Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:06 am
#1652386
@gaznav
Been away from the forum, and a lot has happened, and a lot of flip-flopping
I am now totally confused regarding your opinions on traffic rebroadcast, here is what you said on this thread, 16 Nov 2018 19:04
Traffic Re-Broadcast GOOD!
Prior to this, on the 24 Oct 2018 17:20
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109286&p=1646853&#p1646853
Traffic Re-Broadcast BAD!
2 days before on 22 Oct 2018 23:30
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109286&start=1230#p1646465
Traffic Re-Broadcast BAD!
Back on 10 Sep 2018 06:14
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109630&p=1637030&#p1637030
Traffic Re-Broadcast GOOD!
Can you state your thoughts regarding traffic rebroadcast is it now a good idea , or is it now a bad idea , I just cannot work out what you are saying
Additionally in previous posts you have been in favor of single common 1090/ADS-B as an internationally recognized standard (too many posts to reference here). In which case, do you consider
- 978/UAT as an internationally recognized standard ?
- SRD/ISM as an internationally recognized standard ?
If I recall you were against SRD/ISM (used by Flarm and PilotAware) due to not being protected frequencies (open and subscription-free)
So what are your thoughts now on using these frequencies for UAV's ?
https://uavionix.com/news/uavionix-succ ... tm-trials/
So what are your thoughts now regarding operating on an unprotected non-aviation standard frequency ?
Is this still a bad idea, or is it now a good idea ?
Thx
Lee
Been away from the forum, and a lot has happened, and a lot of flip-flopping
I am now totally confused regarding your opinions on traffic rebroadcast, here is what you said on this thread, 16 Nov 2018 19:04
gaznav wrote:...with the benefits of NATS traffic rebroadcast on TIS-B plus also the weather that other UATs output.
Traffic Re-Broadcast GOOD!
Prior to this, on the 24 Oct 2018 17:20
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109286&p=1646853&#p1646853
gaznav wrote:Yes, my opinion on UAT has changed since starting to use it. Relying on a ground system for the highest level of safety critical data is what I now believe to be a bad idea and really we want each aircraft sharing their positions with each other directly.
Traffic Re-Broadcast BAD!
2 days before on 22 Oct 2018 23:30
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109286&start=1230#p1646465
gaznav wrote:Yes Lee, seriously. Anything that relies on a ground station to provide a rebroadcast, that is the single link of failure, is a poor design these days
Traffic Re-Broadcast BAD!
Back on 10 Sep 2018 06:14
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=109630&p=1637030&#p1637030
gaznav wrote:my personall preference would be to use the UAT to rebroadcast the NATS SSR primary contacts that aren’t pushing out ADS-B
Traffic Re-Broadcast GOOD!
Can you state your thoughts regarding traffic rebroadcast is it now a good idea , or is it now a bad idea , I just cannot work out what you are saying
Additionally in previous posts you have been in favor of single common 1090/ADS-B as an internationally recognized standard (too many posts to reference here). In which case, do you consider
- 978/UAT as an internationally recognized standard ?
- SRD/ISM as an internationally recognized standard ?
If I recall you were against SRD/ISM (used by Flarm and PilotAware) due to not being protected frequencies (open and subscription-free)
So what are your thoughts now on using these frequencies for UAV's ?
https://uavionix.com/news/uavionix-succ ... tm-trials/
uAvionix: DroneAware is a subscription-free, RF broadcast, “ADS-B like” solution modified for the special needs of security, law enforcement, and media personnel who wish to cooperatively identify drone operations. The DroneAware system operates on non-ADS-B frequencies
So what are your thoughts now regarding operating on an unprotected non-aviation standard frequency ?
Is this still a bad idea, or is it now a good idea ?
Thx
Lee