Traffic Awareness in the new version of Air Navigation Pro

[crodri]

Hi there,
Air Navigation Pro is adding to its version 6.0 the ability to have traffic awareness through their own internet-based tracking system. Disclosure: I am a volunteer beta tester, but not affiliated in any way to the company that develops it. For those having connectivity through 3G-enabled tablets (cheaper every day), that is great news.

1) You can share with everyone (and receive from others) your track , position and altitude, as well as the traffic received through on-board ADS-B, Flarm (and I'm pretty sure PilotAwares, since we mask as Flarm).
2) You can receive traffic advisories based on everyone's data.
3) if PilotAware users share their data through this app, and other pilots without either ADS-B or PAware systems share their own tablet-based data, this will expand greatly the traffic coverage even before widespread adoption of ADS-B or PAware.

I've heard, and shared some, complaints about earlier versions of AN pro, but version 6.0 is a great improvement. I have been able to connect and use my PilotAware system consistently in this version. As soon as this version is out, I'll try to convince people who use AN to share their data, and see if we can get here (Catalonia) at least a wider picture of local small aircraft traffic. So far, the tracking functionality has been free. Let's hope they keep it this way.

Keep flying, and flying safetly

Carlos

[scsirob]

Call me cynical, but this sounds like a system with many potential issues.
- Rely on the internet in the plane. How well does that work above, say, 2000ft?
- Rely on information traveling through the internet with unknown delays. A few seconds delay at 100kts in opposite directions means a severe position error with detremental consequences.
- PAW does not mask as Flarm. It uses Flarm-like NMEA sentences to talk to ANP, EasyVFR, SkyDemon etc, but on the RF side it is proprietary. Ground stations need to have specific support for PAW and I doubt the ANP network supports it.

Too cynical?

[Robski]

Too cynical?

I don't think so... 

Many of us use tablets with no cellular ability, and most people I know with cellular iPads don't bother to put a SIM card in as it is very expensive to run.

There are large areas with limited phone network coverage - often the same areas as have limited radar coverage - where one would really want additional traffic awareness.

[Paul_Sengupta]

"since we mask as Flarm", not masking Flarm, i.e. the data is sent as Flarm data.

Any feedback on how this has worked out in practice? I know that generally cellular service in the air is very sketchy, but I suppose it's better than nothing! Have you seen how PAW derived data gets shared?

[Andy Fell]

4G LTE networks actually work quite well in the air, better than 3G.  So it'll take a while for 4G networks to become more ubiquitous, but it's an idea that can work.

[exfirepro]

Andy,

I agree 4G certainly has a place in passing info such as weather or notam updates (as SkyDemon does), to your tablet or via a linked phone, but I have serious concerns about using it to pass information on aircraft positions. I have seen aircraft on FR24 or OGN etc. showing out of position (often significantly so) far too many times due to network delays and the vagaries of MLAT to trust information supplied via the internet for traffic avoidance.

Like Paul, I would also be interested to hear how the Air Nav Pro proposed tracking system has panned out.

Regards

Peter