Cub wrote:The regulatory question around CE marking is interesting and I would also like to try again to see if the PAW team are prepared to address a few more questions which have never been answered;
Clearly they answered the CE mark question.
1. Lots of discussion is ongoing about the tracking and sharing of individuals registrations and identities via networks into the public domain which then quickly gets used by some for vexatious purposes. Is the reception and sharing/rebroadcast of individual flight identity and position information by a Pilot Aware over what is claimed to offer national and now increasingly European coverage what people actually want in terms of privacy?
It is certainly no worse than Fight Aware, Flight Radar 24, ADSB Exchange, NATS... They all keep long term all of the details they record.
The data in discussion is public (that is - what you broadcast - ie - your aircraft hex code, your Mode-A squawk, your identifier, your position & height etc) so there is nothing stopping anyone from collecting it and making use of it, even for profit as can be evidenced. I suggest that doing this to help aviation be more aware of where we all are and so potentially improve safety is a more than legitimate purpose.
2. What consideration is given in the ATOM/GRID network to adopting and handling privacy tools to allow the disassociation of airframe electronic identity with registration as per the rollout in the US https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -available
I suggest that it would make zero difference to ATOM/GRID what ICAO address you send out so long as it doesn't change during that flight and is unique during that flight. ATOM/GRID presumably has no reason to know the ownership of individual aircraft, so the FAA mandate would presumably make no difference to it. The fact that most small GA aircraft identifier / call sign is its registration, which is being sent out via ADS-B anyway, makes this mute.
3. Is the ATOM/GRID network compatible with the Flight Information Display (FID) specification that was subject to industry wide consultation by the CAA before Christmas and is due for publication as a standard this year? This allows for the first time in the U.K. (outside of the Barton/Goodwood/North Weald trials) the use of surveillance data by FISO/Air Ground operators in the provision of Flight Information in an affordable form.
This would be interesting - although a completely different discussion. Perhaps if this consultation was public others could comment, but as its presumably sensitive, not yet published or finalised - how could anything be compatible with a non-finalised specification? What other providers have said they are compatible?
4. How is the licence fee for the reception, decoding and rebroadcasting of FLARM data handled for each station? Is that the responsibility of the station operator or does PilotAware cover these costs centrally.
I understand that FLARM are on record as saying they are happy with ground receivers decoding their data and rebroadcasting (note OGN). Its air-air that they insist on a licence. A lot of FLARM's USP is their glider focused collision avoidance algorithms as well as the data. They stopped changing their encryption scheme some time ago apparently (and its apparently trivial to decrypt anyway).
5. Is the resultant comprehensive ‘air picture’ built by the ATOM/GRID network shared with any other commercial third party who is, in turn, redistributing or charging for that data ie. 360Radar, FR24 etc?
My understanding is that the stations send raw data to 360Radar, which use it to compute MLAT, before 360Radar send the MLAT data back to ATOM/GRID. There hasn't ever been a suggestion that the "air picture" is sent to third parties.
6. Who carries the liability for the content, quality, completeness and timeliness of the data rebroadcast at an individual airfield. Is this the responsibility of the station operator/airfield or of PilotAware?
Liability for what? They don't provide collision avoidance algorithms - just information. Pilots still carry the can for lookout (etc). This isn't a certified system, being used to position aircraft beside each other blind or guide an aircraft to land. It just provides additional information.
7. Surely I will have bought a CAP 1391 device or indeed operate my FLARM or transponder to give myself electronic conspicuity air/air around my airframe and to allow ground based services (ATC/FISO/A-G) to legitimately receive and use that data to provide me with a prescribed service. What benefit does the contribution of my emission to the ATOM/GRID network give me unless I subscribe to and purchase a PilotAware device? Indeed does the contribution of my private data to a ATOM/GRID network actually constitute a dis-benefit in privacy terms if I am not a PilotAware user?
It lets a PAW user know where you are, so they can avoid you. As far as I know, UAvionics haven't guaranteed or provided any information on transmission or reception range in any aircraft. If you have a transmission blanked out area, the ATOM/GRID provides multiple additional recievers that can detect you and inform the PAW user that you exist. Same if your signal is blanked by geography - the PAW user can get your information re-broadcast to them. The advantage to you is you are more likely going to be known about.
8. Can I opt out of sharing my flight identity to the ATOM/GRID network whilst still allowing the positional information from my airframe to be shared?
What do you mean by "identity"? You have to be able to be uniquely identified by the grid and by a PAW so that duplicates are removed. If you're talking about your call sign, it can be useful for other pilots to match the call sign on a screen with what they hear from you over the radio, so they know your intentions, so disrupting that would have negative safety benefits. Also see your points 1 and 2.
I think my comment about slinging mud and hoping something sticks still stands.