1
Technical Support / Re: Pi 2 B version 1.2 not working after new software installed
« on: September 15, 2017, 05:35:46 pm »
Yes, I was insensed 
Show Posts
You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.
2
Technical Support / Re: Pi 2 B version 1.2 not working after new software installed
« on: September 15, 2017, 02:08:47 pm »
Okay - issue was a typo in the license key!
Once that was corrected all the dongles were detected and the date was updated.
Just in case anyone has a similar issue.
Once that was corrected all the dongles were detected and the date was updated.
Just in case anyone has a similar issue.
3
Technical Support / Re: Pi 2 B version 1.2 not working after new software installed
« on: September 15, 2017, 01:32:18 pm »
Further update, the logging shows "license fail" followed by 4 x ### Flash Lx ### entries.
The system time/date is wrong, it shows July 21 2017, but when I googled this is to be expected until a GPS unit is attached, when the date/time should be corrected.
When I installed the software this time I had nothing attached, and I since assumed that the GPS would work and update the date/time, and this would enable the serial to show as valid, but could it be that the software requires the gps to be attached during set up, so it can set the date and THEN validate the serial, and if that isnt the case everything is effectively disabled?
I will try the install again from scratch, this time with everything attached.
The odd thing is that even if the date were 21st July, my license would/should have been valid anyway!
The system time/date is wrong, it shows July 21 2017, but when I googled this is to be expected until a GPS unit is attached, when the date/time should be corrected.
When I installed the software this time I had nothing attached, and I since assumed that the GPS would work and update the date/time, and this would enable the serial to show as valid, but could it be that the software requires the gps to be attached during set up, so it can set the date and THEN validate the serial, and if that isnt the case everything is effectively disabled?
I will try the install again from scratch, this time with everything attached.
The odd thing is that even if the date were 21st July, my license would/should have been valid anyway!
4
Technical Support / Pi 2 B version 1.2 not working after new software installed
« on: September 15, 2017, 01:17:48 pm »
I have a self built PAW unit, with v1.2 of the Pi2B.
When I built it the current 'normal' PAW didnt support the v1.2 and I obtained the latest code which did support it, this was back in Feb and I assumed that the new released software would work on both.
However, I have just done a clean install of 20170721, and it seems I still need a 'special' version to work with the v1.2 pi's? I say this because the software doesnt recognise anything plugged into it, 5 red squares (ads-b, TRX and GPS all show as disconnected/unavailable.
Could someone please confirm this is the case, and send me a link to the latest working software?
Thanks
Mark
PS By 'clean install' I mean that I removed all the partitions and re-formatted the SD card (after copying down my config).
When I built it the current 'normal' PAW didnt support the v1.2 and I obtained the latest code which did support it, this was back in Feb and I assumed that the new released software would work on both.
However, I have just done a clean install of 20170721, and it seems I still need a 'special' version to work with the v1.2 pi's? I say this because the software doesnt recognise anything plugged into it, 5 red squares (ads-b, TRX and GPS all show as disconnected/unavailable.
Could someone please confirm this is the case, and send me a link to the latest working software?
Thanks
Mark
PS By 'clean install' I mean that I removed all the partitions and re-formatted the SD card (after copying down my config).
5
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 30, 2017, 12:07:08 pm »
No, I still dont get it. Perhaps it is just because I have always flown club cessnas that I have been used to always having transponders. Also that I have never had to share uncontrolled airspace with CAT at normal bimbling locations or altitudes (here and abroad).
Turning down the volume in my case is pointless, because I wanted PAW mainly for conspicuancy and awareness in and around my local area, being in and around CAS and therefore in and around rat runs. If I only turned up the audio when not in the vicinity of CAT then I would be missing all those alerts.
I will continue to use PAW but not the audio function as, unfortunately, traffic into and out of LHR and LGW is continuous and I would only want to know about other GA as I, personally, do not need to be warned about potential conflict with that traffic.
Turning down the volume in my case is pointless, because I wanted PAW mainly for conspicuancy and awareness in and around my local area, being in and around CAS and therefore in and around rat runs. If I only turned up the audio when not in the vicinity of CAT then I would be missing all those alerts.
I will continue to use PAW but not the audio function as, unfortunately, traffic into and out of LHR and LGW is continuous and I would only want to know about other GA as I, personally, do not need to be warned about potential conflict with that traffic.
6
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 30, 2017, 10:28:34 am »
Mark,
You seem to be missing the point. We are NOT busting controlled airspace. We are flying perfectly legally in class G airspace, but are, responsibly, letting ATC know where we are by transponding and using the listening squawk to let them know that they can, if necessary, call up and speak to us or advise us of (usually) inbounds, which drop to 2,500 ft as they approach and enter the east stub of the CTA.
I am sure I am still missing something, what does PAW have to do with listening squawks and transponding, unless you do not have a radio equipped with a transponder? If not, then obviously I see the value to you of that, but still not sure what the real value is of you being able to see CAT traffic via PAW, or worse (from my perspective) getting audio alerts about CAT traffic.
I trust the airspace classification to keep me (in class G) adequately separated from CAT (in CAS). As you said, if there is an emergency and ATC need to route CAT through class G, then if they can talk to me or see me, it is obviously beneficial, to THEM. If they could do neither then I am confident they would route the emergency so as not to conflict with me, based on unknown intentions etc. I would not need PAW to save me from a collision in that scenario, I do not believe? ATC would not route that traffic close enough to me to cause even a risk D airprox?
7
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 30, 2017, 09:05:09 am »Mark,
You have certainly opened a can of worms ! Whilst I fully appreciate your comments if operating only in the vicinity of such large and closely controlled airports as Heathrow and Gatwick, I can assure you that in the wider world, Commercial Aircraft regularly operate outside controlled airspace at levels where they can easily come into conflict with GA, including Microlight or Glider traffic operating perfectly legally within the same uncontrolled airspace environment. Using the listening squawks, we regularly hear our local ATC advise in or outbound CAT of the presence of uncontrolled GA traffic and if requested by ATC are happy to exchange information with them regarding our proposed routing, maximum altitude etc. which allows ATC to guide the descent of the inbound aircraft to our mutual benefit and with minimum disruption to either.
I consider the ability to see CAT traffic on screen as well as all other electronically visible traffic to be an essential part of PilotAware's armoury. I could give you many instances where it has already proved mutually beneficial. As ADSB targets are clearly visible and trackable from a long way out, their presence on screen has in my experience never proved detrimental and PilotAware's audio alerts for known position targets are well refined and extremely unlikely to cause major interference, though in your case being so close to Heathrow, I accept that you might want to keep the volume setting low.
Regards
Peter
Yes, I can see how for some it is useful or even essential, but again within your examples above we can see ATC have much better sight of possible conflicts, and will advise and route CAT accordingly. That GA traffic is not in danger of being hit by an airliner, and I would also suggest that the pilot of the GA aircraft is either so lost/confused, or so irresponsible that if they had a PAW device I do not think it would have stopped them busting CAS. I also do not think ATC would be altering the inbound course of CAT to fit in with you
A wider issue here which I think it pertinent is that us pilots who have bought PAW, or are thinking about it, are already conscientious enough to be at low risk of busting CAS and ever putting ourselves in any danger (not that I think there is any danger for reasons previously given) of collision with CAT. We will be using radios, talking or listening to the relevant units, have transponders, be using nav software, most likely of the moving map variety, have planned routes etc etc. I am not ruling out that we might bust CAS, but again we will likely discover that via our GPS software, or having ATC telling us. IMO obviously
8
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 30, 2017, 08:51:30 am »https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Annual-Airprox-summary-reports/
Knock yourself out
I picked one report at random and there were 13 CAT v GA in a six month period Jan - Jun 2005, 19 in the same period in 2006, so yes they do happen. I am struggling to pick out the same stats for 2015, though there is a lot more data and analysis.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
It is heavy reading and I havent found the specific section within that report, but moving through it in the CAT section there were zero risk A incidents, and a bit further along, among the causal factors there were only 3 of the total airprox incidents attributed to the pilot not seeing the other traffic. That is for all the CAT incidents, not CAT v GA. So I could equally take that as proof CAT v GA, caused by not being able to see the other traffic and needing proximity warnings, is not a problem I need to be worried about.
To reiterate, as PAW does pick up airliners, and if some people do feel they NEED those warnings, then that is fine. I am simply suggesting that not only do I feel I do not need to be warned about CAT, being warned about CAT where I fly will likely prevent me from enabling aural warnings, so having the option to turn that off would be a significant enhancement.
When I operate in the South East, I am much more concerned about traffic using the rat runs avoiding Heathrow and Gatwick airspace, an was the primary reason I decided to buy PAW. I still consider it a worthy purchase
9
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 29, 2017, 08:15:54 pm »
What I don't understand is that you are not using audio alerts, so how is the display of CAT on SD et al, causing an issue?
It isnt causing a problem. This wasnt a problem report, but an enhancement idea - being able to disable CAT alerts for those of us utterly unconcerned about bumping into traffic being controlled by ATC into Heathrow or Gatwick. Apart from anything else, I'd be upset if I didnt spot an airliner on a collision course.
Does anyone have any info on airprox incidents between CAT and GA aircraft, say for the last 20 years? I am surprised that PAW considers such avoidance a feature, never mind as a primary purpose
10
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 29, 2017, 06:24:53 pm »I regularly fly my SEP through Gatwick and Stansted airspace. Simply using the altitude filters to remove stuff well above me means than I can use PAW to watch the traffic on final and be ready for the crossing clearance because I have the "big picture". The one annoyance is that the audio alerts keep warning me about traffic 10km away and there is no distance filter. If it's more than 3km away, I don't want an audio alert - it will never be an immediate safety concern to me, and unless it's a 747, I won't even be able to see it!
I havent tried using the audio alerts in PAW yet, and it is precisely the commercial traffic into and out of Heathrow and Gatwick which would stop me using it. If I were getting constant audio alerts they would lose their impact, or I would stop using them, which again makes the option of somehow filtering out commercial traffic an "enhancement" for me.
My only concern is to see, and be seen by, other GA bimbling around. I assume your crossing clearances at Gatwick and Stanstead factor in any wake turbulence potential? I can possibly see how using PAW for commercial traffic may be useful in that very very limited scenario, but again its not the raison d'etre for PAW afaik.
11
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 29, 2017, 12:40:06 pm »
I operate between Heathrow and Gatwick, so I know all about low level commercial aircraft, however these operate within strictly controlled zones/cta/tmas etc, and GA should be never busting that airspace, and if we did ATC would be routing traffic away from us. When we do get permission to fly in/through those zones it is via agreed limits/routes which do not impact on their traffic.
Any airfield within or under CTAs will also have set limits on their operations so conflicting with commercial traffic is nigh on impossible, and again, if you did somehow fly outside those limits and come into potential conflict, you wont need PAW to help you avoid that traffic, ATC will be doing that before you even know you have busted airspace.
Unless I am missing something?
Or lets put it another way, PAW is for GA to avoid conflicts with other GA traffic, not airliners, right?
Now, I accept that this may not be possible due to PAW simply detecting ADSB and not being able to determine whether that is a 787 or just a spamcan with ADSB enabled, but that is a different issue from GA traffic NEEDING to be warned about airliners operating in and out of our major airports. It is also something which Nav software can potentially do, based on track (into a major airport for example).
There may be other scenarios where a PAW user is in danger of conflicting with commercial traffic too, which I havent thought of, but even so, an option to turn off/on the traffic, if it were possible, would be an "enhancement" from my perspective.
Any airfield within or under CTAs will also have set limits on their operations so conflicting with commercial traffic is nigh on impossible, and again, if you did somehow fly outside those limits and come into potential conflict, you wont need PAW to help you avoid that traffic, ATC will be doing that before you even know you have busted airspace.
Unless I am missing something?
Or lets put it another way, PAW is for GA to avoid conflicts with other GA traffic, not airliners, right?
Now, I accept that this may not be possible due to PAW simply detecting ADSB and not being able to determine whether that is a 787 or just a spamcan with ADSB enabled, but that is a different issue from GA traffic NEEDING to be warned about airliners operating in and out of our major airports. It is also something which Nav software can potentially do, based on track (into a major airport for example).
There may be other scenarios where a PAW user is in danger of conflicting with commercial traffic too, which I havent thought of, but even so, an option to turn off/on the traffic, if it were possible, would be an "enhancement" from my perspective.
12
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: March 29, 2017, 09:40:54 am »
Not sure if this has been mentioned in the previous pages, or is feasible, but aside from when testing, or just being interested watching the traffic, would there be any way to exclude commercial traffic? There is no reason any of us needing to be warned about airliners operating in and out of our major airports.
This may be something that needs to be worked on, on the nav app side, where it may be easier to filter out traffic within the major airspace, or be able to use more complex algorithms.
This may be something that needs to be worked on, on the nav app side, where it may be easier to filter out traffic within the major airspace, or be able to use more complex algorithms.
13
General Discussion / Re: Track analysis tool?
« on: March 28, 2017, 10:55:26 am »
Sorry, yes, I meant the bearingless warnings which are the mode s/c settings.
I did have these configured, but I'm not 100% I reenabled this when I got back my faulty unit and reinstalled everything. I will check, as that would explain it.
Thanks
Mark
I did have these configured, but I'm not 100% I reenabled this when I got back my faulty unit and reinstalled everything. I will check, as that would explain it.
Thanks
Mark
14
General Discussion / Re: Track analysis tool?
« on: March 28, 2017, 08:09:06 am »
I have tested again this morning, when I replay the track I can see LHR and Gatwick traffic. I dont know if I was zoomed in too far previously, or I can now see traffic in SD because I have all the dongles connected.
Anyhow, is this to be expected.. I know there was non-commercial activity around fairoaks, and would expect movements at biggin and farnborough, even though it was early on Saturday.. ADSB warnings at least?
Anyhow, is this to be expected.. I know there was non-commercial activity around fairoaks, and would expect movements at biggin and farnborough, even though it was early on Saturday.. ADSB warnings at least?
15
General Discussion / Re: Track analysis tool?
« on: March 27, 2017, 05:53:12 pm »
I have opened the trk file in notepad++ and I can see traffic in there, so I know that was working.
The other question that now raises is; is the traffic logged as per the SD settings - ie only within 3000' height difference, or does the trk capture everything it sees and SD filter out stuff outside its settings.
Would still like the track analysis app too
The other question that now raises is; is the traffic logged as per the SD settings - ie only within 3000' height difference, or does the trk capture everything it sees and SD filter out stuff outside its settings.
Would still like the track analysis app too