Author Topic: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood  (Read 981 times)


TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« on: September 14, 2021, 02:31:44 pm »
What does this mean? (see red & yellow forum for more detail)
Is this PAW compatible?
Is this another ATOM type system?
Can both systems (the above + ATOM) operate concurrently?



Re: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2021, 06:30:48 pm »
It is a replica of ATOM, completely different
I was going to comment, but its too toxic
The fact they have made such basic errors, and that everyone is affected is ridiculous
When we did the initial ATOM GRID, participants needed special software, this will also be true for the upcoming trial of SKYGRID
The source of their traffic data planefinder, does not look great
Finally the ridiculous statement of 40nm at 500ft - they have an enormous amount to learn



Re: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2021, 09:55:56 pm »
Hi Lee
Totally agree, getting involved in that thread would do yourself and PilotAware no favours at all.
I can envisage it all going the same way as the UAT weather trials
Stear clear



Re: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2021, 09:33:11 am »
I agree with not getting involved in any way, shape or form, but I will put a different slant on it.

I would say that it's time to get your popcorn and coke, sit back and watch the combatants tear themselves apart.

I'm not sure how knowledgeable the GA community is, or how it's going to morph in the next 20 years...

What does the mean for the future of (1090) ADS-B as the one time panacea?

Are people questioning how simple a carry on the SkyEcho 2 is? Are people finding out that a transmitter in a partial Faraday cage needs to be positioned for optimum performance?

Will we be able to receive TIS-B via a second or third SDR? Do we need to integrate it at ground station or Rosetta level?

Brief explanation of things here:

I'll have the bargain bucket of sweet popcorn, and the largest full fat Coke on the drinks menu, ta...


Re: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2021, 10:37:48 am »
I find the immediate uplinking of MLAT data to any unsuspecting subscribers
at best naive and at worst wildly reckless

When we performed the ModeS/3D trial using the ATOM/GRID in combination with 360Radar,
We were totally paranoid about insulating any unsuspecting users, from receiving data
This was done by a team of volunteers to trial a version of software which would receive the uplink data
Each of these volunteers was fully prepped on what to expect, and what to observe.
The general user base had no access and no idea what was happening in the background

Additionally, we gathered data on the volunteers devices for offline analysis, but more importantly
the entire ground network was watching the volunteers who were emitting Mode-S and PAW
and storing masses of data into a central database
This database was crucial to determine the delta difference between
- GPS derived position reports
- MLAT derived position reports
- MLAT latency of data throughput
for the same aircraft!

This meant we could calculate the difference between the MLAT position error and the system latency effects
You may recall those fancy XL charts showing the aging of the MLAT position data versus latency and GPS positions

There was a huge amount of work that went on behind the scenes in order to determine how we could use the
latency and accuracy in order to pass the 'position ambiguity' to the receivers in order to effect the displays

This resulted in highly complex data handling for both tactical and strategic representations.
A simple way to describe this, an aircraft at 5km with 500m of ambiguity can be reliably plotted, we used the
philosophy of the clock system to indicate that an aircraft strategic position is fine if it sits within 30 Degrees
This is the difference between eg, 1-o'clock and 2-o'clock
an aircraft at 1km with 500m is impossible to plot, and therefore reverts to a bearingless target using its relative altitude
and known ambiguity

Also we do not use the MLAT height calculation, this is very poor, we only use the directly received ModeS altitude
the uplink only provides the lateral position

All of this work was done with the trial volunteers, well before Joe Public ever got to see the data presented on their screens

I could be wrong and these guys have done their due diligence too, but my suspicion is they have done none of this,
and the data is blatted out to all and sundry, who have no clue as to the quality of the data or how to interpret that data.

What is really annoying is that there was a severe backlash from certain members of the community, who had no idea of
the lengths we had gone to in order to ensure the fidelity of the data, and how to represent the data, when we know
that there is a potential for mis-direction
Those same critics now sing to the high heavens, with no cause for concern of the fidelity of the data, or how their system
will decide to interpret that data - the fact that pilots are seeing themselves 'tail gating', is utterly ridiculous

In this case, I think no such background investigation has been done, and a switch has been flipped to 'see what happens'
If it wasn't so potentially dangerous it would be laughable

I am reminded by an Oscar Wilde quote
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Total likes: 29
  • G-MYUP. White Ox Mead Airstrip. Near Bath
    • View Profile
Re: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2021, 07:51:11 am »
PilotAware has been in existence for over 6 years now and I have been a User from as soon as the first verison was available after implementation of Bridge.
Even the pre-Bridge version proved the concept albeit with very poor distance performance.
In the ensuing 6 years the PAW Team have busily improved its capability but always with an eye on what is accurate and truly feasible.
My point is simple....... PAW works and is based on experience through design and implementation with very open feedback.
This MLAT version is a step back if accuracy and resilience is measured.
Thanks for great explanation on this exciting new M-LAT opportunity.........NOT! >:(
White Ox Mead Airstrip
Bath. England


Re: TIS-B/FIS-B Trial commences from Lasham and Goodwood
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2021, 11:01:22 pm »
I liked a recent comment on Flyer...

For example, TV masts offer huge line of sight coverage. So popping one of these ground stations even half way up would do the trick:
But other masts/towers are available if this is an officially sanctioned and licensed installation.

The majority of UK TV transmitter sites are privately owned by Arqiva, they rent use of the infrastructure to the broadcast companies.  Just 'popping' anything onto a TV mast is an exercise not to be undertaken lightly, nor cheaply.

If they design, build, and certify some suitable ground and mast equipment, you might be able to rent access to one of their masts.  You'd have to pay them to install and maintain it too.  Expect this to be a multi-year process and ongoing contract.  Plus add on the require data links to make it all work.

Other sites may be suitable, but there hasn't really been any 'national infrastructure' for a number of years now.

I wonder how such a national reception and TIS-B/FIS-B broadcast network would be funded, both for the initial capital investment and ongoing running costs.  No doubt part of the remit of the trial will be to determine this.  If the plan is not to build a National rx network to feed these re-broadcast stations, where do they think the data will come from?  All of the flight tracking website data sources rely on a multitude of privately run RX stations.

Still, it makes entertaining reading.

Designer and maker of, smart universal USB chargers designed for aviation.  USB power without the RF interference. Approved for EASA installs under CS-STAN too.