Airspace4All GA Airfield ATS ADS-B Traffic Display Trial

Lots more info at:

www.airspace4all.org

and

https://m.facebook.com/airspace4all.org

This is good. At about 10 GA airfields across the UK and about another 45 gliding clubs etc, have been fitted with PilotAware OGNR stations with the latest software that not only shows ADSB at 1090 MHz but also PilotAware and FLARM equipped aircraft in real time. MLAT is also included for modes-S with a delay of upto 6 seconds on a similar screen. The advantage of this is that there is no need to give out ADSB units as there are a lot of aircraft already equipped. Anyone who wants the latest software can get it Free of charge from PilotAware. The screen display is the same but of course until this trial is finished the information CANNOT be used for guidance.as is displayed on the screen. I am sure that the A4A exercise will improve safety and will be extended beyond ADSB to include the vast majority of aircraft that dont have or need it.

Hi Keith

“and will be extended beyond ADSB”

We will have to wait and see what view CAA and EASA take. As you know, I have always been of the opinion that they are highly unlikely to allow officially authorised safety related ground ATS services to be delivered on the back of non-aviation protected frequencies. It was difficult enough as it was. Our trial would not have got off the ground if we had sought to include non-ADS-B protocols/frequencies. And realtime information was another requirement so a 6 second delay is not likely to cut the mustard for circuit traffic.

You are welcome to take up that battle with the CAA and EASA but it is not something I am prepared to do. I have contented myself with progressing a mechanism that I believe has the best chance of being authorised.

We will have to await the response from the regulators once I present my post-trial report.

We need to make the difference bewteen the need of ATC for traffic separation in controlled airspace by using Xpdr mode S and ADS-B on 1090, and the need to enhance see and avoid in uncontrolled airspace between GA traffics. In term of fatalities, the latest is our biggest concern today and the initiative of FLARM, Pilot Aware and OGN is certainly welcome and observed with interest. The position of EASA is technology agnostique, as long as the safety concern is adressed.

Hi Steve

Yes, I can understand that you have a battle and recognize the uphill struggle that you must have had which is reflected in the amount of time and money that has been expended so far.

However, taking the use of MLAT out of the equation, would it not be better to include FLARM and PilotAware in the trial (very easy to do) so that there would be recorded, anecdotal evidence on their comparative performances rather than conjecture.

This would then show whether the location systems and algorithms are in any way inferior to the carry on ADSB systems that you are using. (I believe they are not and is why we have all been all encouraged by FASVIG and A4A, to use them in flight bags for avoiding airspace infringements to good effect).

The advantage of interoperability between existing systems is that
(i) There is reduced frequency congestion.
(ii) Users choose the system that is best for their flying style and their pocket.
(iii) Equipage is voluntary, available now and gaining popularity
(iv) No disruptive mandate is required (still recalling Mode-S and 833MHz requirements).
(v) It's working.

I understand and respect the regulator's duty of care, but there is an ideal opportunity to take advantage of what is there now and to make comparisons.

"I have contented myself with progressing a mechanism that I believe has the best chance of being authorized".

Noted but "We need to make the difference between the need of ATC for traffic separation in controlled airspace ............and the need to enhance see and avoid in uncontrolled airspace between GA traffics.

Not necessarily the same requirement.

Hi Keith,
Recent comments on this topic have mentioned:
- the need of ATC for traffic separation in controlled airspace
&
- the need to enhance see and avoid in uncontrolled airspace between GA traffic

but this Trial does not fall into either of those categories. It is not about controlled airspace and it is not about EC between GA traffic.

This Trial is about Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace and ATSOCAS use of Traffic Displays of Air-to-Ground EC Data. Above all it is about the needs of GA Airfield ATS, which has its own discrete requirements.

The whole premise of the Trial Safety Case, upon which CAA authorisation for the Trial was based, is on 1090MHz ADS-B. The Safety Case and Safety Plan are available here:

https://airspace4all.org/wp-content/docs/20181012-Airspace4All-GA-Airfi…

https://airspace4all.org/wp-content/docs/20181012-Airspace4All-GA-Airfi…

Use of EC data other than 1090MHz ADS-B is not covered by the Safety Case. As far as the CAA are concerned, that would be a whole different Trial requiring a whole different Safety Case.

Incidentally, you mention "the carry on ADSB systems that you are using". All ADS-B equipped traffic at the Trial airfields is visible on the Traffic Display and contributes to the Trial. Whether it is Mode S ES ADS-B or CAP1391 device ADS-B is no matter.

And finally, for a better understanding of some of the issues relating to ATS use of ground based Traffic Displays have a read of CAP1669 - Review of CAA policy on the training, qualification and licensing of Flight Information Service Officers

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1669_FISO_Review_SEP2018(V1_1)…

Regards,
Steve

Hi Steve
Thanks for the clarification.

"This Trial is about Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace and ATSOCAS use of Traffic Displays of Air-to-Ground EC Data. Above all, it is about the needs of GA Airfield ATS, which has its own discrete requirements."

Yes, I understand and think that this is the type of location where you will find that a significant proportion of the local GA pilots will already have voluntary equipage of Flarm, Power Flarm and PilotAware for EC purposes so are ideal candidates for detection.

Anyway, I don't want to overly prolong the debate other than to inform that 1090MHz is by far not the only EC game in town. Also as the trial is ignoring ModeC/S transponders due to the MLAT latency, 1090MHz EC is in the minority compared with the FLARM and PilotAware equipped GA aircraft. Just an observation.

As you know my position is that we should have as much interoperability between existing systems for maximum effect and by this I mean interoperability between systems air to air and air to ground. Not just air to ground.

As a member of the PilotAware Team, I must declare my interest but with the very large voluntary take-up of none 1090MHz EC, I do think that this should be considered.

Anyway best of luck with the trial. I hope it will be successful and lead to an enhanced investigation and greater safety which is what we are all working towards. Keep up the good work.

Regards
Keith