Xtophe wrote:
NATS is not doing anything, it is the group doing the trials at Goodwood: Trax, Skyports, uAvionics, ANRA
I wonder if they only get the kind of data we can all somehow receive like MLAT, ADS-B, FLARM etc. or if also “real” secondary radar data from ATC is included.
I got the information on the Avydine late last month. (though I am not sure if it is linked to the Lynx L3 or not…)
The text suggests this is the standard NATS radar feed, i.e. Mode A, C, S, ADS-B OUT (ATC is not supposed to be receiving less than SIL=3 only; basically airliners and a little bit of high-end GA), and they are merging FLARM data into it.
Is there any way to merge this with ex-TAS6xx traffic data? We have done this question before, and setting aside the industry position that anything not on an STC is “illegal”, it probably works if the TIS data really is like what they have in the US.
But I remain puzzled about the business case. Why on a 40nm radius around Goodwood? Well obviously because that’s where the single transmitter will be located, and some NATS staff live down there 
but if you only get a 40nm radius, you will need an awful lot of transmitters to cover the UK: hundreds. I don’t think @pepperjo is still around but this post is pretty much the same business case problem. I don’t see it actually happening. It could be this is a promotion pushed by the box manufacturers (on the basis that social media is too diluted to be useful, nobody reads magazines, so advertising is ineffective, so getting media space via these projects which get picked up and plastered over loads of websites, is the only way forward). Or it could be a due diligence box ticking job by the CAA, in anticipation of a drone-GA collision.
Sebastian_G wrote:
if also “real” secondary radar data from ATC is included.
No I undersatnd the UK TIS trial has no SSR ATC feeds from TXP just the various EC emitters combined and bundled in single ADSB targets (ADSB, PAW, FLARM, COCORICO, HERMES, CHANEL, LANCOME, D&G…)
That’s not what post #1 contains.
It would be bloody useless otherwise.
Peter wrote:
Or it could be a due diligence box ticking job by the CAA, in anticipation of a drone-GA collision.
For sure there’s a big element of that. Eventually there will be such a collision and the CAA will want to be able to show that they didn’t have their heads in the sand over the issue.
It also ticks the ‘encouraging innovation’ box.
Sebastian_G wrote:
Yes but as far as I can tell it will loose the FLARM reception as 978 and FLARM use the same input.
Or you can plug a 3rd antenna :P
I assume as the original post says they will use MLAT, that they will not have the actual ATC data, or MLAT would make little sense. In the end that is also the unique selling point. All the other data can be received in flight with simple equipment but you can not properly detect those Mode A/C/S targets in flight without an active system.
Very strange, because Mode C/S MLAT is often garbage e.g.
and there is no MLAT for Mode A yet they talk about Mode A/S. MLAT is so inaccurate as to be practically useless for traffic warning.
The press release makes no sense to me.
If they really are doing MLAT then it is purely a promotional gimmick, to get clickbait.
I have tried in PAW, it’s garbage as far as I am aware…
See Mode-S/3D Visualisation,
