Important: These forums are for discussions between SkyDemon users. They are not routinely monitored by SkyDemon staff so any urgent issues should be sent directly to our Customer Support.

Air Connect v2 issue


Author
Message
TouchTheSky
T
Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 82, Visits: 1.8K
Tim,

Marc from Air Avionics recommended that I contact you directly. With the latest Air Connect hardware I am receiving $PFLAA errors from time to time, see below. Anything going on on your end to resolve this? You should have this latest hardware in your office ...

blob:http://forums.skydemon.aero/d66c1758-8c8f-4f18-aa59-9065eb0d1652

Edited 8/30/2018 5:13:09 PM by TouchTheSky
Peer
Peer
Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 314
TouchTheSky - 8/30/2018 2:15:48 PM
Tim,

Marc from Air Avionics recommended that I contact you directly. With the latest Air Connect hardware I am receiving $PFLAA errors from time to time, see below. Anything going on on your end to resolve this? You should have this latest hardware in your office ...

blob:http://forums.skydemon.aero/6b86c9a4-e443-4ee1-826c-057539af035f

I'm waiting for that update desperately. It is unuseble at this time. I do not understand that SD stops working directly when there is just a little error in the data data stream. Hope that the SD coder will find a solution soon.



Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 5.7K, Visits: 4.2K
No other device in the world sends erroneous data. I am very surprised you are willing to accept such an answer from the manufacturer of an avionics solution you have paid money for. It seems their response is to suggest that downstream avionics simply ignores errors, giving the pilot no clue something is seriously wrong with their GPS source. It is unbelievable.

Please bear in mind that GPS sentences are subject to a checksum, which we validate. This means that the errors are NOT somehow occurring during transmission; the source hardware is sending invalid data. Again, we have never seen this from any other device (and we've seen a lot).

We have no plans to lower our receiver standards such that incorrect data is simply ignored.

Edited 8/30/2018 4:37:57 PM by Tim Dawson
Peer
Peer
Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 314
Tim Dawson - 8/30/2018 4:37:01 PM
No other device in the world sends erroneous data. I am very surprised you are willing to accept such an answer from the manufacturer of an avionics solution you have paid money for. It seems their response is to suggest that downstream avionics simply ignores errors, giving the pilot no clue something is seriously wrong with their GPS source. It is unbelievable.

Please bear in mind that GPS sentences are subject to a checksum, which we validate. This means that the errors are NOT somehow occurring during transmission; the source hardware is sending invalid data. Again, we have never seen this from any other device (and we've seen a lot).

We have no plans to lower our receiver standards such that incorrect data is simply ignored.


Wrong answer!!!



TouchTheSky
T
Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)Too Much Forum (2.3K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 82, Visits: 1.8K
Tim Dawson - 8/30/2018 4:37:01 PM
No other device in the world sends erroneous data. I am very surprised you are willing to accept such an answer from the manufacturer of an avionics solution you have paid money for. It seems their response is to suggest that downstream avionics simply ignores errors, giving the pilot no clue something is seriously wrong with their GPS source. It is unbelievable.

Please bear in mind that GPS sentences are subject to a checksum, which we validate. This means that the errors are NOT somehow occurring during transmission; the source hardware is sending invalid data. Again, we have never seen this from any other device (and we've seen a lot).

We have no plans to lower our receiver standards such that incorrect data is simply ignored.

Tim, I am disappointed about both the tone and the direction of your answer. Please keep in mind that we all are exited users of SD that simply want to make sure that the most popular European EFB connects to the most popular European traffic device. A working system helps to safe lives, so please don't blame us the users rather than simply giving Marc a call or sending him an email. We as users already exhausted our possibilities by contacting both of you individually, what else can we do?

Edited 8/30/2018 8:12:44 PM by TouchTheSky
Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)SkyDemon Team (460K reputation)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 5.7K, Visits: 4.2K
I can't make everyone happy all the time. If I were you, I would return the device I have purchased which is outputting erroneous data. Just a thought.

Peer, I am intrigued by your description of the "little error" coming from the Air device which you feel it would be best for us to silently ignore. Would you be prepared for us to tolerate a "little error" in our display of NOTAMs which affect your flight, or in the warnings we show during the planning and navigation phases, or perhaps in the MSA calculations and many other places in the software where we keep you safe?

This is not an industry where it is acceptable to tolerate "little errors" where they can be fixed by whatever is producing them.

Marc
M
Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)Forum Newbie (7 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3, Visits: 0
Marc with AIR Avionics. To speed things up and to create transparency, I made an account here -- Hi everyone. 

Before getting into detail, I will give you some insights into the technology used. The main data communication technology in use for all FLARM based traffic systems is RS232 (all besides our new AIR TRAFFIC. This one features a direct WiFi interface plus additional other interfaces like ARINC429). Every second, several datasets (normally over 30) are sent over this interface, e.g. GPS position, pressure altitude, and traffic targets (one dataset per target). There are two common failure modes we know of:

1) Checksum error: To preserve data integrity and to detect data integrity issues, checksums are used. If these checksums do not match the dataset's content, the dataset is to be considered as false.

2) Error in the data itself: Wrong data is transmitted. Traffic targets not producing warnings are encoded in RS232 datasets starting with $PFLAA. The error described by ToTheSky shows such a traffic dataset with a missing data field (differential altitude). We do not know where this comes from. We suspect an internal processing error in the ADS-B/FLARM receiver or another component down the signal processing chain.

Both failure modes are common, that means, they occur frequently. To put this into perspective, roughly 30 datasets are sent per second, every second. That is over 100,000 datasets an hour. First, due to RS232 signal integrity issues, wiring issues, EMI issues, checksum errors happen.  This goes for all RS232 devices we know of (also certified devices), and this is what checksums are for. Secondly, sometimes, datasets contain errors with correct checksums, which means wrong data is transferred correctly. While this second failure mode, error in the dataset, is not good, I totally agree with that, it still happens. This as well is no specific to TRX devices, it happens with many FLARM and non-FLARM device types we know and, therefore, is to be considered as being common. Don't get me wrong: This is not at all good. Just because its common does not mean that its good. In our new AIR TRAFFIC, we have doubled down on data integrity and quality.

We propose a design that is tolerant towards a certain amount of failures. This is state of the industry and widely accepted as good practice. For example, the parsers (that's the piece of software decoding the RS232 data stream) in our avionics systems, omit datasets with invalid checksums and wrong data for a certain amount of time. The result is that the single failed dataset is not processed or shown to the flight crew, which results in its content, e.g. a traffic target, not being shown for one second, and then shown again after a new and valid dataset has been received.


in the software where we keep you safe?

This is not a valid argument. Providing a pop-up failure message because of a single 1-second event does not promote flight safety. It distracts the flight crew and consumes workload.  It stops traffic data from being displayed which results in loss of traffic awareness. Moreover, you mix data quality with safety. Identifying a single dataset as false and ignoring it, results in a one-second data outage for this particular target. This is for sure not a good thing, but where is flight safety compromised?


Tim, I am disappointed about both the tone [...] of your answer.

Me, too.


If I were you, I would return the device I have purchased which is outputting erroneous data

It is not up to us to decide, what our customers want, is it? Badmouthing us or our products won't help either. I'd prefer to work together to find a solution that meets our customers' requirements. 


My humble suggestion to resolve this: 
SD directly acknowledges the warning popup window after correct data is received again. No flight crew action required. If wrong datasets persist, the window stays. Everybody gets it the way he wants, we all go flying. 

Best wishes,
Marc

Peer
Peer
Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 314
Tim Dawson - 9/3/2018 11:11:56 AM
I can't make everyone happy all the time. If I were you, I would return the device I have purchased which is outputting erroneous data. Just a thought.

Peer, I am intrigued by your description of the "little error" coming from the Air device which you feel it would be best for us to silently ignore. Would you be prepared for us to tolerate a "little error" in our display of NOTAMs which affect your flight, or in the warnings we show during the planning and navigation phases, or perhaps in the MSA calculations and many other places in the software where we keep you safe?

This is not an industry where it is acceptable to tolerate "little errors" where they can be fixed by whatever is producing them.


Hi Tim,
sorry, but i can not follow you.
Let us emagine you fly a A380 across the ocean.
Suddenly on of the engines repoorts a failure.
Option one: The crew gets a message and can interact if possible
Option two: All engines were shutting down emediately. "Cause we don't accept an aircraft which is not perfect. Return your aircraft and buy a 747"
Well... i thing i would prefere the first option. ;-)
Tim: In germany we say "Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein Gebüsch".
It is ok to notify the user, that's something wrong with the data. (with the option "do not show this message ")
But it is absotutely NOT safe to shut off the navigation. It is DANGEROUS!
I myself was in an situation entering an airspace of Frankfurt when SD tryed to make my flight "saver"(!)
What a shi...  It takes two minutes to get the system working again. Two minutes are a long time in the airspace of FFM without navigation.
Please find a solution. THX.
Regards
Peer



Peer
Peer
Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 314
Marc - 9/4/2018 8:55:02 AM
My humble suggestion to resolve this: 
SD directly acknowledges the warning popup window after correct data is received again. No flight crew action required. If wrong datasets persist, the window stays. Everybody gets it the way he wants, we all go flying. 

Live could be so easy. :-)



Peer
Peer
Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)Too Much Forum (688 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 37, Visits: 314
[quote]
Tim Dawson - 9/3/2018 11:11:56 AM
I can't make everyone happy all the time. If I were you, I would return the device I have purchased which is outputting erroneous data. Just a thought.

If i where i, i would go bak to my "old" flying app which works fine with FLARM. Just my thought.
BUT i'm sure you will find a way. Will you? I belive in SD.



GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search