainer.

If you fly fewer than 3 hours per year stick the money in flying vouchers - if you do more there is no logical reason not to get it.

No doubt CAA/authorities will want to use it for other things too when technology allows but you don't make yourself more visible to them than you are with your transponder.
Keith Vinning liked this
#1810109
Finally got the time to listen and a very useful update from Keith and the PAW team. Got me thinking about a number of things. For example as a glider pilot my focus is probably 80% tactical:20% strategic, so when I think of EC I may be thinking of something totally different to someone with a VANS or similar

Obscuration is familiar to any Flarm user, but one benefit we have (apart from no engine in front) is that gliders tend to manoeuvre a lot more which presents different "view" to/from the antenna.

On the Drone front there are clearly competing technologies here - Flarm, ADSB and PAW all have products and it's not clear yet which will prevail. My personal view is that open or de-facto standards allow much better innovation than formal standards, but the final decision is out of our hands.

Was interested to see more detail on Rosetta/FX, the size and power (esp 12V in), looks very attractive. It does'nt change my decision to have an SE-2 for ADSB-Out, but as far as I can see Rosetta/FX with existing Flarm plus SE2 covers pretty much all the bases.

Time we stopped the silly feuding and conspiracy theories - this is an area where we as pilots benefit if all the vendors work together. Each vendor will have slightly different design decisions and priorities as they target a particular sector - that's just business as usual its not the GOP vs Democrats! It's up to us to understand the strengths and weakness of each and decide which we need to do what we want. Keiths comments at about 1:07 are very fair and balanced.
#1810128
Thanks @ls8pilot for mentioning 1:07 as I just shuttled to find it and have a listen. I stopped at around 1:01 and heard some absolute garbage about SIL=1 and TCAS which obviously shows a total lack of awareness (so far only ACAS-X has an ADS-B capability but it is CDTI and ATSAW that give the ADS-B In awareness to the big aircraft - obviously the briefer knows nothing about that!). There was no mention of SDA=1 either, which is another critical enabler. I then went on to around 1:05 about some notional ban about using ADS-B below 400ft - totally out of context again. There is absolutely no issue with using ADS-B below 400ft in light aircraft, gilders or helicopters - in fact, how would you take off or land, and you can use it on the ground for situational awareness, and many airports do!!! Then the video goes on about spectrum congestion again without qualifying any of that (incorrect) opinion, also saying that ICAO don’t believe in ADS-B. What utter hoop! Then there is an incorrect statement on 978Mhz not being available for use in the UK - OFCOM would be delighted to provide a licence to use it (and have done now twice) - so it is usable if people want to do so. There is also mention of CAP722, which is the policy on unmanned air systems in the UK, which really has little bearing on light aircraft use in the UK. Of course if every single tiny quadcopter emitted ADS-B then the frequency would become very congested (although some experimentation by ICAO by using 0.1W of power revealed that it might be workable with caveats). Dji, the most prolific quadcopter manufacturer in the world has started building ADS-B receivers in its 250g or bigger drones to allow their users to detect other traffic using ADS-B (including SIL=0). So really there is some significant error and omission of critical detail within the video that could be very misleading. @Flyin'Dutch' has already pointed out, there are errors throughout the video that are too numerous to find the time to correct. I hope that those that watch it, and the 90 or so that were in the webinar, get the opportunity to understand some of those errors.
Flyin'Dutch', flyinfox, East-Bound and 3 others liked this
#1810197
ICAO announced very recently, and it is in the latest CAP 722, that ICAO had prohibited ADS-B below 400 ft.

refers to
3.5.2.1.1 ADS-B frequencies
Under existing arrangements, ADS-B devices exchange information at 1090 MHz.
However, this could lead to spectrum congestion in low level airspace. ICAO has
issued a letter to States prohibiting the use of 1090 MHz below 500 feet. The UK is
currently exploring the use of 978 MHz for UAS to mitigate the risk of spectrum
overloading at 1090 MHz.

CAP 722 is Guidance on Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace

The ICAO prohibition on UAS using ADS-B below 500ft stems from this report.

It is worth noting what ICAO is trying to achieve.
In addition, the increased usage of ADS-B OUT applications for safety of life services and potential future evolution of those applications, such as space based ADS-B, have raised serious concerns of potential congestion at 1090 MHz. In order to ensure continued safe aircraft operation, proper and efficient utilization of available bandwidth at 1090 MHz is required. This includes limiting access to avoidable users.
Last edited by patowalker on Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
johnm liked this
#1810203
@patowalker I fully agree with that, but the message in the video discussing LAA aircraft electronic conspicuity revolves around ICAO not supporting ADS-B, which is not true for light aircraft. It also goes on to say that the CAA does not support the use below 400ft, which again is not true for light aircraft. Then again, the spectrum line is trotted out again, totally out of context, because CAP1391 is all about low power ADS-B transceivers. This fact again is ignored. Have a listen around 1:05 and how CAP722 is mentioned and ICAO without any reference to drones. All very misleading and far from the truth - ask QinetiQ, NATS, CAA and CASA who seem to believe otherwise (as does little old me and a small company that has invested in CAP1391).

PS. Sorry @Flyin'Dutch' , I beat you too it by a minute :thumright:
Last edited by gaznav on Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
#1810235
I think PAW have produced a seriously impressive receiver capability at an excellent price point, and have some very interesting developments in producing a low cost ‘tactical air picture’ capability. However (what feels to me like) trying to present their transmission protocol in a binary choice manner / dismiss ADS-B all the time does their technical achievements a real disservice; it’s a real shame actually.
G-BLEW, oakworth, gaznav and 2 others liked this
#1810243
Please let me respond so that I can qualify what I said in the video rebroadcast by the LAA who seemed to think that it was an unbiased presentation.

Thanks @ls8pilot for mentioning 1:07 as I just shuttled to find it and have a listen. I stopped at around 1:01 and heard some absolute garbage about SIL=1 and TCAS which obviously shows a total lack of awareness (so far only ACAS-X has an ADS-B capability but it is CDTI and ATSAW that give the ADS-B In awareness to the big aircraft - obviously the briefer knows nothing about that!). There was no mention of SDA=1 either, which is another critical enabler.


Sorry @GAZNAV this section of the video was after the actual presentation and was the ad-lib section open to unsolicited questions. I was attempting (obviously badly in your humble opinion) to let people know that TCAS 1 will not detect ADSB and that TCA2 will ignore SIL=0 transmissions. You are quite right I did not mention SDA=1 to this 'off the cuff' question. My bad. The issue is that TCAS1 (If that is the correct descriptor) doesn’t use ADSB for detection it uses Modes-S which the majority of GA have when in Controlled Air Space. I think that there was a post that may have been deleted that said that Mode-S was the fundamental technology used by NATS and other ATC national air traffic providers. It seems to have been removed.

I then went on to around 1:05 about some notional ban about using ADS-B below 400ft - totally out of context again. There is absolutely no issue with using ADS-B below 400ft in light aircraft, gliders or helicopters - in fact, how would you take off or land, and you can use it on the ground for situational awareness, and many airports do!!!


Again sorry @GAZNAV the reference I used was to CAP722, Issue 8, I believe, which is regarding drones. Drones generally fly below 400ft and ICAO has prohibited the use of 1090MHz ADSB on DRONES below 500ft. It says so in CAP722. Obviously, I don’t expect ADSB to be banned below 400ft for manned aircraft and would like to make this absolutely clear to anyone who thought that they would have to leave their 1090ES transponder off until they reached 400ft above the ground. If indeed they, like you, did think this. If this is the case I apologise unreservedly.

Then the video goes on about spectrum congestion again without qualifying any of that (incorrect) opinion,


Again sorry GAZNAV. However, you are fully aware of this document which contains the references. This has been referenced several times in this forum.

https://www.pilotaware.com/post/pilotaware-and-adsb-out

The important thing is that both CAP722 and the statement from the FAA last December prohibiting the use of ADSB on drones from 2022 is due to the possibility of spectrum congestion. Not my words but theirs.

also saying that ICAO don’t believe in ADS-B. What utter hoop!


Again @GAZNAV answering the question in real-time and then being dissected at leisure can lead to misunderstanding especially when looked for. My position here is not as reported above but that ICAO and the FAA have prohibited the use of ADSB on drones because of the possibility of spectral congestion. The exact words from the CAA in CAP 722 are

Under existing arrangements, ADS-B devices exchange information at 1090 MHz. However, this could lead to spectrum congestion in low-level airspace. ICAO has issued a letter to States prohibiting the use of 1090 MHz below 500 feet. The UK is currently exploring the use of 978 MHz for UAS to mitigate the risk of spectrum overloading at 1090 MHz.

Please make up your own mind. The full version of CAP77 is available here.

[url]https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722%20Edition8(p).pdf
[/url]

Then there is an incorrect statement on 978Mhz not being available for use in the UK - OFCOM would be delighted to provide a licence to use it (and have done now twice) - so it is useable if people want to do so.


Again I will qualify your statement so that the readers can understand. 978MHz is available from OFCOM for professional development and testing purposes only apart from its primary use. One has to apply for a developers licence.
and have now been done twice
It is not available for general use as you seem to suggest. Obviously, anyone can receive transmissions on 978MHZ but not transmit.

AS mentioned above by the CAA in CAP722 there is a need to find an alternative protected aviation frequency which could be used for EC on GA and drones that could handle the expected volumes and relieve the anticipated spectral overload of ADSB on 1090MHz using PPM.

I suggested the possible use of 978MHZ to the EASA EC Forum in 2018. 978MHz uses a much better modulation technique than the PPM used by 1090MH which is the heart of the problem. It will, however, in my opinion, take a few years for this to be allocated. If and when it is the manufacturers, including PilotAware, will respond.

Of course if every single tiny quadcopter emitted ADS-B then the frequency would become very congested (although some experimentation by ICAO by using 0.1W of power revealed that it might be workable with caveats).


Might be workable with caveats?

In the presentation, I attempted to be unbiased regarding other technologies. My fulsome praise of Flarm within the EC family was not mentioned in your critique nor was the fact that we assist folks to get ADSB-out very inexpensively using transponders. Nor do you pick up on the statement where I encourage folks to buy whatever electronic conspicuity they want to not just PilotAware, as this involvement will help all to get used to EC and the human factors involved.

I think PAW have produced a seriously impressive receiver capability at an excellent price point, and have some very interesting developments in producing a low cost ‘tactical air picture’ capability. However (what feels to me like) trying to present their transmission protocol in a binary choice manner / dismiss ADS-B all the time does their technical achievements a real disservice; it’s a real shame actually.


I am saddened that you have to say
However (what feels to me like) trying to present their transmission protocol in a binary choice manner
.

Nothing can be further from the truth. We encourage everyone to choose the EC that suits them as no one size fits all.

Will PilotAware become the universal frequency that everyone uses for EC? I think not.

Will ADSB using 1090MHz become the universal frequency that everyone and everything uses for EC? I also respectfully think not.

It is not a binary choice, it's a personal choice. Please choose the technology that suits you and the way that you fly.

I hope that that has helped to make my views quite clear and addressed any misunderstanding. PilotAware is not against ADSB-out or Mode-S or Mode-C or Flarm or Fannet+. We just want to make sure that everyone can see everything wherever possible.

I look forward to the next LAA Strut presentation where I will try to ensure that I don't say anything that will be so easily taken out of context.
neilmurg, ls8pilot, Smaragd and 2 others liked this
#1810248
@MattL I agree. As a cheap ADS-B receiver then it was great. The jury is out on the Mode S/C proximity (very much a ‘Marmite’ choice) and then there is the ground network. Again, in the video, I couldn’t believe the advice about getting a Pilot Aware for someone who wanted to see FLARM over those that receive FLARM directly. The video from Ian showed some of the woeful ranges that the ground stations were picked up by a bog-standard Pilot Aware using the internal antenna - somewhere between 2nm and 10nm. Here is a screenshot from that video:

Image

Now I know there is a claim that coverage isn’t the best in that area, but the trial in the Flyer video seemed to be flying between Newbury and Frome in the South of the UK - some of the busiest GA airspace in the UK for light aircraft and gliders!!! :cyclopsani:

I just wish we could have an honest discussion on these carry on devices:

PowerFlarm Portable - transmits FLARM that a SkyEcho with a SkyDemon or RunwayHD FLARM subscription will detect at around 8-10 miles. Pilot Aware will see it if it is in range of one of ATOMgrid beacons (bog-standard we are talking 2-10 miles range from the beacon in practice). PowerFlarm Portable will also see FLARM, Mode S proximity and ADS-B. But by only transmitting FLARM then only those capable of seeing FLARM will see it. It costs £2,016 from somewhere like LX Avionics for everything you need to use it.

SkyEcho2 - transmits SIL=1 ADS-B that a PowerFlarm Portable and Pilot Aware will see somewhere between 5-15 miles. In the future it is expected (hoped?) it will transmit SDA=1 in order to be detected on airliner’s CDTI/ATSAW and other certified ADS-B receivers. There are very many ADS-B receivers that will se SkyEcho - including PAW, PowerFlarm Portable, Stratus, Stratux, Dynon, Garmin GDL-50, etc... SkyEcho will also see FLARM at 8-10 miles a SkyDemon or RunwayHD FLARM subscription (£30). It also has the ability to receive UAT TIS-B and FIS-B on 978Mhz, which is undergoing a second trial this coming Jan/Feb 2021. It costs £479 (LX again) and works out the box with nothing else to transmit, but to receive you need a tablet or smartphone plus either the free Runway HD or the~£100/yr SkyDemon. If you want to decode the FLARM it receives then you will need to pay £30/year extra.

Pilot Aware (PAW) - this transmits nothing that the other 2 carry on receivers will detect. The P3i (Pilot’s 3rd eye) transmits a protocol that only other PAWs will detect. It receives P3i and ADS-B directly. It also detects Mode S and C and gives an estimated proximity warning. If in range of a working ATOMgrid ground station (recently demonstrated as 2-10 miles for a bog-standard PAW unit using it’s standard antennae) it can display a retransmitted picture of the Open Glider Network (OGN) detected FLARM signals and also other transponding aircraft using 360Radar’s multi-laterated picture. It transmits this on an unprotected radio frequency which is also used by things like wifi garage door openers. You can connect it to a Mode S ES transponder (£1800 minimum) to give ADS-B Out but only at SIL=0 which many certified systems will not detect. The PAW Rosetta costs £325, but you need to add an annual £12+VAT ‘licence’ after your first year, a suitable battery (roughly £20-£30 for something like an Anker) or a decent 12v USB power supply (similar price). Like the SkyEcho you will need an EFB like SkyDemon, RunwayHD, Foreflight, etc... plus also a smartphone or tablet to run it on.

As the video says - take your choice - but please do so by knowing what everything will and won’t do for you.
#1810250
Hi @Keith Vinning thanks for the detailed response. I’m glad to hear the PAW team are open minded to ADS-B.

Will PilotAware become the universal frequency that everyone uses for EC? I think not.

Will ADSB using 1090MHz become the universal frequency that everyone and everything uses for EC? I also respectfully think not.


Out of interest what do you think is the standard we should all be driving towards then? All the best
Flyin'Dutch', gaznav liked this
#1810264
@Keith Vinning - thank you for the clarification. Good stuff :thumright:

Here is a clarification from me on the “with caveats’ when trying to use small unmanned air systems (sUAS) on 1090Mhz at 0.1W. It actually comes direct from an ICAO document a year ago:

the addition of sUAS transmissions on 1090 MHz resulted in a range reduction of the ADS-B ground station to maintain the same probability of update (98.5%). For 0.1W transmit power, the range reduction was up to 3% for a scenario with 1 UAS /km2 and up to 8% for a scenario with 3 UAS/km2. This might be considered as “limited impact” although it will increase the cost of a ground ADS-B receiver network.


Reference: https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Mee ... M-IP04.pdf

So that’s the ‘caveat’ in that it could be done, but at 0.1W then the detection ranges would be small. Also, even at 3x sUAS per square km, then it is quite possible that there might be more unless it is regulated somehow. The other caveat is where this conducted - in the USA there are very many inefficient Mode A/C transponders still in use and also many more ACAS (of all varieties) and SSR RADAR heads in use in certain areas too (this is a big source of the 1090Mhz congestion that the FAA fear). Hence, I was keen to state ‘with caveats’ :thumright:

You also mention TCAS 1 and TCAS 2, that I believe are starting to become ‘old hat’, with ACAS-X being the new standard for the airlines (which uses ADS-B to cut down on the need for 1030Mhz interrogations that causes 1090Mhz ‘congestion’). However it is Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) and Air Traffic Situational Awareness (ATSAW) that is the really exciting thing in recent years for Commercial Air Transport - these are ADS-B receivers that will detect the TSO C-199 Traffic Awareness Beacon System (TABS) standard. I believe that is minimum SDA=1, SIL=1, NACp=9 and is incapable of transmitting incorrect or false information. That is the really important part and why SIL=0 can’t be used as you seem to wish for in the video - the information that a certified system displays (like CDTI/ATSAW) must be at a certain standard. CDTI/ATSAW has been fitted to the majority of new Boeing and Airbus for the past couple of years. Seeing as ADS-B is already mandated in the USA and will be next month in Europe, then it is now a default fit for all new builds.

Skybrary has a nice layman’s terms description of ACAS-X here: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/ACAS_X

Boeing does CDTI: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... icle02.pdf

Airbus does ATSAW: https://atmnorway.files.wordpress.com/2 ... erhat.pptx

Then we need to consider things like the business jet you mention in the video normally have TCASI/II plus something like an Avidyne Skytrax TAS - the latter will see certified ADS-B Out (ie. SDA=1) : https://www.avidyne.com/product/skytrax ... y-systems/

I hope that helps? I believe it shows that ADS-B is here to stay and that I suspect that Low Power ADS-B Transceivers (LPAT) like SkyEcho will too as they aren’t a real danger to 1090 Mhz ‘congestion’ as demonstrated by the QinetiQ studies for both ground SSR and airborne ACAS. Otherwise, the CAA, NATS and CASA have got it badly wrong (and the science tells me they haven’t).

Finally, on 978Mhz, yes I am sure there is an opportunity to do something for sUAS using better modulation techniques and I hope that is what is going on down at Goodwood in the new year. Operation ZENITH was another trial at Manchester Airport that will also add to this debate on how to integrate all types of UAS/RPAS into our airspace safely. Again, my preference is for an internationally accepted standard on a protected aviation frequency to do this - it is the only way build a suitable safety case around the risks to all air users.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13