Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1861171
Hi All
Here is the (growing) list of stations, which fits nicely into the exciting catapult drones research project for the UK.
https://cp.catapult.org.uk/news/winners ... programme/

Motion Robotics Limited
VISIOPHONIC: An Audio and Visual Based Detect and Avoid System

PilotAware
PilotAware Detect and Avoid

Rinicom Limited
Mesh-In-The-Sky

SKY TECH Ltd
DART (Detect and avoid Augmented Reality Testing)

Snowdonia Aerospace LLP
Dragon’s Roar (“Rhuo Ddraig”)

SurveyAR Ltd
Autonomous Swarm Atmospheric Assessment Platform [ASAAP]

Mark Westwood, Chief Technology Officer, Connected Places Catapult said, “The Connected Places Catapult is delighted to be working with these innovative companies on tackling such important topics. We continue to work with government, industry and regulators towards making the UK a global leader in drone technology and services, and are hugely excited at the potential for these projects”.


GRID networked ATOM stations
Code: Select all     PWAMMAN    PWAMPNEY    PWASHDEV   PWATOMdem
   PWAlconbu   PWAldersh   PWAlfretn   PWAlyPaly
   PWAmosAlp    PWArnold   PWBRENTOR   PWBREWOOD
   PWBalerno      PWBath   PWBiceste   PWBidford
    PWBkpark    PWBodmin   PWBolthed    PWBooker
   PWBostonW      PWBrig   PWBroadmd   PWBurnley
     PWCalne     PWCarpi     PWChelt   PWChilten
   PWClenchC   PWCostess   PWCoylton    PWCromer
     PWDerry   PWDriffie    PWDruids   PWDyfnant
      PWEDAD     PWEDAD2      PWEDAW     PWEDDG2
      PWEDFC      PWEDNX   PWEDRPACP      PWEDVI
      PWEDXD   PWEFortun      PWEGBD      PWEGBG
     PWEGBKE      PWEGBM      PWEGBN      PWEGBO
      PWEGBS      PWEGBT      PWEGBW      PWEGCB
      PWEGCG      PWEGCJ      PWEGCM      PWEGCS
      PWEGCV      PWEGFD      PWEGHJ      PWEGHN
      PWEGHP      PWEGKA      PWEGLD      PWEGLM
      PWEGNF      PWEGNO      PWEGPT      PWEGSL
      PWEGSV      PWEGTU      PWEGVL      PWENNO
    PWETHEBQ   PWEddsfld   PWEdinbuW   PWEgerton
   PWEnstone   PWEverton    PWFLYNQY   PWFYFIELD
   PWFleurus   PWGROVEFM   PWGilwern   PWGtAyton
   PWHADFOLD    PWHeadon   PWHempstd   PWHighwth
   PWHoheloh   PWHunsdon    PWHusBos   PWIOWPara
    PWJO63nk     PWJkpg2    PWKemble    PWKernan
   PWKilkeel   PWKingsto   PWKirkbym    PWLASHAM
      PWLERM     PWLFBU1      PWLFDT     PWLFLB2
     PWLFLG2     PWLFPN2      PWLFPQ     PWLFRN2
     PWLKirk   PWLadding   PWLandEnd   PWLanghec
    PWLeBarp   PWLegerwd   PWLengfel    PWLenzie
   PWLongSut      PWMI02   PWMOSSEDG    PWMarley
   PWMarloes    PWMataro   PWMeppen1   PWMiltnKy
   PWMobil21   PWMoecker   PWMoepham    PWMonmth
   PWMorecam   PWMrzezyn     PWMuhen   PWMunypot
      PWMurg      PWMynd   PWNCoates   PWNEUWIED
    PWNKRock     PWNYMPS   PWNewbury    PWNorton
   PWOEntfel     PWOlney   PWOlvestn    PWOrwell
    PWOxford   PWPalmers   PWParkmil   PWPidding
   PWPottern   PWPoulton     PWPwick     PWQuorn
     PWRMS02    PWRadley   PWRhiwFaw    PWSALTBY
   PWSARUMHH    PWSHIREN   PWSSHouse   PWSaltash
   PWSaxonda    PWSelsey   PWStratha   PWSuttonB
   PWSwaffha      PWTIEB    PWTYDDYN   PWTarnock
     PWThame   PWTroston    PWTruthe     PWUKBIG
     PWUKBVT     PWUKBWR     PWUKCHP     PWUKCLK
     PWUKCPH     PWUKDRL     PWUKGRL     PWUKHAD
     PWUKKIR     PWUKLSW     PWUKMBU     PWUKNHL
     PWUKPAR     PWUKPET     PWUKPOC     PWUKPRK
     PWUKRAT     PWUKRIW     PWUKRUF     PWUKSE2
     PWUKTIB     PWUKUPW     PWUKUSK     PWUKWRM
     PWUKmil    PWUehrde     PWWHill    PWWMGSOL
      PWWOG2   PWWahrenh   PWWatford   PWWeasel1
   PWWestBfd    PWWhisky   PWWhitfie   PWWhittng
   PWWilmcot   PWWisbech   PWZoyland     PWcoedy
   PWcongltn      PWegcw    PWlsvpbg   PWnrmfrms
     PWukBER   PWwmlaasd
User avatar
By gaznav
#1861437
So, I’m standing by for another inevitable ‘pile on’, but there is an elephant in the room in this statement:

I wish Grant Shapps would just get on with it and mandate PAW, which is where I think it’ll end up


What about all of the visiting aircraft that come from other countries where this is not mandated? Or are we going to cease any non-UK aircraft from flying in Class G? I would totally agree with this if PAW or FLARM or anything else that is not ADS-B capable if it was an internationally agreed standard. But they aren’t, the various FLARMs around the world work different frequencies and PAW seems to be mainly UK-only (save for a few users in Europe for now, where FLARM is way more popular).

If you were going to mandate anything, then you would start again. You would pick a frequency that is internationally reserved for aviation use, you would select a transmission protocol that isn’t a digitised version of a signal protocol first developed in the 1950s and you would ensure that it is free for all to use without any manufacturer’s licence. Your system would be interoperable with existing systems wherever possible (tx and RX), it would be future proof for at least the next 30-40 years, it wouldn’t rely on ground stations and it would come in a variety of power levels to enable even the smallest air vehicle to utilise it.

Now seeing as the biggest aviation nation, by far, is the USA and they have chosen 978/1090 ADS-B, then surely it would be sensible to pick something compatible with that on transmit and receive? Certainly, until the ICAO nations can agree on something else, something better and something that we can all use as we travel between our various countries, then anything else will fail to meet the requirements on interoperability.

Right… pile on!
User avatar
By Rob L
#1861452
I do A/G at Leicester occasionally, and the flow of gliders from Hus Bos during their recent competition was very evident on ATOM. They were not a factor (they were much higher than our ATZ)

I hope I was able to help some aircraft passing below them.
gaznav, Paul_Sengupta liked this
#1861455
@gaznav
Hi Gaz,
No ’pile on’ from me, I think you do honestly mean well, I just think you are way off the mark and missing the bigger picture entirely, here are some things to consider :-

You are aware that UAV’s in the U.S. will NOT be allowed to emit on either 1090(ADSB) or 978(UAT) due to fears of congestion?
As possibly the largest growth sector of EC, what would you suggest, given your stated desirable technologies ?

Also, as UAV traffic will be at such low altitudes, there is no possible way of emissions effectively avoiding terrain without the support of rebroadcast from both air and ground - hence, distributed monitoring becomes paramount

I can tell you it was in no way by chance we invented VECTOR, what do you suppose we have been using it to analyze ? I can tell you, it was not for internal antenna obscuration, that was a happy and useful additional side capability

Why do you suppose we have spent so much time and effort on perfecting ATOM, GRID and AIRGRID, and are now part of the Catapult D-TRIG program as posted earlier in the announcement of the Award

There is a much, much bigger picture to be seen here
Are you joining the dots yet … ?
gaznav, kanga liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1861467
@leemoore1966

Thanks. Just to pick up on a point:

You are aware that UAV’s in the U.S. will NOT be allowed to emit on either 1090(ADSB) or 978(UAT) due to fears of congestion?


I can tell you that I have flown a UAV from a cabin in the Nevada desert in US airspace and it was emitting on 1090 at the time. I also know that the replacement UAV is full ADS-B In/Out on both 978/1090 as part of its detect and avoid system (it will be flying in the UK airspace very soon and also working with the Dutch). Now that is the larger end of the UAV market (MAUM 4,760kgs the one I flew), but there are smaller UAVs in the lower end of the mass category that carry small 1090 or 978 ADS-B transponders made by the likes of Iris Automation, Sagetech or uAvionix (it’s a big market in the USA).

However, I do agree with you that unless they transmit at incredibly low power then the sheer volume of UAVs at the lower end of the mass range will swamp the 978/1090 frequencies. However, most DJI UAVs ship with ADS-B detection built in and seeing that the USA have an ADS-B mandate then they can see the light aircraft or bigger that are mandated to do so. Further, the USA are trialling ground-based UAV detect and avoid at 5 busy airfields plus also things like LAANC to orchestrate lightweight UAV use in controlled airspace up to 400ft.

That is why I say, if the UK were to mandate anything then it would need to be done with the intent that it meets international agreement - I suspect that will take many years to develop if we were to have a system that is assured, agreed and interoperable. Otherwise we ‘leap out of the frying pan and into the fire’ without that agreement on what will be used across the globe.
#1861473
@gaznav

Here you go again gaz, we already had this conversation, but here is a reminder

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=112681&p=1741769&hilit=1090#p1741769

A recent study showed that the existing ADS–B frequencies cannot support the projected number of UAS operations...
This study’s projections led the FAA to reevaluate current regulations and policies regarding ADS–B Out for UAS. The FAA is concerned that the potential proliferation of ADS–B Out transmitters on UAS may negatively affect the safe operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States...
The FAA is proposing changes to 14 CFR part 107 to generally prohibit unmanned aircraft from operating with ADS–B Out...
The prohibition would allow ADS–B to continue to enable the safety of airspace for manned aircraft going forward.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861476
The implication of the US position is to require UAS to see and avoid manned aircraft which makes perfect sense.
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1861480
johnm wrote:The implication of the US position is to require UAS to see and avoid manned aircraft which makes perfect sense.

Yes I agree
More important, they additionally have to see and avoid each other, and for this to work at low altitudes, a different approach is required, and that most definitely requires a comprehensive ground infrastructure, for both monitoring and rebroadcast.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861481
leemoore1966 wrote:@gaznav

Here you go again gaz, we already had this conversation, but here is a reminder

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=112681&p=1741769&hilit=1090#p1741769

A recent study showed that the existing ADS–B frequencies cannot support the projected number of UAS operations...
This study’s projections led the FAA to reevaluate current regulations and policies regarding ADS–B Out for UAS. The FAA is concerned that the potential proliferation of ADS–B Out transmitters on UAS may negatively affect the safe operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States...
The FAA is proposing changes to 14 CFR part 107 to generally prohibit unmanned aircraft from operating with ADS–B Out...
The prohibition would allow ADS–B to continue to enable the safety of airspace for manned aircraft going forward.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems


I think you miss a key point with the FAA policy statement, notably the use of the word 'generally'.

Part 107, where the prohibition is proposed, refers to small UAS platforms of less than 55 pounds and operated visually.

It remains a fact that the majority of BVLOS UAS operations do and will continue to utilise ADS-B to aid their integration with other aerial systems, indeed the integration of these particular platforms with intense and complex IFR operations requires the operation of a Mode S transponder with ADS-B Out enabled to ensure interoperability with the ACAS safety net.

The whole thrust of the FAA policy is to acknowledge that if every UAS platforms from hobbyist drones upwards, involving VLOS operations, were to equip with ADS-B Out then this would result in spectrum saturation and that they perceive RID to be the way forward in identifying and policing this massive sector.

In the UK and Europe, it appears that policy with regard to BVLOS operations is developing in a similar way that will require ADS-B Out on these platforms to enable integration and transponder equipage when contemplating interoperability with IFR operations.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1861487
I dont think it gets any clearer than this

4. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE OF ADS-B OUT AND TRANSPONDERS
This rule prohibits use of ADS-B Out and transponders for UAS operations under 14 CFR part 107 unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, and defines when ADS-B Out is appropriate for UAS operating under part 91. The FAA is concerned the potential proliferation of ADS-B Out transmitters on unmanned aircraft may negatively affect the safe operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The projected numbers of unmanned aircraft operations have the potential to saturate available ADS-B frequencies, affecting ADS-B capabilities for manned aircraft and potentially blinding ADS-B ground receivers. Therefore, unmanned aircraft operators, with limited exceptions, are prohibited from using ADS-B Out or transponders. The prohibition against the use of ADS-B Out and transponders is discussed in section XVII of this preamble.

Persons must comply with the ADS-B Out and transponder prohibition as of March 16, 2021.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... d-aircraft
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861490
leemoore1966 wrote:I dont think it gets any clearer than this

4. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE OF ADS-B OUT AND TRANSPONDERS
This rule prohibits use of ADS-B Out and transponders for UAS operations under 14 CFR part 107 unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, and defines when ADS-B Out is appropriate for UAS operating under part 91. The FAA is concerned the potential proliferation of ADS-B Out transmitters on unmanned aircraft may negatively affect the safe operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The projected numbers of unmanned aircraft operations have the potential to saturate available ADS-B frequencies, affecting ADS-B capabilities for manned aircraft and potentially blinding ADS-B ground receivers. Therefore, unmanned aircraft operators, with limited exceptions, are prohibited from using ADS-B Out or transponders. The prohibition against the use of ADS-B Out and transponders is discussed in section XVII of this preamble.

Persons must comply with the ADS-B Out and transponder prohibition as of March 16, 2021.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... d-aircraft


You continue to miss the point. 'Limited exceptions' most certainly applies to a large percentage of BVLOS operations and will continue to do so not just in the US but around the world whilst these platforms require maximum interoperability with with other aerial systems.

Again, I would remind you that 14 CFR part 107 is applicable to sub 55 lb, VLOS operations. Indeed the FAA go so far as to say that no person may operate an unmanned aircraft under a flight plan and in two-way communication with ATC unless that aircraft has equipment installed that meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c (ADS-B Out), effectively mandating ADS-B OUT for a percentage of BVLOS operations which require a Fight Plan and interoperability with ATM/UTM.

See section XVII of https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/15/2020-28948/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft
Last edited by Cub on Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gaznav liked this
By Cessna571
#1861500
PaulSS wrote:@gaznav .......or it could be that Cessna571 accidentally wrote 'PAW' instead of 'ADSB', hence my tongue-in-cheek quote of his original post :D

Come on down off that carton of Imperial Leather :thumleft:


No… he wrote PAW deliberately.

If you read my post again…

I just want EC in every aircraft.

I don’t care if Mr Shapps chose PAW, I just want him to get on and mandate it.

Having had the proper near miss that I was always expecting to happen at some point, I’ve now become more of an avid EC supporter than I ever was before.
CAA need to stop all this tittle tattle and mandate it,

Gaznav has to at least admit it works.

Btw, whatever happened to ShoestringFlyer? He was much more anti PAW than Gaznav is.
PaulSS, gaznav liked this