Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
#1828004
An interesting snippet in the following trials documentation: https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/umbrac ... ument/2709

We have applied for, and have been granted, two of a total of four Ofcom licences for FIS- B/TIS-B transmitters located at Goodwood and at Lasham. The other two FIS-B/TIS-B transmitters will be located at Luton (Ofcom licence applied for) and at a site in Kent. We have conducted testing using a modified uAvionix pingStation to receive FLARM data for the integration into a TIS-B transmission. One modified pingStation is now deployed and operating at Lasham. We have a second modified pingStation ready to be deployed at Goodwood.


Does that mean that I can start to get live TAFs/METARs on my SkyEcho on 978MHz through SkyDemon again? I found that quite useful in flight, but less so the Weather RADAR overlay.

Exciting times again, it’s good to see development work like this that can potentially inform how ADS-B can be used internationally. Wouldn’t it be great for EASA/FAA aircraft to visit the UK with the same internationally agreed standard of equipment/signal and be able to integrate seamlessly? Plus the UK aircraft to be able to visit different countries and use the same standard too? I only found out recently that FLARM operates on different frequencies depending on which country you fly in - crazy! :shock:
#1828006
We already have data about the air/air performance of these devices in various airframes/positions


Shame you're not willing to share that information, which could answer many of the SkyEcho obscuration questions that have been asked but, strangely, ignored by uAvionix.

The likes of Gaznav are quite happy to cast aspersions on the usefulness, or otherwise, of PAW's Vector etc but, despite being asked, it seems uAvionix are not prepared (or unable) to share the same information and don't have an equivalent system (or do they?) A cynic would question why, now we know you have that very data.
#1828007
AndyR wrote:... Deliveries do not make sense, it over complicates and adds additional cost and time. Man in transit van is far more efficient in so many ways.
..


but only if there are roads, and those roads are open (floods, snow, landslips, fires, ..) and there are not other significant obstacles (water, high hills/mountains); and on the other hand, if the consignment is genuinely urgent ..
gaznav liked this
#1828011
Peter Gristwood wrote:This is a technology looking for an answer, but there is shedloads of cash riding on it. The core case is really for surveiilance, rather than delivery,


My bold, dead right.

But its alot harder to sell the general public that what drones are about is cheap 24/7 surveilance (possibly, or even probably, of them) than it is to wax lyrical about delivering "essential medical supplies" during a global pandemic where medical services have been promoted to saint-like endevours...

...cynical...moi... :wink: SD..
terryws, Flyin'Dutch', PaulSS and 3 others liked this
#1828012
its funny - but all of a sudden traffic re-broadcast is no longer an issue - hilarious :lol:

From @gaznav link
We have conducted testing using a modified uAvionix pingStation to receive FLARM data for the integration into a TIS-B transmission.


Testing of FIS-B and TIS-B transmissions of the Mode S and FLARM traffic picture and associated coverage.


That sounds very familiar :shock:

Whats the latency and turnaround Gaz from the position report timestamp ?
What is the source and age of the FLARM Data ?
What is the source and age of the MLAT/Mode-S Data ?
How do you report the age of the data to the receiving aircraft for accuracy of the data ?

Well they do say that 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' :lol:
T67M, PaulSS, Pete L and 1 others liked this
#1828014
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:DAA?

Anyway, can anyone imagine having a similar discussion about autonomous or remote controlled earthbound traffic?

Me neither.

Detect and avoid.

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make with your second question. If you mean that it’s inconceivable that I’d be prevented from entering my street while a driverless DPD van is making a delivery to my next door neighbour, then I’d tend to agree with you, it wouldn’t reach discussion stage.
#1828016
leemoore1966 wrote:its funny - but all of a sudden traffic re-broadcast is no longer an issue - hilarious :lol:

From @gaznav link
We have conducted testing using a modified uAvionix pingStation to receive FLARM data for the integration into a TIS-B transmission.


Testing of FIS-B and TIS-B transmissions of the Mode S and FLARM traffic picture and associated coverage.


That sounds very familiar :shock:

Whats the latency and turnaround Gaz from the position report timestamp ?
What is the source and age of the FLARM Data ?
What is the source and age of the MLAT/Mode-S Data ?
How do you report the age of the data to the receiving aircraft for accuracy of the data ?

Well they do say that 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' :lol:


For once I will answer on behalf of Gazzer. He has absolutely no involvement in this trial and as far as I am aware, with any of the consortium members.

The concept of FIS-B and TIS-B is hardly new and certainly not an imitation of anything that PilotAware is currently doing but rather exploitation of the CAA decision to enable 978 MHz as a second ADS-B frequency allowing the incorporation in a trial of certified and regulated delivery of internationally adopted protocols operated within the aviation spectrum and to published aviation performance standards.
gaznav, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1828017
@leemoore1966

Lee - read my post again, please. I clearly state that I am interested in the FIS-B element - TAFs/METARs - and I even state an opinion on the usefulness (or lack of) of the Weather RADAR function. Why would I be bothered about receiving FLARM from a ground station when my chosen device receives FLARM via DIRECT means unlike another well known brand? :lol:

I am also interested in the active NOTAM portion of the FIS-B trial. You know, for those sort of TDAs that get set up when someone clips a ship’s mast and then has to punch out and get picked up by a SAR Helicopter. Who knows, that SAR capability may be un-crewed in the future too, and react faster than the 5-10 mins it takes a crew to react. When you are bobbing around in the ogg-splosh then every minute counts against hypothermia. Another good use for a large uncrewed air system, I would offer, if this DAA technology can be demonstrated to be safe.

[edit] PS. thanks Cub, for setting my record straight on having no involvement in this whatsoever :thumleft:
Cub, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1828019
PaulSS wrote:
We already have data about the air/air performance of these devices in various airframes/positions


Shame you're not willing to share that information, which could answer many of the SkyEcho obscuration questions that have been asked but, strangely, ignored by uAvionix.

The likes of Gaznav are quite happy to cast aspersions on the usefulness, or otherwise, of PAW's Vector etc but, despite being asked, it seems uAvionix are not prepared (or unable) to share the same information and don't have an equivalent system (or do they?) A cynic would question why, now we know you have that very data.


@PaulSS This is exactly the sort of question that the trial is set up to test, evaluate and report upon. We will be completely open and transparent about the performance achieved via CAP 1391 devices as well as traditional full-power transponders and the electronic emissions from the drones.

It could well be that we determine that any category of emission is not good enough to enable the robust electronic environment demanded by DAA applications, alternatively, we may be pleasantly surprised. Either way, we will not move from a TDA (with controlled, managed and evaluated encounters) to a TMZ reliant on an electronic emission in participating airframes to achieve DAA unless we are completely confident on the system performance and have shared and demonstrated all our findings to the the Regulator.
#1828023
gaznav wrote:@leemoore1966

Lee - read my post again, please. I clearly state that I am interested in the FIS-B element - TAFs/METARs - and I even state an opinion on the usefulness (or lack of) of the Weather RADAR function. Why would I be bothered about receiving FLARM from a ground station when my chosen device receives FLARM via DIRECT means unlike another well known brand? :lol:

But Gaz how can you receive flarm on 868mhz simultaneously with FIS-B on 978mhz, whilst tuned to one of these you will be blind to the other ?
And whilst tuned to 978, how will you exclude the TIS-B component
#1828025
@Cub
We will be completely open and transparent


Thats good to hear

So what kind of system latencies have you determined from emission of position report to device reception, for :-
- Flarm
- Mode-S

Who is the data provider for the traffic information ?

What provisions are made for security of data and anti-spoofing ?

How will the timeliness of the data be communicated to the pilot, as the data starts to go stale

What are the refresh, position update intervals of the data ?

How will you ensure those who are not participating in the trial, do not receive data unexpectedly?

Thx
Lee
#1828030
leemoore1966 wrote:@Cub
We will be completely open and transparent


Thats good to hear

So what kind of system latencies have you determined from emission of position report to device reception, for :-
- Flarm
- Mode-S

Who is the data provider for the traffic information ?

What provisions are made for security of data and anti-spoofing ?

How will the timeliness of the data be communicated to the pilot, as the data starts to go stale

What are the refresh, position update intervals of the data ?

How will you ensure those who are not participating in the trial, do not receive data unexpectedly?

Thx
Lee


The functionality and performance of the broadcasts will be described in the supporting Aeronautical Information Circular and NOTAMs
#1828031
@leemoore1966

Thanks to SkyDemon then I can switch to FIS-B for a minute, pickup my weathers, then go back to FLARM detect. A very neat functionality means that this is an exercise that takes seconds to switch between the two.

Alternatively, the golden solution is for everything to be on ADS-B on 1090 or 978 (including those using FLARM that are predominantly gliders using FLARM for its intended purpose). That is where I hope this trial goes. Everyone, from drones upwards on 2 frequencies, that are internationally agreed for aviation purposes, will be able to detect and avoid each other without relying on the human eyeball alone. If the extra FIS-B data can be interlaced on 978 too (which I believe it can), then real-time weather and NOTAM info will be constantly updated. The fact that we have a few users on the Short Range Device (SRD) 860 frequency band is unhelpful when everyone needs to be herded onto the aviation frequencies that are currently agreed and in use.

But, hey, you and I have sparred on this very forum many times on the disadvantages of using the SRD860 band for aviation safety purposes. For others reading this, this is what SRD860 is used for - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-range_device
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11