[Maxthelion]

This may be a stupid question, but will Uavionix products be able to pick up PAW? There is likely to be a significant number of EC users who are already using PAW without any other EC transmitter and who don't want to spend the money on an ADSB-out capable device until it's similarly priced to their PAW box.

[SimonM]

Where would this subsidy come from?

PAW did it by reusing existing equipment.

[Flyin'Dutch']

This may be a stupid question, but will Uavionix products be able to pick up PAW? There is likely to be a significant number of EC users who are already using PAW without any other EC transmitter and who don't want to spend the money on an ADSB-out capable device until it's similarly priced to their PAW box.

Nope and that won't come either.

But that was clear from the outset wasn't it?

PAW may have hoped to flood the market and become a de facto 'standard' but that was never likely to happen.

Where would this subsidy come from?

PAW did it by reusing existing equipment.

Think you could donate the old unit so it could be used for the OGN-R network but don't think it conferred any discount on a new unit - but happy to be corrected!

[G-BLEW]

This may be a stupid question, but will Uavionix products be able to pick up PAW? There is likely to be a significant number of EC users who are already using PAW without any other EC transmitter and who don't want to spend the money on an ADSB-out capable device until it's similarly priced to their PAW box.

Your question illustrates the whole interoperable challenge. When we buy equipment we are buying something that enables us to see (some) others, and (some) others to see us. In an ideal world we'd all be able to see each other, but there's currently no single solution that does that.

Pilot Aware, thanks to the OGN re-transmission, is doing a good job of being able to see a significant amount of traffic, but to answer your question, its P3i cannot be seen by SkyEcho (or any ADS-B 'in' kit), nor can it be seen by FLARM, a TAS systems, TCAS or SSR.

The CAA has put its weight behind ADS-B, but neither it nor EASA is currently talking about mandatory equipage. On the other hand, the growth of airline traffic and the predicted (huge) growth in the number of unmanned aircraft systems will, I believe, make airspace access reliant on being able to participate in an EC solution. In my opinion that's likely to be ADS-B (or a development of it) rather than FLARM or P3i.

Ian

[rikur_]

have uAvionix considered a subsidised Upgrade Route for early adopters - like PIlotAware have done for their existing customers who want to ‘Upgrade’ from PAW Classic to Rosetta, or are existing uAvionix customers, who bought their previous units in good faith simply expected to shell out another £443 + postage etc. if we want to upgrade to the current version ?

Where would this subsidy come from?

It doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable question.

At a guess of the £400+ cost, there's perhaps about £100 of electronics, and £300 of recovering the costs of many years of R&D and product development.
Owners of a previous version have arguably already paid a slice of the £300, so not unreasonable IMHO to offer a discount to upgrading customers.

[PaulSS]

This may be a stupid question, but will Uavionix products be able to pick up PAW?

Not now/yet but this was a 'promise' in their advertising. Allegedly a dongle, similar to the Flarm dongle was going to be produced to allow PAW to be detected. Whether that ever comes to fruition I have no idea.

[Buzz53]

This may be a stupid question, but will Uavionix products be able to pick up PAW?

It seems clear that the secondary radio in the SkyEcho2 could be programmed to received PAW. In which case you'd also get the OGN rebroadcast of Flarm traffic (which I suspect will work a lot better the direct airborne reception most of the time anyway) and also the multilaterated Mode S traffic which PAW seem to be about to launch. No fees to pay either! Can't see it happening though.
Alan

[Maxthelion]

Surely it would make sense to build in that functionality? As Ian says, it's all about interoperability. I don't think anybody at this stage expects PAW to become the defecto standard, but surely any EC solution worth it's weight would be designed to see the maximum number of other EC sources, rather than just one or two wouldn't it?

The Skyecho would be a loy more attractive to me as a potential consumer if if it could see more than just ADSB, + FLARM for an extra fee.

[Maxthelion]

The more I think about this, the more I think ADSB is going to be mandated (and we'll be forbidden from flying below 500' because of drone traffic even with EC in place), the more I think it's likely that PAW will come out with an ADSB upgrade that will cost half of what the Uavionix kit does. I suspect that will happen in around 2-3 years' time, and is likely to coincide with the CAA mandating and subsidising ADSB, with the subsidy paid for by licensing(taxing) drone based delivery outfits.

I'll be back in a sec, I'm just going to pop on my flameproof undies..

[Flyin'Dutch']

The Skyecho would be a loy more attractive to me as a potential consumer if if it could see more than just ADSB, + FLARM for an extra fee.

The biggest weakness in the PAW set-up is its broadcasting only a proprietary signal and only with SIL=0.

To expect the rest of the world to include a receiver for that is wishful thinking.

If the number of FLARM units was the same number as PAW units there would no functionality for receiving that either.

[Nomad63]

I have ADSB out via my TXPDR, PilotAware makes far more sense for me
The whole SIL=1 thing is a red herring

[Flyin'Dutch']

The more I think about this, the more I think ADSB is going to be mandated (and we'll be forbidden from flying below 500' because of drone traffic even with EC in place), the more I think it's likely that PAW will come out with an ADSB upgrade that will cost half of what the Uavionix kit does. I suspect that will happen in around 2-3 years' time, and is likely to coincide with the CAA mandating and subsidising ADSB, with the subsidy paid for by licensing(taxing) drone based delivery outfits.

I'll be back in a sec, I'm just going to pop on my flameproof undies..

Jam tomorrow?

If PAW did a unit which had ADSB-out with SIL=1 there would be a lot of interested folks who would buy it.

There is no technical reason they can't.

I suspect the price difference between PAW and SkyEcho is about the cost of an ADSB transmitter and certified GPS Chipset allowing SIL=1.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I have ADSB out via my TXPDR, PilotAware makes far more sense for me
The whole SIL=1 thing is a red herring

Indeed if I did have a TXPDR with ADSB out, SIL=1 is less relevant in a separate unit and together with having a working PAW unit there would be little incentive to buy anything else.

[SimonM]

Where would this subsidy come from?

PAW did it by reusing existing equipment.

Think you could donate the old unit so it could be used for the OGN-R network but don't think it conferred any discount on a new unit - but happy to be corrected!

You can send your existing PAW unit to PAW to have the bridge upgraded to Rosetta, and a few other component upgrades. Re-using what they can, the PAW upgrade from Classic to Rosetta is a lot cheaper than scrapping the Classic and buying the new Rosetta.

[Paul_Sengupta]

In which case you'd also get the OGN rebroadcast of Flarm traffic (which I suspect will work a lot better the direct airborne reception most of the time anyway) and also the multilaterated Mode S traffic which PAW seem to be about to launch. No fees to pay either! Can't see it happening though.

The fly in the ointment there is that the OGN rebroadcasts only the nearest "x" contacts to you, on receiving your position broadcast from your PAW, to avoid unnecessary frequency congestion and duplication.

Any receive only solution would not trigger this.

I don't know what "x" is.