A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 3rd 18, 04:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 1:22:31 AM UTC+11, Linar Yusupov wrote:
Dear rec.aviation.soaring subscribers!

I would like to present you PDF slides of one DIY R&D project.
The slides are about open platform airborne proximity warning device.
It operates at ISM band radio but also capable to receive ADS-B reports at aviation frequency.
It is mainly targeted for our local soaring club use but can also attract pilots worldwide.

The presentation is downloadable at: https://github.com/lyusupov/Argus/ra...g_Dev ice.pdf

If upon reading you'll find it worthwhile, feel yourself free to share this news with someone
upon your discretion.

Don't hesitate to ask any questions here. FAQ document is yet to be created.

Best regards!
Linar Yusupov.


Hi Linar -- can the "TTGO T-Beam" board be used as a ground-based OGN receiver?

Thanks, John
  #42  
Old October 4th 18, 04:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mark Hawkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

Hi Andy (and others),

I got one of these units yesterday from Mike Carris. Have only done a little testing so far. However, current observations:
1. Can be seen by PowerFlarms and yes they do warn you if one of these gets too close
2. Can see other PowerFlarms
2. As Mike and others have said, it works with XCSoar
3. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth LE (BLE) to iSoar which seems to process the PF sentences just as it does from other devices
4. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth SPP to Oudie and it DEFINITELY was processing the PF sentences. "Traffic 3 O'Clock Below!!" over and over and over again. :-)
4. Can be seen by OGN receivers just fine (we have them setup here in Moriarty for tracking) with decent range.
5. Uses a decent sized rechargeable battery so it should run for quite some time on it's own.
6. Has the ubiquitous micro USB port that can both power the device and also recharges the battery.
7. Mike found a local "maker" to 3D print the cases using the provided STL files. IT was cheap ($10ish), look nice and do a great job protecting the SoftRF yet allowing access to ports, switch, lights, etc.

Only issue I've seen so far (and it's minor) is that since it's using V6 of the air protocol it doesn't output gps speed/direction of travel when using the "Legacy"/Flarm mode. So it's essentially seen as a place in space that moves periodically. Is that bad? No not really I think. Would it be better to have cse/spd? Sure. And I know it can send it out as it does via NMEA via the GPRMC sentence and if you shift it over to "OGN Tracker" mode instead it sends it. So it appears it's just a matter of the spec version not supporting it. But as you said, "Flarm is a closed system". And why is that?

I've always been confused as to why they have chosen that path. Most "specs" that I know of these days seem to work out best when they are "open" which means they are open to analysis, critique and improvement. Does that mean it sometimes take a bit longer to get updates fully approved and in place? Yup. To me, closed systems just seem to invite hacking...if for no other reason than because it's a challenge. So it would seem to make more sense to open the spec/system to allow for wide analysis providing even more confidence in the end product.

As was stated in this very long and old thread, we "believe" and "trust" (me included) the PF folks to do the right thing and produce as safe a product as possible and I believe that is the case. But there's nothing definitive that proves it, that I know of. No independent testing, etc. Should there be? Maybe...maybe not. But if not then making any claims that one system is "more accurate" or "more safe" than another, can not be fully supported.

Also, if it is desired by the soaring community at large for the concept of Flarm/PowerFlarm to be adopted as wide as possible, then it is my feeling at least that that won't occur with a "closed system". I believe allowing "others" to fully interoperate with the current Flarms/PowerFlarms is not going to make things any less safe. The more of these we can get in the air the better, from collision avoidance perspective. In fact, it could provide the opposite result. It likely will foster innovation in both the software and hardware I believe though. This SoftRF device is a good example and there are other similar initiatives out there as well. If that drives the overall price down and/or increases the overall utilization is that a bad thing?

Alot of my own feelings here I admit but thought I'd throw them out. I can't remember the last time I posted anything on RAS. However, this SoftRF device seems to be a stable and capable platform and to me seems to be the kind of innovation and creativity we should be applauding and supporting in the soaring community. As you said, it is impressive. So thanks to Linar for his work and results. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

-Mark
  #43  
Old October 4th 18, 07:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

Mark Hawkins wrote on 10/4/2018 8:38 AM:
Hi Andy (and others),

I got one of these units yesterday from Mike Carris. Have only done a little testing so far. However, current observations:
1. Can be seen by PowerFlarms and yes they do warn you if one of these gets too close
2. Can see other PowerFlarms
2. As Mike and others have said, it works with XCSoar
3. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth LE (BLE) to iSoar which seems to process the PF sentences just as it does from other devices

...

Does this device do do collision warning, like PowerFlarm, or only proximity
warning, like the ADS-B targets on PowerFlarm?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf
  #44  
Old October 5th 18, 04:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 337
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:54:46 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark Hawkins wrote on 10/4/2018 8:38 AM:
Hi Andy (and others),

I got one of these units yesterday from Mike Carris. Have only done a little testing so far. However, current observations:
1. Can be seen by PowerFlarms and yes they do warn you if one of these gets too close
2. Can see other PowerFlarms
2. As Mike and others have said, it works with XCSoar
3. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth LE (BLE) to iSoar which seems to process the PF sentences just as it does from other devices

..

Does this device do do collision warning, like PowerFlarm, or only proximity
warning, like the ADS-B targets on PowerFlarm?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf


Eric,

The selections for alarm triggers in the setup menue are below. Have not tried the Vector warning yet.

Mike

.................

Alarm trigger:

None - do not issue any alarms ;

Distance - issue a NMEA ($PFLAA) alarm sentence when traffic is in close
proximity ;

Vector - issue a NMEA ($PFLAA) alarm sentence when traffic is short on intersecting course.
....................
  #45  
Old October 5th 18, 03:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:38:15 AM UTC-4, Mark Hawkins wrote:
... "Flarm is a closed system". And why is that?


You will find a clear explanation of this policy he
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/...patibility.pdf

As to wide adoption, most GA aircraft (including gliders) in Europe now
have FLARM; EASA now permits panel installation in certificated AC.

I'm a firm believer in open source (and funded it heavily in my former
corporate life), but I also know well how frequently it goes off the rails.
This application would suffer from anything other than top-notch,
full-time attention. Commercially-funded open source works when there are
lots of deep pockets with common interests (see GCC, newlib, RedHat, Eclipse).
Casual open-source, for small markets, without funding, not so much.

You may not agree with this, but it has been given serious consideration
but a lot of very committed and extremely sharp folks.

Respectfully, Dave

PS: Paper above doesn't mention REQUIRED FCC certification (and analogous
foreign certifications) - expensive, and REQUIRED.
  #46  
Old October 5th 18, 04:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

Mike,

Let's fly near each other soon.Â* Have your vector alarm enabled and
let's see how it works.

Dan

On 10/4/2018 9:09 PM, Mike C wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:54:46 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark Hawkins wrote on 10/4/2018 8:38 AM:
Hi Andy (and others),

I got one of these units yesterday from Mike Carris. Have only done a little testing so far. However, current observations:
1. Can be seen by PowerFlarms and yes they do warn you if one of these gets too close
2. Can see other PowerFlarms
2. As Mike and others have said, it works with XCSoar
3. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth LE (BLE) to iSoar which seems to process the PF sentences just as it does from other devices

..

Does this device do do collision warning, like PowerFlarm, or only proximity
warning, like the ADS-B targets on PowerFlarm?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

Eric,

The selections for alarm triggers in the setup menue are below. Have not tried the Vector warning yet.

Mike

................

Alarm trigger:

None - do not issue any alarms ;

Distance - issue a NMEA ($PFLAA) alarm sentence when traffic is in close
proximity ;

Vector - issue a NMEA ($PFLAA) alarm sentence when traffic is short on intersecting course.
...................


--
Dan, 5J
  #47  
Old October 5th 18, 04:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom BravoMike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:06:01 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:38:15 AM UTC-4, Mark Hawkins wrote:
... "Flarm is a closed system". And why is that?


You will find a clear explanation of this policy he
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/...patibility.pdf

As to wide adoption, most GA aircraft (including gliders) in Europe now
have FLARM; EASA now permits panel installation in certificated AC.

I'm a firm believer in open source (and funded it heavily in my former
corporate life), but I also know well how frequently it goes off the rails.
This application would suffer from anything other than top-notch,
full-time attention. Commercially-funded open source works when there are
lots of deep pockets with common interests (see GCC, newlib, RedHat, Eclipse).
Casual open-source, for small markets, without funding, not so much.

You may not agree with this, but it has been given serious consideration
but a lot of very committed and extremely sharp folks.

Respectfully, Dave

PS: Paper above doesn't mention REQUIRED FCC certification (and analogous
foreign certifications) - expensive, and REQUIRED.


Compatibility seems to be a big word in the article. Is FLARM actually compatible across the globe? I mean, if you take your glider from the US to Europe, South Africa, Australia for whatever reason: competition, job assignment, long vacation, retirement - will the PowerFlarm work there and be compatible with the locals?
  #48  
Old October 5th 18, 09:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:06:01 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:

PS: Paper above doesn't mention REQUIRED FCC certification (and analogous
foreign certifications) - expensive, and REQUIRED.


Not to be the turd in the swimming pool, but I have some concerns about this.

Having worked on a consumer product that used the LoRa physical layer operating in the ISM band (Flarm is an ISM band device), I can attest to what Dave says and why it's important. Without specific rules regarding power, duration and frequency hopping, for example, it is easy to end up with devices that create so much congestion that they make the band useless for everyone else. Think of this as a glider with a perpetually stuck mike on their radio. This device doesn't appear to do this in isolation, but networks rarely get congested with small numbers of devices connected, even if they are poorly behaved.

It's my understanding that the over-the-air Flarm protocol has specific (and secure) methods for congestion control through timing broadcasts versus the GPS clock and this is how it is able to accommodate reasonable numbers of aircraft in proximity without too many transmissions colliding (pun intended) and blocking each other out. It is not at all clear to me whether this device has implemented the Flarm protocol or if it simply broadcasts without any congestion control under the presumption that not too many gliders will be flying at the same time. It seems from reading the GitHub documentation like maybe it is using a hack to get around this restriction which could create congestion problems - particularly in larger numbers.

Moreover, it doesn't appear that the Chinese manufacturer of these boards has pursued any FCC licensing (I doubt it) and even if they had part of the FCC licensing requires the complete device in its physical enclosure to ensure that RF pollution doesn't flood out of the device in unpredictable ways..

Mostly I have questions and suppositions as I don't know exactly what work has been done and I'm not an RF or networking engineer, but I'd be a bit concerned if one of these devices showed up at a big OLC camp. Also, beware of ramp checks if you have unlicensed (I guess technically that means illegal) devices operating on the same frequency as licensed safety devices. The Feds might frown on that. If I showed up at the airport with home-brew ADS-B Out kit in my glider I bet I'd get at least a sternly-worded letter from the FAA.

I have a lot of respect for this effort, but there is a potential need for significant caution. Many of our fellow pilots rely on this technology to keep them safe. If that technology were inadvertently being jammed, they'd have no way to know.

There are other issues with how the data port spec is or isn't implemented, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. If you are going to bet your life on a technology it's probably good for it to work as close to 100% of the time as you can manage.

Respectfully,

Andy Blackburn
9B
  #49  
Old October 5th 18, 11:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 337
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:15:23 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
Mike,

Let's fly near each other soon.Â* Have your vector alarm enabled and
let's see how it works.

Dan

On 10/4/2018 9:09 PM, Mike C wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 12:54:46 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark Hawkins wrote on 10/4/2018 8:38 AM:
Hi Andy (and others),

I got one of these units yesterday from Mike Carris. Have only done a little testing so far. However, current observations:
1. Can be seen by PowerFlarms and yes they do warn you if one of these gets too close
2. Can see other PowerFlarms
2. As Mike and others have said, it works with XCSoar
3. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth LE (BLE) to iSoar which seems to process the PF sentences just as it does from other devices
..

Does this device do do collision warning, like PowerFlarm, or only proximity
warning, like the ADS-B targets on PowerFlarm?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

Eric,

The selections for alarm triggers in the setup menue are below. Have not tried the Vector warning yet.

Mike

................

Alarm trigger:

None - do not issue any alarms ;

Distance - issue a NMEA ($PFLAA) alarm sentence when traffic is in close
proximity ;

Vector - issue a NMEA ($PFLAA) alarm sentence when traffic is short on intersecting course.
...................


--
Dan, 5J


OK
  #50  
Old October 10th 18, 12:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Wyll Surf Air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default "Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

So does this system work with Power Flarm? Mark said it does but in the documentation it does not seem to mention anything about Power Flarm, just Flarm V6 which I'm am not sure if refers to power flarm or the old Legacy flarm that is not allowed in the US. I'm wondering because if it does work with Power Flarm then I will get one for me and my partners glider since we don't have funds for a power flarm, but would like to have some sort of collision avoidance system.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"View Limiting Device" recommendations please [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 27 February 4th 08 03:25 AM
Monday 073007 in Oshkosh - Going Home [01/10] - "Departing Oshkosh - Airborne Inaging DC3C.jpg" yEnc (0/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 August 2nd 07 04:39 AM
Monday 073007 in Oshkosh - Going Home [01/10] - "Departing Oshkosh - Airborne Inaging DC3C.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 August 2nd 07 04:39 AM
New traffic warning device Loran Products 26 February 18th 04 01:14 AM
Plane with no stall warning device? Roy Smith General Aviation 23 February 17th 04 04:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.