Author Topic: IGrid and phone reception  (Read 2398 times)

marioair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Total likes: 8
  • welcome to the PilotAware forum
    • View Profile
IGrid and phone reception
« on: June 21, 2022, 09:26:41 pm »
I assume there’s no publicly available information to show phone reception by altitude. And for a bonus overlay this with existing ground stations coverage.

Keithvinning

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2022, 08:03:07 am »
No unfortunately not

steveu

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2022, 10:37:26 am »
I think we need to have a philosophical look at what iGrid might be doing for us and where we need it.

Some EC solutions like SafeSky cannot exist without Internet access via the mobile networks.

This is not the case with PAW, iGrid is an icing on the cake or sugar in your tea situation in my view. Happy to be corrected by the powers that be...

Where do we think iGrid will help? Where won't it help?

PAW direct line of site reception is best where there is no obscuration, and in the UK over 3,000ft AMSL I'd expect line of site reception to be very good. So, if mobile reception/coverage tails off above 2,500ft AMSL, I can live with that. I accept that on the continent or in Scotland/Wales, obstacles are much higher, but then mobile masts will be on top of that higher ground.

Where we do not have line of sight (low or in a valley, no ground stations) iGrid can fill in and help us out.

I think we face limitations where we get too high and are see by too many masts, or where we are out of the shaped beams used in the newer technology of mobile. Mobile is, after all, shaped for use on the ground...

The biggest problem I think we face is the very rural nature of airstrips. Close to the strip and low, there's an issue with iGrid.

Hence the push to get ground stations at airstrips...

 


Seanhump

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2022, 05:58:48 pm »
I spend most of my time low ( sub 2000') and slow ( <120 kts) and pretty much most of the time there is mobile reception, and its fairly good too.

I'm up and down the country a lot, and from the Scottish borders down its similar - I was pleasantly suprised that it worked well round Snowdonia too ..

I'll keep tabs on reception for a while ... but using iGrid hasn't been problematic at all so far ..


Pilotaware user ...

marioair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Total likes: 8
  • welcome to the PilotAware forum
    • View Profile
Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2022, 08:45:15 pm »
My OP was a leading question. We collect data via VECTOR plots. 
I wonder whether it would be (a) interesting (b) worthwhile (c) permitted to start collecting / aggregating data on phone coverage in 3D?

Admin

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2022, 08:21:22 am »
Hi Marioair
You are right, we have all of the technology to do what you describe
In fact one of the first things I want to do, is to extend VECTOR, to provide an air to air picture, as opposed to the current air to ground
My speculation is that this will highlight the very poor performance of cap1391 devices when receiving via a 7cm antenna versus a stacked dipole on the ground

Now to cellular, at the moment I believe releasing any of this data would be highly toxic, and would serve no benefit whatsoever to us, and risks alienating the cellular providers. Having said that, I would probably be more amenable to providing this data to the cellular providers directly (in confidence), but releasing publicly, is a definite no-no

Thx
Lee

marioair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Total likes: 8
  • welcome to the PilotAware forum
    • View Profile
Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2022, 10:49:48 am »
Yes, there's still the rule/law/wives tale that airborn use of celluar is not allowed/not in the terms of service?

I don wonder whether this is one for time to sort out.....e.g. what is the future of drones - will it all be point to point or will 5G/celluar eventually be pervaisive?
From a "not pissing off the cellular providers" i assume you're thinking of collection the data internally and perhaps tapping them onthe shoulder if there's patchy reception

how about allowing collection of data per user/ e.g. could i view when I have reception through my routes?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2022, 10:51:41 am by marioair »

steveu

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2022, 11:16:41 am »
how about allowing collection of data per user/ e.g. could i view when I have reception through my routes?

This is already available via Aircrew/groundstations then selecting away from All or PilotAware to Cellular... I think...

marioair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Total likes: 8
  • welcome to the PilotAware forum
    • View Profile
Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2022, 11:40:48 am »
not sure what this is showing me? i assume this will show a single point in time reception for celluar by a ground station? what i'm taking about is an aggregate view

steveu

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2022, 12:47:47 pm »
not sure what this is showing me? i assume this will show a single point in time reception for celluar by a ground station? what i'm taking about is an aggregate view

You'll see your flight with all the points of reception on cellular, like this:


marioair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Total likes: 8
  • welcome to the PilotAware forum
    • View Profile
Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2022, 12:53:38 pm »
that's great, but it'd be good to aggregte the data ie for a single ICAO code but over all time

Admin

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2022, 02:15:50 pm »
that's great, but it'd be good to aggregte the data ie for a single ICAO code but over all time
its interesting information, but not in our core competence to identify how well the cellular coverage is over geographical areas
The main reason for this, is that we have no ability to influence a change, and nobody is paying for the engineering work to implement ;-)

ATOM stations on the other hand, we can influence, and try to fill in any potential gaps

Thx
Lee

marioair

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Total likes: 8
  • welcome to the PilotAware forum
    • View Profile
Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2022, 02:25:19 pm »
Yeah

just thinking, if I fly regular routes it would be interesting to say i had ATOM coverage in 3D area X and cellular coverage in 3D area y, both in W and none in Z etc.

mainly it falls in the geeky "if the data's there i'd like to play with visualise it camp"

Admin

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2022, 03:05:09 pm »
mainly it falls in the geeky "if the data's there i'd like to play with visualise it camp"
I think that captures it nicely

exfirepro

Re: IGrid and phone reception
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2022, 12:36:30 am »
Hi Marioair,

I have been testing / using iGRID with significant reliability via my mobile phone at a variety of altitudes and locations throughout the UK, since October 2021.

As @steveu says, it's very easy to check coverage after each flight by logging in to https://aircrew.co.uk/playback/groundstations/ , leaving the 'Station' set to 'All' and selecting the appropriate transmission type, your aircraft ICAO code and the approximate time and duration of your flight. You don't even need to have downloaded the PAW track file as the reports are compiled direct from the secure Pilotaware Database.

Tip: If the transmission profile and 'map' doesn't appear, adjust the start time of the search to be just after your actual take-off.

In view of the fact that we are utilising our own mobile device contracts to make use of the GSM network(s) which we are already paying for - albeit to uplink data in flight as a supplement to direct reception by Pilotaware from other aircraft or ATOM Uplinks, with - as far as we can determine - no measurably detrimental effect on the networks themselves, I personally am comfortable with the principle using the GSM networks in flight, but as Lee has already intimated, it would definitely not be a good idea to, for example, try to use 'lack of a reliable signal at altitude' as a stick to prod the network providers with, when such use of their networks is at best on the margins of our mobile device contracts.

Better IMO to simply monitor our own coverage and use the results to determine whether we can each improve coverage within our own aircraft, by for example repositioning our GSM device, or switching to a different device or network provider.

It is, however, important from the development point of view to keep an open mind and to keep discussing results within this forum, obtained in a variety of situations and with the broad variety of equipment and network providers open to us.

Best Regards

Peter