PilotAware
British Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keithvinning on September 21, 2016, 03:49:41 pm
-
A PilotAware unit has been installed at Wellesbourn Airfield Control Tower and is running during the week whilst the airfield is open. Its a PiB+ running as a transmitting ground station with the name WELLESBOURNE GND. If your passing give them a call and let them know that you are also PilotAware. Several other pilots at Wellesbourne have installed or are installing PilotAware so the unit in the tower is a very useful addition for the controllers there.
Several other Airfields are interested in setting up similar ground stations. If you are interested please let us know.
Keith
-
I have said before that I'm not keen on Airfields transmitting while there is no way of filtering out the audio from stationary targets. There is enough clutter on the audio channel as it is, and it will grow as more people fit PAW and ADSB. The most likely place for a mid-air is in the vicinity of an airfield, so the less spurious alerting the better, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Hi Graham as always you have a valid point.
If the alert becomes a problem then it can very easily switched off by the ground station. Others have a different view that's why we have made it selectable.
At Wellesbourne a check can be made to see if it is a real problem. I will be doing some tests over the next week to see if it is a problem with the tower transmitting P3I and the aircraft on approach getting a warning and when. The reason for the post was to let people know that there is a PilotAware there if they wanted to visit this brilliant and centrally located airfield with the best cafe available. At the moment at most airfields Binoculars are used, plus possibly a feed from Flight Radar 24 to pick you up if you have a transponder (but Flight Radar MLAT does not show you below 3000ft) and not at all if you don't have a transponder. So much better to declare yourself as inbound PilotAware and the controller saying yes have EC contact.
In my experience so far, when I am on approach I get bearing less alerts from ground based mode C/S which I register. As PIC I am concentrating on landing with a very alert and double portion of visual scan as pedestrians, birds, dogs and FOD (Foreign Objects and Debris) don't transmit anything and on local friendly farm strips and some unlicensed airfields circuit patterns are........ ahem local.
Recently an aircraft at Long Marston made an incorrect call of "Finals 20" instead of "Finals 02" which could have been tricky at an international airfield, fortunately the others in the area recognised the mistake because they had a double portion of visual scan on landing.
The moral of the story Visual Scan. The culprit of the mistaken radio call ME!! the person who noticed LEE MOORE and DOMINIC flying with PilotAware. Not ideal and I have been eating humble pie since. :o
So lets get some empirical data and publish the findings. In the meantime recognise that at the moment PilotAware will do its job and let you know that aircraft transmitting mode C/S are about, which is information that the PIC should use in any decision. If anyone feels that they cannot use this information wisely or it is overloading them please SWITCH IT OFF until you become more aware and competent.
In the end we will all benefit. Graham thanks for the post, any other views on Ground Stations at Airfields and Airstrips?
Keith
-
I can fully understand an airfield wanting to get a PAW to give them a view of their traffic. I think it would be great my local field.
It does raise an interesting question around how someone on the ground should react if they can see two converging ADSB targets, both on station, but neither able to see one another visually and neither with PAW. Where is the line drawn between advising aircraft of traffic, strongly advising an aircraft that a particular manœuvre is required to avoid a potential collision, and quasi-controlling by issuing advisory 'instructions' to ensure separation or avoidance of noise sensitive areas.
Some discipline willl be required by a/g operators to avoid attracting attention from the CAA.
-
I was climbing out at Rougham the other day and there was a plane scooting along, about 100 yds to the side of the runway, dead side, at about 700'
I think he was about 700' as he was below me.
The nice man on the ground gave me some traffic information, but certainly didn't give me any instructions or anything other than information.
I think anyone who is the ground part of A/G usually knows what they're doing.
(PilotAware wasn't in use, it was just MK1 eyeball)
-
The nice man on the ground gave me some traffic information, but certainly didn't give me any instructions or anything other than information.
I think anyone who is the ground part of A/G usually knows what they're doing.
Usually may be the case, but we all know that what constitutes A/G varies widely from place to place and there are those whose bossiness constitues near-controlling. There is also no requirement to have any visual contact with the outside world to provide an A/G service. It can be done from a windowless office.
I hold an A/G Cert of Competence, but I do hope, were we to get a PAW at my home field (and I'm encouraging the management to consider it) that I'd never be tempted to use it for more than stuational awareness to enhance any information provided.
-
Why would a ground based PAW need to transmit if the purpose was just to monitor arrivals, aircraft in the vicinity and general situational awareness?
Tony Nowak
-
The nice man on the ground gave me some traffic information, but certainly didn't give me any instructions or anything other than information.
I think anyone who is the ground part of A/G usually knows what they're doing.
Usually may be the case, but we all know that what constitutes A/G varies widely from place to place and there are those whose bossiness constitues near-controlling. There is also no requirement to have any visual contact with the outside world to provide an A/G service. It can be done from a windowless office.
I hold an A/G Cert of Competence, but I do hope, were we to get a PAW at my home field (and I'm encouraging the management to consider it) that I'd never be tempted to use it for more than stuational awareness to enhance any information provided.
I think if an A/G person is thinking they are a controller, then the situation is dangerous way before you consider PAW. It's a completely separate issue.
-
Hi All
Coming back to the issue of whether a basestation should transmit or not, the background to this was that a basestation could in effect have 2 potential usages
Firstly as a pure receiver, secondly as a transceiver.
I envisaged a Pure Receiver as my own PilotAware sat at home when not in use capturing ADS-B & P3I and feeding into a server
(oops, did I mention a server!)
I envisaged a Transceiver as a Dynamic Obstacle, which pops up temporarily, for example a crane.
Now a Control Tower fits into neither of these categories _really_ so thinking on this a bit further, I am wondering
if PilotAware needs to have a set of checkboxes to indicate, what transmitting sources are sent to your audio and navigation device.
in which case if you uncheck, Basestation - the data would only be held internally and never exposed over any interface, either audio or visual
This still does not address the central question of purpose, but does address the issue of map clutter.
-
Why would a ground based PAW need to transmit if the purpose was just to monitor arrivals, aircraft in the vicinity and general situational awareness?
Tony Nowak
Hi Tony they wouldn't have to transmit at all if all they wanted to do is receive. That is why we have included the facility to turn it off. Flexibility.
I know that one customer has used his PilotAware set up as a temporary ground station to act as a beacon for a summer fly in which was quite innovative.
I don't see transmitting ground stations becoming prolific but they could be useful. Temporary cranes and wind Farms?
Keith
-
Is there a way I can get rid of all the clutter that could be stopping PAW doing what it was conceived for - airborne collision avoidance?
Great as these additional ideas for using PAW are they could well be a big distraction to a very busy pilot and totally the opposite of what is needed.
There are possible problems brewing with 'authorities' - especially if they intrude into CAA ATC territory with use of an illegal cheap handheld tranciever, almost into the 'Maplin Muppet' drone/laser problem areas.
-
I can't think of any benefit of having a Tower installed PAW transmitting it's location (other than initial testing perhaps), screen clutter and extra audio warnings are the negatives as mentioned above.
The location of the tower / aerodrome is already displayed and audio warnings of impending collision with the tower hopefully won't be required.
An option to turn off the display and audio relation to base station would be useful.
Although..... I wonder if a base station could be used as a pseudo NDB beacon / DME for practicing procedures at ones local air field with an associated PAW app ;-)
Deker.
-
Hi All
Coming back to the issue of whether a basestation should transmit or not, the background to this was that a basestation could in effect have 2 potential usages
Firstly as a pure receiver, secondly as a transceiver.
I envisaged a Pure Receiver as my own PilotAware sat at home when not in use capturing ADS-B & P3I and feeding into a server
(oops, did I mention a server!)
I envisaged a Transceiver as a Dynamic Obstacle, which pops up temporarily, for example a crane.
Now a Control Tower fits into neither of these categories _really_ so thinking on this a bit further, I am wondering
if PilotAware needs to have a set of checkboxes to indicate, what transmitting sources are sent to your audio and navigation device.
in which case if you uncheck, Basestation - the data would only be held internally and never exposed over any interface, either audio or visual
This still does not address the central question of purpose, but does address the issue of map clutter.
Sounds like a very good option Lee. That would allow pilots to decide for themselves whether they want to receive ground based transmitting stations or not. Puts the decision making power back into the hands of the pilots, which is where it should be. Good call!!
Regards
Peter
-
Very good option if the ground stations are set up to be as such.
Is it (could it be) a default 'manufacturers' option to set all PAW's as ground stations and only be active otherwise when the flying machines data is entered?
John
-
I flew in to Wellesbourne yesterday. Unfortunately I didn't have my tablet with me, but I had my PAW transmitting away. I didn't ask the FISO if he saw me though.
-
Hi Paul
The PilotAware Champion at Wellesbourne is Jon who works Monday to Friday. Think he is waiting until he has written up instructions for the weekend crew before it is a 7 day a week operation.
Keith
-
Definitely like the idea of being able to filter out ground stations but my preference would be as follows:
1) All ground stations begin with a specific code or 'call sign' - this way easy visual filtering is possible (hard set in the software?)
2) Audio alerts disabled for ground stations
3) Different visual picture (SkyDemon user) for ground stations
It'd be great to see and pickup some ground stations on my travels!
Thanks
Rob
-
I set mine to 'BASE' followed by postcode. 'GROUND-NN4' looked too much like a G- registration at a quick glance.
-
Unless you are running a fly-in at a difficult-to-spot strip that isn't in the normal nav. software databases, I cannot think of one good reason for have a base station transmitting at an airfield. It's just clutter.
I don't want the other potentially useful symbology on my SkyDemon chart obscured by a completely unnecessary blob, particularly if I'm going to get warnings from it, audio or otherwise.
[/grumpy rant over :)]
-
Not just airfields - anywhere not actually a flight safety factor is clutter. I did not think PAW was a toy Grump Grump Grump - can the CAA give me my medical back soon and Grumps will subside :'(
John
-
I understand your concerns but personally have a specific reason for wanting them - testing the PAW installation and setup. If we have known base stations at locations and airfields and we are on the ground or flying overhead - to and from etc - I can see the detection and if I being obscured from the front, side etc due to placement.
I know it won't be perfect but at the moment I don't see any way of testing the setup and other than assuming it is working. With known locations you would be raising an eyebrow should they not appear in SkyDemon, PAW etc.
-
How much testing is needed? After testing a fixed station is no longer required?
-
I understand your concerns but personally have a specific reason for wanting them - testing the PAW installation and setup. If we have known base stations at locations and airfields and we are on the ground or flying overhead - to and from etc - I can see the detection and if I being obscured from the front, side etc due to placement.
I know it won't be perfect but at the moment I don't see any way of testing the setup and other than assuming it is working. With known locations you would be raising an eyebrow should they not appear in SkyDemon, PAW etc.
I can see how testing could be useful, but until we have a way of selectively ignoring base stations, I think inconveniencing the many for the sake of the few is the wrong way to go. I tested mine in a mutual test session with another PAW user at my field. We did 10 minutes on the ground, then went airborne. That's a lot different to having it bleating for 10 hours a day on the basis that someone might want to do some testing sometime.
I don't want to appear overly aggressive about this, but equally the idea that we start deploying PAWs to help us navigate is also just nonsense (you haven't said it, but one or two others have). It's an avoidance device, not a homing device. By definition we all have much better means of navigation right there on our traffic displays!
-
Just a vote of support for the comments by Graham and John(gvpsj)
-
Completely agree with being able to 'block' base stations - I think that may have been mentioned in another thread so I was taking that as a given rather than specifying it - so I do agree!
In regards to testing - As its such a new product and every plane is different - I get to fly four different planes at the club. I have no practical way of making sure my PAW is in the correct place or it is still working over time - I've seen quite a few threads with issues with the ADSB aerial - now I know this won't have any affect on the base stations as they would be PAW signals but it all helps. I also think it then stops being a product for people who want to tinker and guess it's working(I've seen quite a few threads with people thinking that).
If it's configurable and easy to see its doing its job, the more people will adopt the technology! IMO.
-
Just a vote of support for the comments by Graham and John(gvpsj)
+1