Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 43
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1844779
Resorting to personal attacks by the PIlotAware fan club maybe one tactic to get the thread locked and stop those difficult questions but answering them may be more productive?


Why not crack on and answer the some of these asked of you then?

My take on the matter is that if the CAA did not release personal information in G-INFO, then it wouldn't matter if the curtain twitchers get aircraft information from ADSB, Flarm, PAW or with their binoculars. That would improve safety, according to your view, wouldn't it.
exfirepro, Rjk983 liked this
By johnm
#1844786
I bet you wish you'd not started this thread now.
indeed @GrahamB I mentioned that a few pages back and suggested it be locked, but no luck on that :(
User avatar
By Cub
#1844790
PaulSS wrote:
Resorting to personal attacks by the PIlotAware fan club maybe one tactic to get the thread locked and stop those difficult questions but answering them may be more productive?


Why not crack on and answer the some of these asked of you then?

My take on the matter is that if the CAA did not release personal information in G-INFO, then it wouldn't matter if the curtain twitchers get aircraft information from ADSB, Flarm, PAW or with their binoculars. That would improve safety, according to your view, wouldn't it.


I understand, but happy to be corrected, that the correlation and publication of a registration database is an ICAO requirement on a member state?

My challenge, is about the use and distribution of surveillance data for non-operational purposes. FR24, PlaneFinder etc. allow me to request the suppression and sharing of my identity and position in their public fronting systems. FLARM also allow the suppression of flight identity if a user selects. As I mentioned previously, for a variety of reasons, some misguided IMHO, but increasing number of pilots would appear to be choosing to not transmit any electronic parameters from their airframe with the associated safety dis-benefit.

In order to buck this trend not only must the regulatory authorities be held to account and transparent in their use of official sources of data with regard to infringements and the like, but the private companies popping up that receive, process, sell and display this data must also be held account for their correct behaviour in this regard. Hence my questions to you and the PilotAware team.

Edited to add a link to my unanswered questions to the PilotAware team.

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1844569#p1844569
Last edited by Cub on Tue May 04, 2021 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
gaznav liked this
By SteveX
#1844794
On the basis that there is zero evidence that EC has reduced the number of mid airs (not near misses, not ooh he was close but actually 500m away - actual collisions) then I propose the CAA does nothing to standardise or mandate EC and that everyone is free to just install whatever they want in the hope something is better than nothing.

How those 500 aircraft all flew into PFA rallies in the 80s without collision is amazing. Did the pilots really look out rather than at an ipad, incredible...........
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1844795
Shoestring Flyer wrote:Yes , I think so too...The Trolls are now trying to take over the debate!

The products aside the behaviour of the PAw team (@exfirepro aside) have convinced me to be sceptical about any claims and, moreover, not to buy their products unless there is no option.

Well done guys, I’d suggest sticking to what you do well, designing and building EC kit.
Shoestring Flyer, lobstaboy, gaznav and 1 others liked this
By Shoestring Flyer
#1844797
SteveX wrote:On the basis that there is zero evidence that EC has reduced the number of mid airs (not near misses, not ooh he was close but actually 500m away - actual collisions) then I propose the CAA does nothing to standardise or mandate EC and that everyone is free to just install whatever they want in the hope something is better than nothing.

How those 500 aircraft all flew into PFA rallies in the 80s without collision is amazing. Did the pilots really look out rather than at an ipad, incredible...........


EC from the CAA perspective is all about the forethcoming increased Drone activity. The MAC evidence is just scaremongering to persuade pilots to fit it!
It will never be mandated outside of controlled airspace IMHO.

Yes.. :D I was one of those in the 1980's flying in to the PFA Rallies..no GPS , No Apps, No EC,... Just a Chart and an eyeball...As you say how did we all manage...lol!
User avatar
By Cub
#1844799
SteveX wrote: I propose the CAA does nothing to standardise or mandate EC and that everyone is free to just install whatever they want in the hope something is better than nothing.


I feel your proposition has been adopted already. Despite the an indication of policy in this area, a couple of years ago, the CAA has done nothing to guide the community towards a standard or methodology for the deployment and functionality of the supporting infrastructure. This is particularly disappointing and surprising when the DfT are handing out public funds for the community to equip with little guidance from the regulator.
peter272, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1844803
Cub wrote:..

I understand, but happy to be corrected, that the correlation and publication of a registration database is an ICAO requirement on a member state?

..


AIUI (also happy to be corrected, of course), that ICAO obligation used to be adequately satisfied by UK when the information could be sought by a personal visit to the ARB in London or a letter to them seeking information about a particular G- registration. I can't remember if a fee was involved. I'm tempted to wonder how often the ARB got enquiries in that era :)

It was a proactive policy decision by UK government, laudable in many ways as a move to 'open government by default', generally to put government-held information, theoretically available to any member of the public, online so as to be more readily available (and, as a by product, easily searchable). It is arguable that in the case of G-INFO, that online information need and maybe should not have been so comprehensive; eg, that it should have required more effort by the enquirer to discover such things as the 'operator' address of an individual non-commercial aircraft or, say, of all Rotax-equipped ones. :?
PaulSS, exfirepro, lobstaboy and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1844808
I remain unconvinced that G-INFO is a particularly useful tool for felons wishing to export Rotax engines to Eastern Europe.

It strikes me as the same paranoia that greeted Google Streetview on its launch, "Burglars will use it to plan their breaking-in to my house"

Rob P
exfirepro liked this
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1844811
My challenge, is about the use and distribution of surveillance data for non-operational purposes. FR24, PlaneFinder etc. allow me to request the suppression and sharing of my identity and position in their public fronting systems.


Sorry, Cub, but some of that is a bit naive. I agree with the theory but it doesn't work in practise. As has been reported previously, some of those companies just say 'no' when asked to remove your data. Others make it so difficult that most people wouldn't bother and then there is the veritable plethora of companies that you'd have to deal with in the first place. You'd be on a hiding to nothing if you think you'd get them all to stop broadcasting your information.

Unfortunately, your questions just smack of point-scoring over Pilot Aware, whereas the bigger picture involves the CAA and how our personal information is so freely available. The same ease of access affects those whose data is broadcast over the likes of FR24, no matter if they have PAW, Flarm or an SE2 fitted to their aircraft.
exfirepro liked this
User avatar
By peter272
#1844815
Cub wrote:
SteveX wrote: I propose the CAA does nothing to standardise or mandate EC and that everyone is free to just install whatever they want in the hope something is better than nothing.


I feel your proposition has been adopted already. Despite the an indication of policy in this area, a couple of years ago, the CAA has done nothing to guide the community towards a standard or methodology for the deployment and functionality of the supporting infrastructure. This is particularly disappointing and surprising when the DfT are handing out public funds for the community to equip with little guidance from the regulator.


Spot on

I remember at a safety evening around 2009 where the presenter spoke about the 'mobile phone-sized Mode S'. He made it clear the CAA were not permitted, or had decided not to recommend, a standard. They were leaving it to the market and they would approve or otherwise the product for use.

Similarly. at a NATS presentation, they also made it clear the policy was to accept uncertified GPS sources as the accuracy of even an iPad or Android GPS was such that ATC could make safety decisions from the output - they used the example of a couple of paramotors flying into Hackney Marshes.

But the lack of direction from the top is worrying. They know we won't spend much on this, so can't risk mandating too high a standard, but as Cub says, we have been given Govt funds to decide for ourselves.

Some leadership
User avatar
By exfirepro
#1844818
@kanga

As someone who makes regular use of the G-INFO database to link ICAO Hex ID’s for specific aircraft to their new EC devices, or to try to track down and resolve ‘rogue’ dual transmitting airframes (heaps of these with the recent batch of new EC installs), I find the accessibility of such information extremely useful, and would quite frankly struggle without it.

I nonetheless share concerns about the ready availability of Full Owner Details - particularly (Home) addresses. I was also shocked to discover recently that the full content of the database is available commercially on ‘disc’ to anyone prepared to pay the CAA’s stated fee. You can even buy a subscription! I’m sure that was never the intention of the ICAO when they made the ruling on openness.

By the way @Cub , best of luck trying to get the aircraft tracking app providers to stop showing your aircraft details. From the posts I’ve seen about this elsewhere, (with the exception of FLARM) most if not all users who have requested this have just been told where to go (or as advised by @PaulSS it’s been made so difficult to achieve that they will just give up).

Best Regards
Peter
(PilotAware Development Team)
kanga, Tim Dawson liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1844824
exfirepro wrote:best of luck trying to get the aircraft tracking app providers to stop showing your aircraft details. From the posts I’ve seen about this elsewhere, (with the exception of FLARM) most if not all users who have requested this have just been told where to go (or as advised by @PaulSS it’s been made so difficult to achieve that they will just give up).

Best Regards
Peter
(PilotAware Development Team)


Actually, I think it is pretty straight forward to request and have the tracking data suppressed with a number of companies but regardless, do I take it from your reply that PilotAware do not or do not intend to offer this facility?
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 43