Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1849390
Thanks for taking the time to write up your experience with these devices Gaznav, I appreciate the work you've put in to see what they are capable of. I'm sorry you've had to suffer the slings and arrows of people that think it's fine to be critical to the point of rudeness about another's efforts which could be of benefit to so many.
ls8pilot, gaznav, G-JWTP and 2 others liked this
#1849489
@rjc101

Thanks for the feedback, the clarification and also for taking my post in the way it was intended. I may well run my SoftRF box of tricks over to my brother-in-laws for a look see at some point to see if it meets the basic compliance requirements on power, duty cycle and what I will call spectral ‘purity’. Hooking it up to a few of his test devices will ascertain that for me.

Obviously, I’ll share my findings for the good of the community when I get the chance.

I guess that if this box of tricks does go rogue then using the 868.525MHz frequency is the least likely to cause issues as the power is higher than FLARM and they have more diversity in their receivers and ground stations to see traffic through other means. FLARM has none. Also I suspect the PAW team will be screaming at me pretty quick if a Narrow Band jammer is flying around blasting out over all of their spectrum! The effects in my own aircraft types is absolutely nil - neither have electronics, Nav aids nor even DIs (mag compass only).

I’m still at a loss on how to connect SkyEcho and SoftRF (even in RX only) to an iPad. I don’t think it can be done as tablets tend to have only one Network ‘Card’. Also, for iPads, then you can’t connect via USB and do WiFi if I understand it correctly. Even if I could, I’m not sure if the likes of SkyDemon or ForeFlight can take 2x individual GDL90 data feeds. I did think I might be able to do it on my MacBook but then realised that neither SkyDemon nor ForeFlight will run as a stand-alone App!

So it comes down to what I am looking for - a single unit that can do:

Direct Air-to-Air with no ground station required
ADS-B In/Out
FLARM In/Out (minimum FLARM In)
FANET In/Out (minimum FANET In)
PAW In/Out (minimum P3i In)

Ground station receive capabilities
FIS-B Weather
TIS-B feeding traffic not on the main EC formats that I can directly see

I want that in a small self-contained carry-on package, I want it below £500 and it needs to work on a suitable EFB App.

However, I suspect that lot for £500 is too much of an ask, which is why I have a £450 SkyEcho 2 and a £47 SoftRF right now, that ticks most of the boxes above, but I can’t connect it up on one device. :lol:

Of course, if the CAA had been stronger with their direction on ADS-B equipage - Class 1, Class 2 or LPAT - then the signal diversity detection capability I seek would be unnecessary. It is only because so many protocols are being transmitted, without everyone being herded onto a single one, that the problem persists.

Ever felt like Wiley Coyote...
Image
#1849519
There is a spectrum analyser test of a TTGO T-Beam V1.0 like the one I’m using by a Swiss RF engineer:



The interesting thing is that he states that 20dBm would be the maximum output, which is 100mW. But it seems that due to inefficiency in the Board then the most he sees is 16dBm at 868MHz which is about 40mW. I think classic FLARM was 25mW, but certainly the OEM PowerFLARM module is 40mW as stated here: https://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/ma ... OEM-EN.pdf
and the PowerFLARM system-on-chip is 100mW: https://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/ma ... n-Chip.pdf
If I recall correctly, PilotAware is 500mW. So when it comes to peak output, disregarding any inefficiency, then the little SoftRF appears only capable of 100mW, but in real life seems to be closer to 50mW.

Also, chatting to my brother-in-law he pointed me to some Ofcom guidance. I read this:

A person manufacturing, importing or supplying any radio or electrical apparatus is responsible for ensuring that it complies with all relevant legislation before it can be placed on the market or put into service in the UK (or in the European Economic Area).

Source: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/inter ... -suppliers

So these devices are available from a variety of sellers - including Amazon UK - and so as these boards are being sold in huge quantities across the EU and the UK (and have been for the past 3 years), then it would be safe to assume it meets the standards or Amazon UK and a variety of sellers could be liable under the Ofcom extract?

I’d still like to hook up my device to his spectrum analyser at some point in the future.
#1849531
There are lots of things that shouldn't happen or be sold in the UK, but do. Don't assume that laws are actually enforced, and certainly don't assume Amazon give a toss whether something sold on their platform complies!

Oh, and while it would be a jolly poor show if gaznav's gizmo did go rogue, it's not that bigger problem as,

....This is not an Aviation Frequency and does not meet an aviation standard.
rjc101, gaznav liked this
#1849543
SO THIS IS MY WARNING ABOUT SOFTRF AND STRATUX EU BUILD 3. CHECK THAT IT IS LAWFUL BEFORE YOU ENABLE THE TRANSMITTER.

Firstly, thank you and an apology for doubting @rjc101 .

Having had a long chat with my brother-in-law then the use of SoftRF and Stratux EU in transmit mode is likely unlawful - I will not be turning the transmitter on again.

Whilst the 868MHz frequencies are allowed to be used the next issue is compliance with regulations. Two principal regulations apply (1) The Radio Equipment Directive (RED) which is effectively "type approval" and (2) The EMC Directive which is basically immunity to interference and non-generation of interference. Both of these have been replaced with UK Certification Agency (UKCA) equivalents since Brexit which have the same technical standards but different paperwork. Basically to "place on the market" or to "take into use" your 'product' needs to be tested and approved via a Radio and EMC test house such as RN Electronics: https://www.rnelectronics.com/

The cost to conduct such a test is likely around £5,000. There is no concept of DIY or hobby build in the regulated radio space - only ‘ham’ radio and that is only in designated Amateur Radio bands in accordance with their license privileges. It would likely be seen as an unlawful device as a transmitter because you would likely fail on the "take in to use" clause; effectively the double clause "supply" or "take into use" gets all suppliers and manufacturers - even hobbyists. In theory, you could apply for a Technology Research License as a developer to use it for the intention of putting through the regulatory tests.

It would appear that people are relying on the fact that because it is very low power, it is in the Short Range Device (SRD) band and there is effectively no policing then it is, de facto, ok. When in all likelihood it is not. If you are caught using the transmitter it could involve a hefty fine (more later). Apparently, it can be used as a receiver as it is operating in designated SRD band.

My advice - If you have a product that operates in the 868MHz band then make sure it has the Radio Equipment Directive clearance and also the EMC Directive clearance too. If you are caught in the act of using it without those then the fine could be as much as a £1,000 under the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) as modified by the Communications Act (2006).

Disclaimer: I am neither an expert in Wireless Telegraphy Law nor on RED/EMC directives. However, my brother-in-law owns a company that designs and manufactures data-links for the emergency services, and he is also long-term radio ham. I trust him, and neither of us have any connection with any EC manufacturer. However, I will be accepting his advice to disable the transmit function on my SoftRF that uses the TTGO T-Beam that is also used by Stratux EU unless I see demonstrable evidence that it is cleared for use.

Thanks again @rjc101 :thumright:

Mods: please feel free to moderate this series of posts as you see fit. I will be taking down some of my earlier posts demonstrating transmit performance.
Last edited by gaznav on Wed May 26, 2021 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lobstaboy liked this
#1849547
Just for clarification on the 868 MHz piece I know that FLARM products meet these directives (you can find the references to the European R&TTE Directive in their manuals), but make sure the FLARM products under license meet these too - remember that this is only if it transmits.

Also, this quote was made earlier this month from the PAW Team on a different thread:
The PilotAware products and Radio bridge, was tested against and complies with the R&TTE directive for ETSI EN300-220 on the 9/May/2016

Now of course for Rosetta-DX and Rosetta-FX (as you referred to in an earlier post) these will require certification under the newer regulation of Radio Equipment Directive (RED), and not the R&TTE Directive used in 2016.


However, make sure also that the EMC directive has also been met as required as per @rjc101’s useful interjection. This is a link to that: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 016-tp.pdf

I think the lesson for anyone, is to check that compliance requirement from now on if your device transmits on 868 - that includes burglar alarms, garage door openers and smart meters! I guess that also means that small start-ups are unlikely to be able to break into the EC market without some costs up front. It also means that there are few, if any, products right now that can lawfully emit FLARM or PAW’s P3i unless they are their own products.

An interesting lesson has been learned...
#1849563
I wouldn't be particularly concerned about devices like SE2 or PAW in VFR conditions, but if I was doing an RNP approach to minima I would probably turn them off and possibly even an iPad or phone. These devices are OK in airliners where the receiver is somewhere under First Class, but in light GA the receivers are a lot closer.
Any thoughts any experts?
#1849588
malcolmfrost wrote:I wouldn't be particularly concerned about devices like SE2 or PAW in VFR conditions, but if I was doing an RNP approach to minima I would probably turn them off and possibly even an iPad or phone. These devices are OK in airliners where the receiver is somewhere under First Class, but in light GA the receivers are a lot closer.
Any thoughts any experts?


I would hope SE2 would be OK, as the ADSB side has been tested to the required standards. For the VHF frequencies, it looks like to was tested against the standard frequency limits. Perhaps @gaznav could do a via scan with some near field probes at his brother in laws place as a quick double-check?

I've been trying to get a loan of an SE2 to look at why their USB-C charging port doesn't seem to follow my reading of the standard for USB-C power delivery. Not had much luck yet. If I get one I can pop it into a test cell I have here and scan the VHF frequencies for anything odd. Be surprised if there was anything though, given it was designed for the cockpit of GA aircraft.

Its the proximity to the antenna on the likes of VHF that is more critical than the physical transceiver, which is what the various types of Classes cover in the DO160 specs. They get tighter as things get closer to the antenna. As SE2 isn't wired to anything, conducted emissions from it can be ignored.

As for PAW, I don't recall anything in the VHF or GNSS bands from the unit itself, it's normally the choice of power supply for it that causes the problems.

It's obvious, but often forgotten, naturally don't stick an SE2 or PAW near your compass without checking it doesn't alter it.
#1849597
I looked at SkyEcho’s test and certification credentials a while back.

The following standards applied:

• EN 62368-1:2014 - Audio/video, information and communication technology equipment. Safety requirements.
• EN 62311:2008 - Assessment of electronic and electrical equipment related to human exposure restrictions for electromagnetic fields (0 Hz - 300 GHz).
• EN 61000-4-2:2009 - Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). Testing and measurement techniques. Electrostatic discharge immunity test.
• EN 61000-4-3:2006/A1/A2 - Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). Testing and measurement techniques. Radiated, radio-frequency, electromagnetic field immunity test.
• EN 303 413 V1.1.1 - Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers; Radio equipment operating in the 1 164 MHz to 1 300 MHz and 1 559 MHz to 1 610 MHz frequency bands; Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of Directive 2014/53/EU.
• Final Draft EN 301 489-1 V2.2.2 & EN 301 489-19 V2.1.1 - ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standard for radio equipment and services & ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standard for radio equipment and services; Part 19: Specific conditions for Receive Only Mobile Earth Stations (ROMES) operating in the 1,5 GHz band providing data communications and GNSS receivers operating in the RNSS band (ROGNSS) providing positioning, navigation, and timing data; Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.1(b) of Directive 2014/53/EU.
• EN 300 328 V2.1.1 & EN 301 489-17 V3.2.4 - Wideband transmission systems; Data transmission equipment operating in the 2,4 GHz ISM band and using wide band modulation techniques; Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of Directive 2014/53/EU & ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standard for radio equipment and services; Part 17: Specific conditions for Broadband Data Transmission Systems; Harmonised Standard for ElectroMagnetic Compatibility.

The Notified Body Telification B.V., with Notified Body number 0560 performed: applicable Modules B+C where applicable:
The issued EU-type examination certificate: 192140399/AA/01

This is their website: https://www.telefication.com and they are a competent independent testing company that will have tested to the above standards.

So it looks like SkyEcho has a clean bill of health. Further, the CAA and Ofcom have underwritten CAP1391, which dictates the standards that SkyEcho is declared to comply with.
#1849601
The SkyEcho manual states:

Proximity to other equipment
Mount the SkyEcho so that it does not compromise the operation of any other proximate communication or navigation antenna or system. It may be possible to hear transmissions through installed audio equipment, such as headsets.

Approvals
Approvals do not cover adaptations to the aircraft necessary to accommodate ancillary equipment such as power provisions, mounting devices or external antennas, such items must still be approved under existing minor modification/change processes applicable to the aircraft.

Warning: This transceiver is to be used to improve pilot situational awareness only and as a navigational aid. It is not intended for use in IFR flight conditions. uAvionix is not responsible for the transceiver’s end use and will not be held liable for any events occurring from its use or misuse.
#1849602
On another issue, I have been able to disable the SoftRF’s transmitter via the blue highlighted option.
Image

So it is now lawful to use the device in receive only. I think I have worked out how to pipe audio from SkyEcho and SoftRF into a single headset - so I hope to report that I am able to increase the direct detection of other proximate aircraft. I’ll report back on here on how that goes.

Cheers, Gaz
#1849670
@gaznav please don't delete any of the post contents, by all means add some caution notes but removing bits will make the latter bits make less sense.

I wonder at what stage PAW went for testing, before or after the prototype was switched on?

But, unless you start swamping licenced services this would be low on OfComs' list of things to do, let's face it, the blatant and wholesale breaching of sect 48 of the WTA by FR24 receiving stations is ignored,
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8