Messages

31

General Discussion / Re: Is the bridge still available for self buld?

« on: September 05, 2018, 04:27:41 pm »

Hi Lee, sure:

I dabble with all this sort of stuff (GPS, radio, tracking, RasPi) in another field and have all the bits.
I want to make it in a different more robust format for permanent mounting, I'm not interested in carry-on.
I like making things and this was an attractive aspect to the original project.

I do appreciate that times have changed and sympathise with your support issues though. If it was me I would take the view you can buy it but don't expect support, or else expect to pay for it.

Alan

32

General Discussion / Re: Is the bridge still available for self buld?

« on: September 05, 2018, 01:58:48 pm »

Peter,

Thanks, will do. But I have since spoken to a chum who posed the same question at Sywell and was told emphatically that home-build is dead, it's Rosetta or nothing now. Is that true? A great shame in my view.

If so, maybe an announcement would be in order or at least clean up the hardware shop?

Alan

33

General Discussion / Is the bridge still available for self buld?

« on: September 03, 2018, 09:12:49 pm »

Sorry if this has been covered but I couldn't see anything. Do you still sell a bridge alone for self-builders? Does the original hardware store still function? It seems live and features the old bridge but it doesn't seem possible to buy one. In any event presumably one would want to buy the new one, although the difference isn't terribly clear to me?

TIA, Alan

34

General Discussion / Re: Bridge board V1 vs V2

« on: June 26, 2018, 03:58:37 pm »

Peter, yes but as you know in the ISM bands 10 or 25mW is a more typical power so 500mW is high power, all the more so when the emitter is airborne. I was always surprised that airborne use with that power level was permitted but indeed it is there in black and white (by accident or design)? I wondered if the practical implications had been considered at all? An issue that is obviously closely related to the channel utilisation question.

Alan

35

General Discussion / Re: Bridge board V1 vs V2

« on: June 26, 2018, 03:10:17 pm »

For that matter, has a channel capacity analysis been done for Pilotaware? I'm also a wee bit curious about the effect of having a large number of airborne relatively high powered transmitters in a rather unique section of an ISM band and wonder if any impact assessment of that has been done, or are we just relying on compliance with the standard access rules taking care of everything?

Alan

36

General Discussion / Re: Call sign UP-OGN on detected by Pilot Aware

« on: May 06, 2017, 10:03:58 am »

I notice, in PAW-derived screenshots on the Flyer forum, that the Flarm targets all have the ID "UP-OGN" rather than any unique Flarm-related ID. Is this just temporary or the way it will work in the long term? I had been wondering how this new development would work with the OGN privacy model but I guess this partly sidesteps the issue.

On a related topic, since my previous query was ignored, I'd still like to know if PAW intends to implement any privacy measures such as Flarm/OGN do, or is it now inevitable that using PAW means all flight data will be uploaded and archived at FR24 etc?

Alan

37

General Discussion / Re: Call sign UP-OGN on detected by Pilot Aware

« on: April 19, 2017, 11:56:31 am »

If, as appears to be the case, this involves taking Flarm-derived data from the OGN network and using groundstations to upload it to Pilotaware. is this not going to cause toys to be throw out of the pram in a big way? My understanding is that an uneasy peace exists between Flarm and OGN on the basis that using Flarm data for display on the ground is sort-of OK on the basis that it doesn't affect Flarm's business, but using it in the air for collision avoidance seems another matter altogether.

Otherwise, a neat idea if it doesn't overload the RF side of things (as recently mooted in a Flarm context) and, as always,  provided no bright spark starts spoofing.

Alan

38

General Discussion / Re: £50 Flarm receiver????

« on: March 31, 2017, 10:38:12 pm »

Peter,

Perhaps I was unclear. JC (who seems generally well informed) stated that Flarm suffers from congestion when "only a few" gliders are in range. He seemed clearly to be referring to Flarm alone, not Flarm shared with another system on the same frequency. This surprised me on several counts so I was anxious to learn more.

The reason I mentioned Pilotaware was that I could not see how PA, having a very similar principle of operation to Flarm, would not therefore suffer from the same problem of congestion when "only a few" aircraft were in range. Indeed, given the much greater power and range of PA it would seem the problem would be much worse. As with JCs posting regarding Flarm, this is unrelated to sharing/interworking with Flarm or other systems.

BTW can you confirm the recently published (and welcome) PA protocol document is actually current? It seems a bit ragged at the edges.

Alan

39

General Discussion / Re: £50 Flarm receiver????

« on: March 31, 2017, 06:31:04 pm »

I can only assume they are going to transmit their open protocol on the same frequency as the FLARM protocol, which given the congestion people already complain about when a few gliders are in the same area will just make things worse.

Do you have a reference for this? It does not match my experience. How does Pilotaware overcome this same issue, especially given it's much greater power/range?
Alan

40

General Discussion / Re: PAW website

« on: September 26, 2016, 06:24:27 pm »

Thanks Lee. At the moment it's just idle curiosity though I was also a little worried that you were doing a Flarm and going "closed"!

Actually I do have one question, though maybe it needs a new thread. With the unsurprising emergence of ground stations for tracking purposes, I did wonder if the protocol provides for a "do not track" flag, as does Flarm. Although I am not a fan of Flarm's closed model, they have ended up doing many things quite well, including this. Also, I suspect if you have ambitions outside the UK, you may need to provide this facility (I believe Flarm were compelled to adopt it rather doing it on their own initiative). Since Flarm has a mandatory periodic firmware update this was quite easy for them to do, but as Pilotaware has (I believe) no firmware lifecycle, then it might be better to provide for it sooner rather than later.

Alan

41

General Discussion / Re: PAW website

« on: September 26, 2016, 04:39:18 pm »

Is the PAW protocol document available on the new site? Actually, just noticed it doesn't seem to be on the old one either!

Alan

42

General Discussion / Bridge antenna / power consumption questions

« on: May 17, 2016, 11:17:08 pm »

Am I right in thinking the bridge does not come with an antenna as it is not mentioned or shown? If so what should I get and from where?

What is the continuous power consumption of the entire unit with the various models of RaspPi? I have seen 0.6/0.7 amps mentioned, presumbly at 5v, but it is also specified that a convertor capable of 2A is required. Is this just to cope with power-on surge?

TIA, Alan