Author Topic: Enhancement Requests  (Read 102802 times)

Paul_Sengupta

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #345 on: June 23, 2017, 02:33:54 am »
The labelling is due to the correlation with a Mode S transponder. Flight ID and Aircraft Registration are different fields. If you look at Flight Radar 24, you'll see, for example for airliners, that the flight ID is the current flight number, so something like BAW009. The Aircraft Registration is also displayed, from another field.

The convention in GA is that the aircraft registration is entered for Flight ID as well.

Sparky67

Update Over Wifi
« Reply #346 on: August 30, 2017, 04:51:02 pm »
Hi Lee,

Like many others I guess I download updates and write them to a USB mem stick on my (Windows) laptop. Getting to the PAW box, which is tucked away on the aircraft, involves step ladders and taking a panel off. Then getting the mem stick plugged in is another challenge! I guess we could run a M-F USB extension but I'm trying to avoid additional wiring.

Are there any plans for users to be able to update the PAW software over-the-air (OTA) via wifi, with the necessary file(s) on the root or in a dedicated folder on the connected PC? And having that as an option via the 'update' control panel selection.

Would anyone else find that useful?

Cheers,
Martin

exfirepro

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #347 on: August 30, 2017, 05:08:12 pm »
Martin,

This has been requested several times, but is unfortunately not possible as the PAW Wifi is configured as a 'host' (i.e. a transmitter) and can't accept incoming data.

Update by USB, if necessary using an extension cable as you have identified, is the best option available. Sorry

Regards

Peter
(PAW Engineering Team)


Admin

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #348 on: August 30, 2017, 05:20:46 pm »
Hi Peter (et al)

There could be the possiblity to run some listening socket on PAW.
Then have a Windows Program which connects to this socket and sends the update accross.

This would not be a small amount of work, and I would want to be sure that the effort to do this matches the requirement from users.

Thx
Lee

Vince

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #349 on: August 31, 2017, 12:11:01 am »
Why not just make it so you can upload the update via the web interface?
Sign up to Stranded Flyer to assist your fellow aviators in those difficult situations.

www.strandedflyer.net

agbourne

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #350 on: August 31, 2017, 01:47:45 pm »
Feature request - Audio output selection

Hi. I'd like to ask for an enhancement for the audio output please. Currently, the 3.5mm output is connected to the music inout of my aircraft intercom, but the volume is way too low - even when set at 10. There is no way to change the intercom itself (Flightcom).

I was looking for a way to amplify this signal but I really didn't want to mess about with an external amp and additional power supply or batteries that will die at the wrong moment. I therefore came across a DAC device that connects to the USB port of the Pi and has an (amplified) output on 3.5mm port that I could connect to the intercom. FiiO K1 DAC. The power will come from the USB itself. I have read on other websites that an additional driver for this is not required.

I have tested this unit on a MAC and it works fine. When I plug it into the PAW, the Pi sees it in the USB list, but still directs output to the standard 3.5mm port (see attachment).

If we could have an option on the configuration page to set the default audio output to the list of available devices, then I'm sure that would work.

Thanks

Andrew

Paul_Sengupta

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #351 on: September 18, 2017, 11:18:14 am »
For the Radar screen on the web page, would it be possible to include a "reverse" option, so that it would work reflected in one of these sort of screens as a Head Up Display?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Universal-Car-Phone-GPS-Navigation-HUD-Head-Up-Projection-Display-Bracket-Holder-/152704930708

PeterG

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #352 on: October 11, 2017, 10:38:29 am »
Another vote for enhancements to the audio - on my set up the volume is so low as to be inaudible in flight and I have the volume set to max.

I'd also to have the option to jump to a specific part of the flight when using the replay option. As it is it will show the whole flight in real time. Perhaps it might be worth adding a 10x replay speed to get over this

neilld

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #353 on: October 31, 2017, 08:49:05 pm »
I'm sure this has been asked before and I have searched various fora but have failed to find any info so apologies in advance BUT:-
Is there any technical reason why Pilot Aware cannot be made to transmit ADS-b data (as well as receive).
I'm thinking of the many GA aircraft that do not currently have mode s transponders, therefore should ADS-b be the mandated (or even preferred) method of EC, owners are faced with the prospect pf purchasing a (non Garmin) mode s transponder in order to use the existing feed from PAW at a cost of at least £1500 plus fitting.  Alternatively they could purchase a uAvionix Sky Echo device at a mere £600 in order to comply.
If ADS-b out could be incorporated into PAW it would open the door to a much wider customer base at lower cost than that currently available.

tnowak

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #354 on: November 01, 2017, 10:17:58 am »
A very quick answer - certification!
All transponders are designed, built and tested to International / European specifications and then certified they meet those specifications.
Very expensive and time consuming to meet certification requirements, even if PAW could transmit ADS-B data (I am sure it could...)
Tony Nowak

Admin

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #355 on: November 01, 2017, 04:43:24 pm »
Hi Neil
Now for the much longer answer ;)

I'm sure this has been asked before and I have searched various fora but have failed to find any info so apologies in advance BUT:-
Is there any technical reason why Pilot Aware cannot be made to transmit ADS-b data (as well as receive).

This is no more technically challenging than anyone else has had to overcome, and there is lots of prior art.

Quote
I'm thinking of the many GA aircraft that do not currently have mode s transponders, therefore should ADS-b be the mandated (or even preferred) method of EC, owners are faced with the prospect pf purchasing a (non Garmin) mode s transponder in order to use the existing feed from PAW at a cost of at least £1500 plus fitting.  Alternatively they could purchase a uAvionix Sky Echo device at a mere £600 in order to comply.
If ADS-b out could be incorporated into PAW it would open the door to a much wider customer base at lower cost than that currently available.

Hmm, these are not valid alternatives, they are mutually exclusive
The SkyEcho from uAvionix is an ADS-B Transceiver NOT an ADS-B Transponder, they are not equivalent.

There are a lot of 'what if' scenarios to consider here, firstly
What if ADS-B is mandated ?
- Would it be mandated for all airspaces (including Class G) ?
- Would it be mandated for all airframes ?
- Would it be mandated as a Transponder only (rather than Transceiver)

I cannot see a SkyEcho as a replacement for a Trig or Funke, it does not output Mode-A, Mode-C, Mode-S (short squitter) or Mode-S. It cannot be interrogated by either ground RADAR or TCAS.

ADS-B Transceivers can only be used in the UK under CAP1391, and then with certain restrictions (which may well be relaxed in the future), they do not provide the same capabilities as Transponders

Finally the big question  ;)
Development and Certification costs would not be small for adding ADS-B to PilotAware, how much would you be prepared to pay for an addition of ADS-B out to PilotAware ?

Thx
Lee

neilld

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #356 on: November 01, 2017, 06:03:00 pm »
Lee,
Thanks for your customary full and clear response.
Perhaps I'm being naive here and lacking any technical knowledge of avionics but if the objective is Electronic Conspicuity for the GA community (leaving aside the regulatory and implementation aspects for now), then it would seem that what is required is a device capable of interfacing with all existing standards.  As far as I can see, PAW has all the required capability (mode A/C/S, ADS-B, FLARM etc.) with the exception of ADS-B out.

For example, an aircraft fitted with a mode S transponder with a GPS input (not PAW) for ADS-B out purposes could be "seen" by a PAW equipped aircraft but could not "see" the PAW equipped aircraft.   In other words, the only 100% EC setup (currently) is between PAW equipped aircraft.  I think it is unlikely that P3i will be adopted as a standard thus leaving ADS-B as the de facto standard.

Regarding cost, I don't know enough about what would be required (software only / hardware + software / if hardware is this more complex(costly) than the current PAW bridge?).
Currently PAW is a bargain but, as ever, there will be a threshold above which potential users will back off.  In my personal opinion an increase of 50 - 100% in price would still put the device well inside the cost of any other (less capable) device on the market.
Do you have a feeling for the magnitude of cost to implement ADS-B out?

JCurtis

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #357 on: November 01, 2017, 08:01:27 pm »
Do you have a feeling for the magnitude of cost to implement ADS-B out?


I'd be impressed of anyone got an approved ADS-B out box to market for under £250K, at the very least.

Why?

ADS-B is a high power RF device and, as said above, has to comply with international standards.  The standard for them (DO-260B I think) is over a thousand pages long, giving all the details.  The path to certification for an ADS-B Out box would really need via Design Authority / Organisation.  If you are not one of these already, you can go through the hurdles to become one - this is no small undertaking from previous research, I gave up costing it when it got to £75k.  It also take a long time to do too. 

Then if you want to make them yourself you, your supply chain, manufacturing & assembly area, and testing need to also be approved.  The paperwork, verification visits, etc. would also eat considerable resources as you have to have all the gear ready to be inspected before you can make anything. 
So a contract manufacturer would be ideal, but one with all the approvals won't be cheap.
One you have all that you can start the design, make prototypes, then go through the torture of aviation certification (you can't just stick a CE label on and away you go, it must be certified to the international standards).  This is lab certification and real air testing, the latter would also need a raft of approvals in case it went wrong and blatted some daft data out that the big boys TCAS complained about.

The only "cheap" way would be to parter up with someone already has the appropriate facilities and authorisations, then make a box that would be suitable add on to PAW.  Although I suspect you would need to make a box that could, potentially, take various input sources to make it more saleable.  Note for this everything you do design wise etc. must fall within the quality standards of the partnered organisation and you could end up doing all the work and negotiating a suitable percentage to "use" their standing to help with the product certification side.


Remember the PAW bridge is based on a modified off-the-shelf module and is, in relative terms, very low power RF wise.  It uses a free to use radio frequency used for a multitude of devices, so lots of people make the packet radio chips that these modules use.  ADS-B in comparison is an exceedingly small pool of potential customers, with large development costs.

I wonder what the quote would be for suitable product liability insurance would be too....
Designer and maker of charge4.harkwood.co.uk, smart universal USB chargers designed for aviation.  USB power without the RF interference. Approved for EASA installs under CS-STAN too.

Admin

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #358 on: November 01, 2017, 09:13:22 pm »
A far more detailed response Jeremy!

There is a very good reason why uAvionix needed to raise $5,000,000 in series A funding, and Jeremy hits the nail on the head
From my experience in previous startups of series A round investors, they typically expect a minimum 10X return, in fact googling around forbes now indicate a higher expectation.
That makes a $50,000,000 expectation !
As a company selling hardware, there is only one source of income for that, and it will not come from selling skyecho at £600 for CAP1391 in the UK, the economies do not seem to scale.
I still cannot get my head around the equivalent product to Skyecho in the US, is echoUAT+SkyFX, total cost $1449
Sums do not add up do they, or maybe I am not too good at arithmetic 🤔

« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 09:43:02 pm by Admin »

JCurtis

Re: Enhancement Requests
« Reply #359 on: November 01, 2017, 09:23:24 pm »
I didn't really touch on it, but probably reckon of it taking a couple of years too - and the costs for staff, premises, etc.

To do anything in the certified aviation world is just astounding, I took a peek at what was involved and still have the scars!
Designer and maker of charge4.harkwood.co.uk, smart universal USB chargers designed for aviation.  USB power without the RF interference. Approved for EASA installs under CS-STAN too.