PilotAware
British Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: AlanG on December 09, 2015, 09:24:47 pm
-
Hi Guys and Gals
Now that we have arrived at this holding phase whilst we await the arrival of the new RF shield it begs the question, “how do you hold on to the momentum which has built up around this innovation?” There is a real danger that once the focus is lost on a project like this it is difficult to re-energise it again. It is the RF part of PAW that is of the greatest interest to me, and I suspect many others, as this is what is going to make the smaller GA traffic “visible.” I don’t have too much trouble seeing the ADS-B traffic as it is usually much bigger and higher than me and easier to spot. It’s the little guys creeping up behind or below me that are more invisible to the No1 eyeball.
Maybe there is time now to look at the Mode A & C transponder traffic as others have mentioned earlier as unless you can persuade all of these to take a PAW they are still going to be missing from our screens. Somehow you have to keep people talking about this and attracting even more followers on the forum
Already the pace of postings on the forum is slowing as the hot topic has cooled and there is little left to discuss about the ADS-B part of the system which is working very well. I sincerely hope that this does not fall off peoples “radar” (oh dear) ::) and the current level of interest can be maintained and multiplied many times over.
A great project guys that deserves every success. ;D
Regards
Alan
-
I agree.
The present detectable threat is from mode A & mode C traffic. Flying yesterday my Zaon PCAS gave useful traffic alerts, PAW zero.
Is the mode A/C detection coming Lee?
-
Hi Alan / Roger
I also agree wholeheartedly! My own tests have proved that PAW ADSB works extremely well - easily identifying the big boys (girls) and those (very) few GA around locally with ADSB out. The forthcoming new p3i RF will no doubt bring in more aircraft we will be able to 'see', particularly within local microlight or GA clubs, but that will still leave a huge number of aircraft, both private and commercial (helicopters etc.) who's owners have invested in expensive transponders, but many of whom are for various reasons very unlikely to add PAW systems in their aircraft.
As well as contributing to earlier posts along this vein, I had a fairly long chat to Lee and Dave Styles about transponder detection at the show. As has been said in other posts, PAW already receives transponder signals and if transponder equipped aircraft are about these can be seen in your traffic log. The difficulty Lee has is in working out how to present them on screen, as raw transponder signals contain no location information so determining range is difficult and direction impossible (other than with complex multi-aerial systems).
Systems like POWERFLARM and the now defunct ZAON work out an approximate ' range' i.e. distance from your aircraft to the transponder equipped aircraft by extrapolating from the signal strength of the received transponder signal, but this is very difficult to do accurately, often resulting in 'ghost' alerts, which I know Lee is keen to avoid. In the case of POWERFLARM the presence of a transponder equipped aircraft is shown as a bearingless target either above or below your own aircraft. With the ZAON PCAS an approximate range is given as well as height above or below your aircraft, together with an indication as to whether the aircraft is climbing or descending. As a long term ZAON PCAS user (since 2009), I have found it to be a life saver on several occasions and am prepared to put up with the infallibility of poor range accuracy and complete lack of directional information (also common to POWERFLARM) for the benefit of getting a positive alert that there is another aircraft 'nearby', with the information that it is above or below me or even worse at the same level (easily decoded from mode C or S) which helps me to find and avoid it. Yes I have had false alerts - probably caused by high powered transponders confusing the logic, but rather that than have an aircraft fly right into me with it's transponder pumping out a loud warning that it was there.
In view of the fact that probably 95%+ of those (light) aircraft which have transponders don't transmit ADSB, that leaves a massive group of aircraft out there which PAW in it's soon to be current form still won't help us to 'see'.
In closing I fully understand Lee's concerns about not being able to provide accurate range/direction information from raw transponders as I have heard all the negative comments about the ZAONs over the years, but as I said to Lee at the show, IMHO any notification that there is another aircraft close by is better than nothing! Perhaps we need to look at it on the basis that unlike the present ADSB which appears on the tablet at distances of up to and even over 100 miles, raw transponder alerts could be limited to a signal strength that would equate to say 5-10 miles or even less, with relative altitude simply as a 'get your eyes out of the cockpit and look for me' alert
Hope this promotes further thought in this area. I for one would welcome this type of development and have already offered Lee any help I can provide to help move this forward.
Best regards to all.
Peter
-
I too sense a reduction in momentum while we all await the necessary testing and production of the new RF & baro add-on board. This is a shame, but we all have to be patient.
I do think that testing opinion on Mode C & S signatures should be investigated. The comments Lee has made about accuracy and possibly misleading information are very true, but a lot of us would sooner have a warning to help remind us to look out more attentively than no warning at all. Mode A is another matter, and I think is best left out as a bearingless, heightless threat with only an approximate range is not that helpful.
Ultimately this device is never going to be a TCAS level technology, and I view it as a prompt to remind us to look out when VFR (no offence intended), and you could argue that therefore inaccurate Mode C&S representations on the navigation software are not really an issue therefore.
I do think at a tiny fraction of the cost of a TCAS (or even PowerFLARM) system that once the P3i element of the system is stabilised, the device will be a bit hit and popular amongst the GA fraternity. There is certainly a lot of interest when I speak to people at my local airfield about it, and we certainly have a group who intend to use it following release of the new RF.
Would it be possible to put a beta test option in, which a user could enable via the web interface if they wish, to add bearingless Mode C & S data in to the data feed to the tablet? A number of us could test this out while airborne and advise the team of how accurate / inaccurate the algorithm is. I would suggest data for threats detected within an assumed 5nm range are what would be most helpful for most GA operations.
Congratulations Lee & the team on their work so far.
-
Re TCAS.
I have use the TCAS system for many years. Separation is always commanded vertically.
Regarding direction this is only for information, large bearing errors are common
on the display. Two aerials on the top of the fuselage provide this information.
For safe separation with PilotAware we must obay the rules of the air.
Head on both turn right etc.
-
Mmm? Mode C..
With a critical mass of PAW flying an airbourne MLAT capability might offer MODE C target location or at least an approximation. PAW units could share signal strengths of their targets. A bit like using 3 or more bearings to plot a cocked hat when sailing. 3 or more PAW should be able to estimate the position of a Mode C target. A challenge is our DBV-T dongle crystals vary in tuning accuracy and the OGN guys have addressed that by adding an frequency offset in their config file for each unit. They supply a program called "gsm_scan" which allows you to identify the error of your dongle using known local GSM stations. My dongle has an error of +17ppm which is pretty good and appears repeatable. OGN say they can be 50-100 ppm out.
Just trying to get things buzzing again :)
-
Hi all,
It's the calm before the storm.
We have over 300 requests for PilotAware on the hardware site now. Which hopefully means there will be over 300 planes with PAW from day one.
What it's important to remember is that those planes can see eachother regardless of transponder type or fitment.
The post above is interesting as it says "once we get to critical mass, we can triangulate other aircraft"
But of course, once we get to critical mass, we won't need to worry if the other plane is Mode C, Mode S or ADSB, because we'll all see eachother anyway !
-
ADS-B out is not just used by the big boys - fly around Oxford and there are a bunch of Senecas at our levels on a daily basis.
-
There seems to be an "Oxford" around Southampton all the time too!
Or at least there has been every time I've been flying recently.
-
ADS-B out is not just used by the big boys - fly around Oxford and there are a bunch of Senecas at our levels on a daily basis.
Yes Ian, I realise there are light aircraft out there pushing out ADSB, but there is a much higher percentage using 'raw' mode 'C' or 'S' transponders, which PAW already 'sees', but doesn't tell us about!!
As I said above, a lot of these people for various reasons won't buy into PAW and will continue to present a high collision risk, especially if a high level of PAW take up lulls people into a false sense of security.
I don't mean to sound in any way negative, by the way. I am very positive about PAW and would love to see it universally adopted, (then I could ditch my PCAS and PowerFLARM and have all my detection through one box). Just trying to be realistic.
Best regards
Peter
-
Sorry to butt in. I just wanted to ask a one of question. Can FLARM see PAW?
-
Quick answer: No
Longer Answer:
Flarm works 868.3Mhz here, PAW works 869.4 (at least it did with the old ARF). Even if PAW was on the same frequency FLARM would see it at signal interference. PAW cannot see Flarm as their signal is encrypted and they claim unauthorised de-encryption is illegal.
-
What will be fascinating, is whether PAW overtakes the FLARM market at the potential cost the unit can be put together for and with what it can do.
-
What makes you think Flarm is more expensive to produce? They have a business model and they charge what the market will bear right now. Their gear ain't rocket science. If PAW ever becomes a threat they can easily respond with lower prices. And don't forget it is a defacto standard for soar planes across Europe, even mandated by authorities. That's a tough challenge.
-
Flarm and PilotAware are not comparable technologies
Superficially, this may seem to be the case, but there are significant differences.
Flarm clearly have some very smart algorithms for collision prediction and detection whereby the warnings are provided at close quarters due to transmit range locality, this is a typical scenario in the gliding community.
The goal of PilotAware is Traffic Awareness with advance warnings, to enable the pilot to make timely decisions using its improved transmit range capabilities. Vendors such as SkyDemon and others are implementing algorithms to aid prediction based upon traffic data provded by PilotAware, so this can only make safety further improved.
I would be more than happy to add Flarm reception to PilotAware, and of course PilotAware is openly available to be added to Flarm, both of these approaches can only be to the benefit of all airspace users.
Thx
Lee
-
Thanks Lee.
Would you care to respond to the initial posts on this thread.
I'm very keen to know whether you intend to develop a mode C solution or not.
-
Thanks Lee.
Would you care to respond to the initial posts on this thread.
I'm very keen to know whether you intend to develop a mode C solution or not.
Hi Roger,
Work has already started on this, in fact you can see the first part of this in the traffic web interface whereby the signal strength is reported for non-ADSB traffic.
What is still to be done, is the work to try to estimate the range based upon the signal strength, this is a little complex, but not too difficult.
My current plan is to release this as a selectable option in the web interface.
Thx
Lee
-
Hi all,
Lee, glad to hear you are still progressing the mode C/S detection. I appreciate the difficulties in making alerts meaningful, but just feel it's too big a group of aircraft to avoid. When I first bought my PowerFLARM, it was to replace my ZAON PCAS with a unit which can be powered from the plane without wiping out my comms (which the Zaon MRX does if powered from the plane - perfectly OK from its own batteries) and to provide ADSB in. The FLARM part was of interest as we do have a few gliding sites up here in Scotland, but of much less importance than the other two issues.
The development of P3i PAW and its hopefully wide adoption within the GA / microlight / dereg community, especially with ADSB IN and hopefully mode C /S makes it a MUCH more viable option!
Best regards as always
Peter
-
Thanks Lee. That's great to hear that Mode C/S is hot on the agenda and that it will be selectable. Once you get to that point, it will be quite easy for some of us to report back on how well the range algorithm works. There is an area not far away from me where there is always some Mode C/S traffic and on RT. It is therefore quite easy to hear them, visually identify, and comment on whether the appropriate warnings are helpful in an air-air role.
-
That's great news, thanks.
-
Lee,
The Mode C would be a game changer. I am sure I can do some testing for the system I will tell you in a private message what is poss.
Steve
-
Hi !
Living in Italy i will have the possibility to test mode C detection every day because i live between a small airport and a small airfield (and i fly too!). Here ULM and GA are mostly in C-Mode so i can get a lot of data almost every good day to fly.
In addition ADS-B traffic is frequent on my area (i vae a minimum of 2/3 readings every 15 minutes).
Let me know Lee if can help
Federico
-
To return to OPs point about maintaining momentum.
When any team forms it is a common mistake to assume that stuff known by people inside the team is also known outside it.
Two months ago PAW was "the buzz" around my club. Currently no one is talking about it and I can't keep it going because I have nothing new to report other than "they are delayed by CE approval until February".
My I suggest someone in the team adds a progress report to "Latest news" every week to give us something to tell people about? For example info and links to the new transceiver and it's specification would be an obvious start.
Clearly Lee is still improving the SW at breakneck speed e.g. Dynon traffic just appeared.
Lets hear about what is going on chaps. Give us the stuff we need to keep enthusiasm bubbling :)
Steve
-
This is a valid point
We are doing tons of stuff, but not communicating well enough.
I think we need something like a blog just to keep people posted on what is happening internally
I will take an action to write something up
Thx
Lee
-
Hi,
i completely agree on SteveN December post, i am trying to keep focus on PAW in Italy but i need news to post.
Please let us be Aware Pilots ! ;D
Thanks!
Federico
-
Hi
Below is a copy of a post I made in the limited Engineering Group and lets you know that there is still a fair bit of work going on in the background whilst we wait for the certification of the new P3I unit
It will be of more interest to users of EasyVFR as that is the Nav s/w I use and am testing with but others are doing similar testing with S/Demon etc. Hope it is of some interest to some of you.
Hi All
I've had an interesting week or so liaising with Lee and Rob Weigers, (of PocketFMS, the developers of EasyVFR nav software.) to assess how Lee's engineering s/w changes displayed the "Bearingless Targets" in EVFR. Originally these were purely based on the "Flarm" alerts received by EVFR and just displayed as a text list at top left of the screen. Black text when detected and Red text when within 1000ft separation. This did not stand out too well and I initially preferred Lee's approach with S/Demon of the coloured aircraft piggy backed on top of your own a/c. Rob, understandably was not keen to emulate rival software so came up with an amendment to the original list which uses Lee's coloured scale of alerts as background and an increase in text size to the list. (see screenshots) This now realy grabs your attention even in peripheral vision.
I'm going to be lazy now and just copy from an email to Lee/Rob after trying out the beta version of EVFR supplied by Rob.
Hi Rob/Lee
Thanks Rob for the Beta SW version I'm already loving it. Only testing from my window sill just now as the weather is again atrocious here in Scotland. I am now getting Red Alerts from MLAT a/c leaving EGPH before they appear on FR24. (3.4nm SE of airport, window is opposite side of house) On take off they are consistently going through Red, to Amber to Green. There can then be some fluctuation between Green & Amber for a short time and then for a longer period they fluctuate between Green and No Signal as they obviously pass behind obstructions to my line of sight.
Depending on whether they turn toward or away from my position I can follow them on the Green Alert up the edge of the traffic zone (10nm radius) and beyond when they come around to the side of the building which my PAW unit is facing. I can pick up higher altitude over-flying traffic from greater distances on the Green alert but of course this is with parameters set to 30,000ft on PAW and 50,000ft in EVFR so all of these and much of the Amber/Green & Green/No Signal alerts will be filtered out when set to realistic levels so I believe you are onto a winner here. The Mode A, C, S Alerts really stand out now and attract your attention as they pop up or change even in peripheral vision as I'm typing this email. I also like the increase in text label size when the ADSB traffic turns red as this means I can see the changes in altitude easily. I note that in this Beta version I am now no longer able to leave EVFR using it's own GPS and still receive the Flarm service. I now have to have "use Flarm GPS as EVFR GPS" set to on whereas in 3.82 I could choose to leave it off and still get flarm traffic to the screen. I used it this way so that if there was any interruption in the PAW system or its GPS the Nav Software carried on as if nothing had happened. Now I would need to fiddle with removing a glove to be able to change touch settings in EVFR to continue with Navigation only. Not handy in a flexwing. I appreciate that this may be deliberate to ensure both systems are singing from the same hymn sheet (GPS) for separation altitude accuracy so can live with it if I have to.
Hope this helps!!!
I cannot congratulate you guys enough for the effort and results you are obtaining here. I sincerely hope that you get the recognition and benefits that you deserve.
Hopefully below is a link to the screenshots I took of an MLAT equipped a/c leaving EGPH. Not sure if they will be in the correct order but you can follow it's progress from the altitude readings.
https://web.cloud.virginmedia.com/?shareObject=48e62c15-2321-1a9b-01a7-956d1a0e6424
Regards
Alan