Messages

2551

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: May 02, 2016, 10:08:22 am »

Steve,

As I said above, great respect is due to all the guys like yourself who took that leap of faith and came on board at such an early stage. Without your work and testing down the ARF route, PAW might not have become the extremely powerful safety aid it now promises to be.

Looking forward to a very positive future and to helping Lee & Co's investment bear fruit!

Best regards

Peter

2552

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: May 02, 2016, 09:32:38 am »

Hi Bill,

ADSB in only PAW is far better than FR24 as the aircraft you are seeing on your main 'nav' screen via Skydemon, EasyVFR etc are 'live' from the aircraft's transmitter antenna direct to your PAW receiver, and are not therefore subject to delays or gaps in FR24 coverage. That was what Chris (Moffrestorer) was reminding me of by 'we beta testers at least have ADSB capability for now.' He is of course correct and having the beta engineering software in my main unit (which can also detect mode 'S' - though only as a bearingless target) gives me an added bonus, so I should really count my blessings.

Definitely back in the fold.

Best regards

Peter

2553

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:25:54 pm »

Hi SteveN

Fortunately, I got involved in PAW just after the 'State of the Union Address' and so managed to avoid the 'ARF crisis'. Undeterred, I proceeded to build an ADSB PAW unit to run alongside my ADSB out Trig TT21. I was so impressed (e.g. by being able to tell my local ATC that... 'I can see the inbound traffic on my cockpit display'), that I went on to build a total of 4 to date (2 on Pi B+ and 2 on Pi 2B) to allow me to assess PAW's ADSB effectiveness using different component and antenna configurations and, after discussion with Lee and others at Flyer Live, to carry out fairly extensive testing on Mode C/S transponder signal alerts as part of the Engineering Sub Group.

I was delighted when the PAW team announced that those of you who went down the early ARF route would receive a rebate against the new RF Bridge to compensate you for your wasted outlay. In my opinion this was a gracious demonstration by the PAW Team of their appreciation for the work yourself and the other early beta testers had carried out. I of course will not benefit from any such discount when I buy my RF Bridge boards, but had the comfort of knowing that having registered my interest on the PAW Hardware site as soon as it went live, I should be offered the chance to buy a Bridge (initially just 1 - I'm not greedy) soon after they become available, to allow me to continue testing and demonstrating PAW to potential buyers.


Chris,

Yes it looks like commercial pressures and possibly also pressure of numbers (both of course good for PAW and in the long term therefore good for all of us) may have overridden the PAW Team's original intentions. If so it looks like we will just have to grin and bear it. PAW is still in my opinion the No.1 situational awareness tool for GA - and I have tried most, so I guess we will just have to let events take their course. At least I now have the satisfaction, such as it is, of knowing that my recollection of what was promised was correct.

Rant now over and toys firmly back in the Pram!

Best regards to both and to Lee and the Team for their hard work.

Peter

2554

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: May 01, 2016, 01:53:11 am »

Of more immediate concern - your 'press release' implies that those of us who continued testing ADSB only units or doing Mode C/S development work and demonstrating / promoting PAW whilst waiting for the new Bridge will only be offered Bridges 'at the back of the queue' after the first 500 full kits have been put together, i.e. some two weeks after the first fully functional kits are released. This is in direct conflict with the fact that we were told from the start that all enquiries/sales would be dealt with strictly in order of registration on the PilotAwareHarware site and seems a bit of a harsh way to treat your loyal band of long-term testers!

This is not something that I recognise as the pilotawarehardware.com site registration was for communication when the units were available not for an allocation basis. To do this we would have had to distinguished between an enquiry and a sale by taking money which is something that we didn't want to do until we have product available.

I hope that this makes it clearer. More information will be available over the next week.

Keith Vinning
PilotAware Team

Keith,

I hate to labour the point but still feel a great sense of injustice on behalf of all the loyal beta testers who put their own time and money behind the project to further the testing and development of PAW and who have also been enthusiastically active unpaid ambassadors, demonstrating and advertising the product, encouraging people onto the PAW and Hardware websites, answering queries and supporting others through the forum or face to face over the past months without any thought whatsoever of reward - other than that by doing so we were helping to contribute to air safety and hopefully supporting and lightening the load of the 'Development Team'.

My original concern on reading your 'Press Release' was, as previously stated, based on my clear understanding from statements made during the presentations at Flyer Live that registration on the Hardware website would prioritise the allocation of kits or Bridges when they became available, thus ensuring that those who signed up early could expect to receive new RF boards or kits from the early batch.

From your reply, I was beginning to think I had imagined this, and was resigned to putting it down to failing memory, until I came across the report in the News section of the PilotAware Hardware site this evening, issued following Flyer Live, which clearly bears out my original contention.

Introductory Prices published
Posted by administrator on December 01, 2015  /   Posted in Uncategorized
We decided not to do a “Flyer Show Live special price”, we decided not to do a “PilotAware Forum members special price”, we decided to do an introductory price for everyone !

Register your email address on any of the “email me when in stock” buttons on the site. Either on the front page or on the products.

When we are ready to ship we will send you an email that stock is available.

We will do this in strict registration order, so register your email today.

Whilst not expecting any reward, we were as early adopters who signed up as soon as the Hardware site came on line, at least assured prioritisation when the new RF units became available, over those who simply sat and waited for others to do all the work.

I fully appreciate that the significant time taken to bring development of the new RF Bridge to market may have produced commercial pressures leading you to change your priorities, but am disappointed that this may mean early adopters like myself who registered immediately the Hardware site went live, having to wait even longer to complete fully working PAW units if for any reason we are unable to place formal orders as soon as the 'shop' goes live.

Nevertheless, as I have said many times, I remain supportive of the project though I will be disappointed if this situation cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

Best regards

Peter

2555

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: April 29, 2016, 08:38:46 pm »

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your very open and comprehensive reply. As I said, I wasn't complaining, just getting a bit frustrated I suppose and possibly reading between the lines a bit and getting answers which weren't actually there. It's all much clearer now and I must say the intention to extend all beta licences 'til 30th April 2017 is a very generous and unexpected bonus.

As AlanG says, there was no criticism of the PAW Team intended whatsoever.  I know how hard you guys have all been working and certainly don't envy your daily 'juggling',  never mind the logistical nightmare of releasing a new and heavily anticipated product into such an enthusiastic market. I will try to restrain myself, but can hardly wait to get the full system running so I can show all those I've 'demo'd' the ADSB-only PAW to over recent months how effective it actually is in its fully functional form (and also so I can see AlanG sneaking up on ME for a change!!).  I even have an Air Avionics F---m dipole (left over from my now redundant -because it never worked properly - PowerFl--m) ready fitted and sitting waiting to connect up to my new PAW Bridge as soon as I can get it installed !

Keep up the good work, you have my full support as always.

Best regards

Peter

2556

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: April 29, 2016, 01:48:44 am »

If you built a PAW after this [State of the Union Address] date (so its currently ADSB only) then you will need a new Bridge and licence to pick up the P3i signals.

Keith Vinning
PilotAware Team

Keith,

Please understand this is not a complaint, I am merely seeking clarification to avoid confusion later as your answer to Alan G above didn't make this point clear.

I fully appreciate that those of us who built and continued testing using ADSB only PAW(s) after the 'State of the Union Address' need to buy new Bridges to transmit and receive the PAW P3i signals. After the 'SOU' this was always going to be the case. Like Alan G  however, I had understood that our existing 'beta development licences' would continue to work until their one year expiry date. Am I now right in understanding that these beta licences will ONLY continue to be valid for ADSB ONLY PAWs and that if/when we fit a new Bridge, the development licence will fall and we will have to purchase new 'full' licences to make the Bridges operational?

Of more immediate concern - your 'press release' implies that those of us who continued testing ADSB only units or doing Mode C/S development work and demonstrating / promoting PAW whilst waiting for the new Bridge will only be offered Bridges 'at the back of the queue' after the first 500 full kits have been put together, i.e. some two weeks after the first fully functional kits are released. This is in direct conflict with the fact that we were told from the start that all enquiries/sales would be dealt with strictly in order of registration on the PilotAwareHarware site and seems a bit of a harsh way to treat your loyal band of long-term testers!

Or am I misreading the 'press release'?

Best regards as always

Peter R

2557

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: April 29, 2016, 12:22:23 am »

Hi Bill,

This is the link you need http://forum.pilotaware.com/index.php/topic,156.0.html.

It can also be found under 'Beta Licences' from the 'Home' screen.

Best regards

Peter R

2558

General Discussion / Re: First Time Booting

« on: April 28, 2016, 05:47:42 pm »

My Zaon MRX probably saved my bacon several years ago when I could so easily have had a mid-air with a glider close to Cranfield en-route to Duxford. Finally spotted it about 200metres away at same level and on my RHS. Now I don't know whether the Zaon could detect Flarm or whether the glider was carrying a Mode C transponder, but it did alert me that something was there and it was devilishly hard to spot in the overcast conditions.

Hi again Moff,

Me likewise - I have been warned on several occasions of potential near misses since I first fitted my MRX 7 years ago, - hence why I have been doing test work for Lee on Mode 'C' / 'S' detection over the last few months to try to help get that included in PAW's arsenal. FYI the ZAON MRX detects Mode 'C' and Mode 'S' transponders ONLY - so the glider must have been transponder equipped - rare in my experience so you were very lucky.

Detection of FLARM signals by PAW would be great, but as the transmitted FLARM data is encrypted, transmitted at extremely low power and decryption is prohibited under FLARM's patents, I would be surprised if Lee could provide any meaningful information from it other than that there is a transmitter out there somewhere! I think trying to estimate range from such a low power signal would prove extremely inaccurate.

Nice thought though!

Best regards

Peter R

2559

General Discussion / Re: Quick build for this weekend, or borrow.

« on: April 28, 2016, 09:16:08 am »

Hi Paul,

Don't know if you have read this thread about the Pi Zero http://forum.pilotaware.com/index.php/topic,263.0.html    It appears not to be viable for PAW at present.

I realise it's frustrating having to wait, but as Dave Styles says the full release PAW is now only weeks away it's probably better to wait rather than try and demo something that's not fully operational.

Best regards

Peter

2560

General Discussion / Re: When willl the PAW be ready?

« on: April 14, 2016, 11:14:06 am »

Hi Julian,

I spoke to the BMAA Tech Office about their 'Non-certified ADSB out' modification approval procedure a couple of weeks ago as I'm still trying to get my own ADSB- Out setup formally approved. They are still working up the procedure and paperwork, hence the suggestion to use a 'standard mod application form' meantime until they get a 'standard minor mod' finalised.

To support work previously done by Steve Hutt (with his FASVIG hat on), I confirmed how easy it is to provide a screen grab from the PAW traffic log to show SDA and SIL = 0, (which we currently need to be able to prove) providing of course that your transponder can be correctly configured to these settings. Rob M seemed suitably impressed at how easy this is, though it does of course require access to someone local with an operational ADSB in PAW - preferably when your Inspector is present so (s)/he can see the result for her/himself - (though this wasn't actually stated). The 'Testing' PAW doesn't even need to be in an aircraft. I showed screen grabs to my own local inspector taken from a PAW on the ground and he was also impressed at how easy it is to obtain the necessary proof of SIL and SDA and is up for confirming local mods.

Rob M did ask if I would be prepared to assist with any local (South Scotland) applications and I said I would be pleased to help get things moving (and in doing so prove PAW's effectiveness in this role). Hopefully the BMAA will get the standard minor mod sorted shortly so we can all move forward in a more simple fashion.
 
Regards
Peter

2561

General Discussion / Re: New CAA low power portable ADS-B device spec

« on: March 29, 2016, 01:21:28 am »

I would also suggest that disabling a perfectly good Mode-S transponder would remove the advantage of providing ATC with your aircraft Callsign which aids them contacting you either on receiving a service or using a listening squawk.

I totally agree Alan.

But you are sending it in your E.S transmission.

That's correct John, but as NATS/ATC apparently can't receive ADS-B outside the south east of England, being able to get your call sign from your Mode 'S' transmission is essential for the listening squawk system to work properly throughout the rest of the U.K.! I had personal experience of this recently when passing below the TMA under Edinburgh's Base Leg and squawking the listening squawk, (while carrying out some PAW Mode 'S' tests). Edinburgh called me to confirm my max altitude and intended route when two ADS-B equipped airliners requested immediate descent above me due to severe icing on approach. Fortunately, thanks to PAW / SD I could see them coming so was already aware of the possible conflict as soon as I heard their request on the radio and was able to advise that I would stay below 2,000ft allowing Edinburgh to descend both airliners immediately to 3,000ft, both passing close above me on their approach. Unfortunately LPAT wouldn't have been much help here as presumably neither ATC or the CAT traffic would pick it up (assuming it runs SDA/SIL '0' as we have been told ADS-B with non-cert GPS has to).

Regards

Peter

2562

General Discussion / Re: New CAA low power portable ADS-B device spec

« on: March 27, 2016, 09:28:48 am »

How can it be a ADS-B transmitting device when it does not transmit ADS-B messages (PAW=P3i) and it uses a frequency in the public band?

Hi StevN,

My reading of it is that Bob is saying that ANY system which deliberately transmits positional information with the intention that this will be received and decoded by another device to tell that system it is 'here', technically fits the definition of 'Automatic Dependent Surveillance (by) Broadcast (of that positional information). We just normally presume the term to be exclusive to specific transmissions on 1090MHz. That being the case, I guess FLARM would also fall into Bob's definition too!

To pick up bryannortje's point,

I would guess that what the NATS Project Eva Team are interested in is to investigate compatibility of LPAT by testing how well (or otherwise) it is received and actionned by other ADS-B in systems such as PAW and FLARM (a positive marketing point), by average pilots in a variety of aircraft and where a transmitter IS present that there are no interference problems, though I may of course be far off the mark. I was thinking of registering to get involved but reading the bit in their script about '...pilots having to talk live  to HD video cameras as alerts are received...'  and the fact they presumably need to attend your airfield to fit the video cameras and oversee the trials, I have my doubts as to the level of interest a couple of flex wings up in Scotland would provide. I may still make them the offer though just to see what is going on. Certainly TRIG, which is a major part of all this are only a couple of miles from where I live and it's their transponder gear I use, so you never know.

Best regards all

Peter

2563

General Discussion / Re: New CAA low power portable ADS-B device spec

« on: March 26, 2016, 10:01:23 pm »

I must also correct the initial statement of the post dated 26.03.16 08.01.21pm, which states "PAW ... is not an ADS-B transmitting device".  It most definitely is an ADS-B transmitting device!!

Hi Bob,

I was initially confused when I read the above, but having read your summary and given this more thought, you are of course correct that PAW, with its RF Bridge fitted, can be classed as an 'ADS-B' transmitting device as in poor man's speak it is... 'Broadcasting positional information to make the plane more visible,' just not on the normally accepted ADS-B frequency of 1090MHz, ...though I suppose if used as the GPS source for a Mode 'S' transponder, PAW would certainly form a significant component of a 1090MHz ADS-B Out Transmitter.

From personal experience, I am well aware of the effectiveness of such a system as I currently use my PAW to provide the 1090 MHz ADS-B in component of a full 1090MHz ADS-B system and have significant experience of and great confidence in its performance in this area.

I await with interest commercial LPAT developments, though have some concerns that any significant cost (over that of systems like PAW) will inevitably lead to resistance to its broad take-up. I also have concerns that the cost of LPAT may be prohibitive to those like myself, who have already invested in 1090MHz ADS-B out capability via a Transponder, who would be buying yet another transmitter which we would (at least under current rules) be obliged to disable.

Another serious concern is the current position whereby ADS-B generated on 1090MHz through the use of 'non-certified' GPS must transmit an SDA/SIL '0', which I understand makes it effectively invisible to ATC / TCAS - making me suddenly invisible again to everyone except PAW, FLARM and presumably LPAT (oh and of course - very important - FR24). I hope this situation can be improved otherwise why would we bother?

Please don't think I'm being negative - far from it - I have taken on considerable expense (almost £5,000 in the past year) to make my aircraft more conspicuous and will be delighted when everyone else is finally able to see ME (other than via FR24).

Regards

Peter

2564

General Discussion / Re: Correct Antenna Position

« on: March 22, 2016, 03:24:46 pm »

I finally removed my PowerFlegm Core from my plane at the weekend. After 9 months trying and a recent trip back to Germany, it's still not working properly so this time it's going back permanently! I have been using the PF ADSB antenna (same as in Lee's link - just a different length) for my PAW ADSB and it's working great. The only minor issue is that PF use a 'reverse polarity' SMA socket for their UK/EU ADSB connection, but I got an adaptor lead from eBay:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RP-SMA-Female-bulkhead-straight-to-MCX-male-pigtail-RF-cable-RG316-for-Wireless-/301786295505?hash=item4643dd6cd1:g:ucMAAOSwo0JWNyKG

...which works a treat!

I intend to keep the FLARM version too as I reckoned it should work OK for P3i. It uses a standard polarity SMA connector. Admittedly, these antennas are a bit expensive but in the radio world, the antenna will always be the most important part to achieve consistent results. These are great in a non-metal bodied aircraft as dipoles don't need a ground plane and the maximum strength signal is radiated horizontally. They are very small so can be easily fitted inside any cockpit canopy as long as the 'live' half is out in the clear (by which I mean not obstructed by metal bodywork). Well worth a thought!

Peter

2565

General Discussion / Re: Mode C/S

« on: December 24, 2015, 11:02:34 am »

Exactly Paul,

I personally would limit bearingless targets to say <5 miles ( or even <2) and +/- 1,500 feet max - i.e. the immediate danger zone and the distance you can reasonably see. The general principle I apply with the ZAON is anything I can't see after an alert and a good look round is a CAT outside this range (due to its much higher power transponder swamping the ZAON) which I can therefore disregard and move on. If it gets any closer, the ZAON soon tells me and I look again, with no harm done and no great increase in my workload.

Peter