Messages

1

Technical Support / Re: Pilotaware classic adsb not working?

« on: June 04, 2021, 05:11:24 pm »

Thank you for everyone who is trying to help
The power supply is an apple 5.1V and 2.1amp.  The cable is juicybitz about 0.75m
I have plugged in again today at home and plugged into a different extension cable got Voltage=OK
With the original adsb dongle I got 'unavailable'
Plugging in the new NOOELEC Nano 2 NESDR I suddenly got
Orange block/with Unavailable RX=168(+0)
Quickly checking the traffic I appeared to see a korean air? HEX 71C007 HL8007 with ModeC/S I believe.

Nothing since.  With the minimal amount of aircraft in the air around home it is very difficult to test this thing out - well compared to when I built it.

Maybe there is a better ADSB dongle to fit - but I couldnt find any other recommendations

I am still not convinced its working - I certainly havent picked up any aircraft - even when I had it in the aircraft and I knew there were aircraft near me transmitting ADSB (SkyEcho).  I know it has worked in the aircaft before.  I am using a different GPS unit and ADSB aerial than in the plane for home testing

Any help or comments appreciated.

Id be so much happier if I could see a green ADSB box and see some traffic!

Subsequent to the above

I have been playing with the position of the Nooelec dongle in the usb ports.  The voltage warning seems dependant on which USB port the dongle is inserted.

I now have no voltage warning and the ADSB dongle reading 'Connected' but am currently on Rx=0 (+0)

Just have to wait I guess?

Is there a better adsb dongle to buy that uses less power?

2

Technical Support / Pilotaware classic adsb not working?

« on: June 03, 2021, 09:11:21 pm »

I have a classic pilotaware. I have been suspecting it is not receiving adsb. I have brought it home , to test powered by usb power off mains. The Home Screen adsb is red and says unavailable Rx =0 (+0)
Status says volt=warning, freq=ok, thro =warning, temp 48.7/46.5, em =0, sg=0.
I have also tried replacing the dongle with a new noodled dongle with the same result.
Does anyone have any ideas, and what the colours and rx etc means please.
I have also occasionally seen the adsb box go orange after landing and checking.
However, I am not seeing the adsb traffic my friends are

Help appreciated

3

Technical Support / Re: Installing 20190621 - SDFormat and Software upgrade

« on: January 12, 2020, 11:53:23 am »

I've just removed pilotaware classic from the plane and renewed my licence / upgraded to 20190621.  Having a nightmare, as soon as I change the wifi network name from Pilotaware ----- to (my aircraft callsign) as I had it previously, I have the following problem;
Although my iPad can see the wi fi (callsign) it just says there is a network error and the network cannot be accessed.  The only way to see the pilotaware wi fi is to retain the original pilotaware network and not change it.  Dave

4

General Discussion / Pilotaware and Foreflight

« on: June 22, 2018, 08:03:18 am »

I am aware that ForeFlight is launching a European version.  For me the advantages are that it can transfer flight plans to and from the Garmin G3X Touch.  However the icing on the cake might be that the programme will be able to display traffic from Pilotaware.
Has anyone tried feeding the output from Pilotaware into Foreflight?
Dave

5

General Discussion / Re: PilotAware Unit Trials

« on: October 23, 2015, 10:58:06 am »

bryannortje

Please contact Jeremy Curtis directly.

I remember another forum post where a problem was found with charge 2, I don't know what it was - but I think its to do with start up consumption - whether this will cause the problems you describe I don't know - but you really do need to talk directly with Jeremy.

Regards

dave

6

General Discussion / Re: Fenland Test - Sunday 25th

« on: October 23, 2015, 10:52:11 am »

Stephen

I'm afraid we won't be about on Sunday, otherwise we would meet you at Fenland.  I don't think John is about either, and our ground station at Fenland is under revision at the present time!

Regards

dave

7

General Discussion / Re: Long Marston Test 17 October

« on: October 21, 2015, 08:36:19 am »

OK I've been doing some research following our experiments

In for a penny in for a pound!

Because the system is similar to flarm, and works on the similar frequency I thought I'd look up flarm and powerflarm in google.  I will try to keep my findings short, however:

Powerflarm has more power output than flarm to increase range.
Powerflarm personal results seem to indicate 2 - 8km range. Powerflarm claims the order of 5-8miles range - and flarm claim this is enough for collision warning.
Powerflarm has two aerial connections possible - to avoid blanking spots in the aeroplane.  The second aerial requires a second licence fee!
At least in the states (different frequency) range was very poor until a band filter was added on the board.  Don't know about Europe.
There is a specialist dipole aerial for flarm (PA1) its expensive - £44 claimed to increase the range, especially if both parties use it.

There is published info how to test your (aerial) installation using another flarm and to draw up a 360 degree range or black spot graph for the plane.  Doing this and moving the aerial a small amount can often increase range dramatically, even with a small change.  We could undertake this ground installation testing too.

Powerflarm appears to be tending to fixed aerial(s) - and there is EASA paperwork to do this on most GA aircraft.

There are suggestions on the net that the glareshield of a GA aircraft is the worst place to locate the aerial! because the signal can be blanked by instrument panel, engine, and occupant(s) of the cabin.  There is some suggestion that two aerials are good - say one on the fin and one on the underside?

The bottom line seems to be - get the most power, provide bandwidth filtering, allow for two aerials to give the best chance to avoid blanking, plan your aerial locations carefully and test for 360 degree transmission to get the best result possible - of course Flarm is a commercial product.

Finally;  hope that your conflicting traffic has done the same to enable the best range AND DONT FORGET TO LOOK OUT - DONT RELY ON THE ANTi COLLISION SOFTWARE.

Looks like as a community we have a lot of work to do to raise the bar (as they say)

I think a lot of problems with seen and being seen are down to aerial blanking - obviously more power will equal a bit more range.

Dave 

 

8

General Discussion / Re: Long Marston Test 17 October

« on: October 20, 2015, 09:03:26 am »

We have had similar experiences with performance off the ARF with P3i.  For example

Flight test 1
Lancair and Falco - never even got off the ground because units wouldn't see each other on the ground let alone in the air. Both are 'composite' aircraft.  We did however take the unit out of the Lancair, and then managed a successful ground test of 100m or so.  Thought great and reinstalled unit in plane.  Immediately no receive for either unit.  Unit in Lancair on windshield.  Later tested the units on ground against another ground based unit and they all worked.  We got around 2 km range upstairs window to upstairs window. So No air to air that day!  Decided we need simpler aircraft.

Flight test 2
Eurostar to ground station
1+km range.  Lost in circuit at Fenland when aircraft turned away from unit.  Not able to establish an air to air test. Unit on rear parcel shelf (in open view).

Flight test 3
Able to establish an air test.  Results similar or marginally worse to long marston test.

We have established using the master and slave results that in an ideal environment - 6m range within a kitchen line of sight we can get -20/21 dBm, with all units on a good day.  However we have also seen -30dBm in exactly the same locations on another day.  Power supply variations appear to make a difference.  We also established that in our case replacing the pigtail with the onboard SMA connector (might have) improved reception or transmission and improved our figures by 1 or 2 dBm.  But its difficult to say because of the variation in figures received from the testing regime.  We also tried a simple dipole aerial at 2 legs of 81mm (seemed to give best result).  This also might have improved the figures by maybe 1- 2 dBm.  We have also tried a monopole aerial again 81mm long with 165mm ground plane - similar.

The bottom line is that from our tests the aerial and sma connectors have made only very small gains.

We still don't know why we couldn't get the PAW to work on P3i in our complex aeroplanes we are now concentrating on simple planes for further testing!  However we have also established that a body (probably alive or dead) in the cockpit will mask the signal received (or transmitted) in our case this was a TOTAL wipe out.  Tests again in the kitchen indicate that a hand in front of the aerial will reduce sensitivity by 10 or 15dBm.  Standing in front of the aerial has a similar effect. This probably illustrates the point.  Lee amongst others has already stated this. 

So aerial placement will be vital as well as the largest transmitting power possible on P3i.  Lets be honest we have measured 90 mW from our ARF - which is less than 20dBm.  If a hand near the aerial can reduce the received signal by 10 or 15 dBm then we are very sensitive to any variation or masking of the signal transmitted or received by anything, and everything. This includes, metal instrument panel, engine, metal fuel tanks, persons in cockpit etc.

The ADSB works brilliantly - because the transmit power of ADSB is far greater.  We have been able to watch an aircraft on finals into Fenland from a ground level PAW around 15nm away!  This again proves the point - to make the system as good, and as reliable as possible we need:

the largest transmit power available to us -
Probably external aerials properly designed, in order to reduce masking as much as possible. (Powerflarm appears to use two monopole aerials mounted on the aircraft underside)

I hope my comments are considered helpful, we are hoping to do more air to air testing next weekend with the P3i and ARF.

Regards

Dave

9

General Discussion / Re: Long Marston Test 17 October

« on: October 18, 2015, 04:52:08 pm »

We also undertook some testing yesterday based near March.

Our results were max 3 nm in air.  Our ground monitoring station managed only 1000m range!  Our best airborne aerial was the whip aerial mounted externally on a Streak Shadow.  We think even this was being shadowed by the airframe, since the signal would go and then come back for no reason.  We are using 2.5amp mains power supply and juicybits cable for the ground monitor, and Charge 2 with juicybits power cable in the air stations.  We don't believe we have power issues.  Our range could be similar or marginally worse than you demonstrated.  There appear to be many variables when undertaking live testing.  We keep getting differing results for no apparent reason!  Oh and our ARF's have onboard SMA connector.  Although to be fair we can detect no obvious difference in range whether with pigtails or direct SMA connection.  Again because of the spread of results.

The range we are demonstrating with the ARF as a P3i transceiver is not currently enough for us, we are all GA types with a collision approach speed of between 200 and 300 kts.  We are hopeful that an alternative and higher power transceiver will become available to all, and incorporated in the standard build.  We have measured a few of our ARF transmitting outputs and they all measure 89-90 mW and nowhere near the 500mW maximum allowed for under the terms of the licence free rules.  We think from Lee's state of the nation address he may be considering the apparent range problem, currently experienced with the ARF, and hope he may look at an alternative with a higher output.  However, Our experience with ADSB is very good. 

Regards

dave

10

General Discussion / Re: USB-GPS Working in PilotAware

« on: October 06, 2015, 10:16:25 am »

Just to add info
I have bought one of the white uBlox 7 GPS/GNSS dongles.  After leaving it to start up we have been using it on a pilotware in Johns van.

Working brilliantly with very stable input to skydemon.

Dave t

11

General Discussion / Re: FLY IN AT FENLAND SATURDAY 19th SEPT - PILOTAWARE HOTSPOT FOR THE DAY?

« on: September 25, 2015, 08:39:16 pm »

Richard

I have been in contact with Pete and due to other commitments we have had to relocate to Saturday.  Are you about?
We are proposing to meet at our strip - White Fen Farm, Benwick about 15m south of fenland around midmorn to mid day

I will monitor the forum to see any replies.  We think we have at least 2 working units for air testing

Dave T

12

General Discussion / Re: CollisionAware Dropout / Disconnect

« on: September 25, 2015, 08:08:52 pm »

John Parker and I have had numerous issues with the collisionaware app dropping out, locking up etc.
As suggested by Lee we have converted to NMEA gps - bingo - stable and good.
We have also had issues with the SD cards not being reliably formatted which we have resolved.
Tonight we have two very reliable units and we have undertaken successful drive by tests on P3i.
We have two more units ready to go
Result
Dave t

13

General Discussion / Re: PilotAware Latest Release 20150919

« on: September 23, 2015, 11:08:57 am »

got Second Pilotaware unit working early this morning with BMP & 20150919 - no problems, and can see the first one within the house!  No idea the range though.
5 more PilotAwares to remake!  I believe the latest program release is more stable.
Dave t

14

General Discussion / Re: PilotAware Latest Release 20150919

« on: September 22, 2015, 06:29:26 pm »

as of 18.00 tonight
i've finally got 20150919 working with the barometric sensor on one pilotaware unit.
I've no idea what I've done - but I did move the ADSB aerial to a better location and am receiving ads traffic.  It now seems OK.  I will test for a few hours.

dave t

15

General Discussion / Re: PilotAware Latest Release 20150919

« on: September 22, 2015, 03:27:38 pm »

My last try
Using 20150919
Kept my header with all cables - except I pulled out the power supply cable for the BMP from pin 1.  Therefore I reason the BMP sensor will not draw power or work!

The PilotAware is perfectly stable, but for some reason the web interface thinks BMP is ON.  No idea what the actual BMP it is using is though. There is definitely no power to this device

I guess I've given enough
Lee if you want to contact me at my falcoguy e mail please do.

Regards
Dave t