OK, so where are all the Flybe aircraft ??? (Radarbox nr Exeter, Devon)

[DaveReid]

"AirNav have already dismissed my suggestion of using the ICAO International Register, which covers official data from most of the world's registration authorities."

Please copy-paste our statement where we dismiss it.

OK, if you are considering the ICAO International Register after all then I'm pleased to hear it, and I stand corrected.

Let me know if you would like any introductions.

[AirNav Development]

Ok so we have a progress. Please confirm you are not, one more time, trying to sell your system to our company.

[Fenris]

Airnav

I'm assuming that what you have at present is not free of cost to you. The question is, could some of that money be better spent elsewhere to help create a better and more accurate database? Exactly who the money goes to is a secondary consideration isn't it? Value for money is what most people want.

[tarbat]

Regarding MLAT: one more time expect the technical best solutions from us - we have always release what we promised.

It's got to be better than the PP-MLAT solution.  This is all I ever seem to get from that solution:

4 stations receiving raw data from the aircraft, 168 raw data packets received and processed, and still it can't give a fix on the aircraft.  Useless.

[itestoo]

So may be MALT Online with more ground stations, and new competitors ?

Regards
Laurent
www.radarvirtuel.com

[klm]

Regarding MLAT: one more time expect the technical best solutions from us - we have always release what we promised.

It's got to be better than the PP-MLAT solution.  This is all I ever seem to get from that solution:

4 stations receiving raw data from the aircraft, 168 raw data packets received and processed, and still it can't give a fix on the aircraft.  Useless.

At this point a must agree with the airnav arguments.
for the best results you simply can not rely on other hobbyists.
today there contribute and tomorrow there gone.
if you wish the best result there must be found a better solution.
as i see it now with the pp-mlat, at this moment its just a cluster of enthusiastic hobbyists who have succeeded to get this to work and they desperate to get more users to provide data for this.
Not saying that pp-mlat wont work at all but not on this manner 

[DaveReid]

as i see it now with the pp-mlat, at this moment its just a cluster of enthusiastic hobbyists who have succeeded to get this to work and they desperate to get more users to provide data for this.
Not saying that pp-mlat wont work at all but not on this manner 

You have just described, not only the PlanePlotter/MLat network, but also the AirNav network and indeed any of the other ADS-B sharing networks that we all have access to.

Are you seriously expecting AirNav to provide you with a network of worldwide, 24/7, professional MLat ground stations ?  If so, common sense will tell you to expect also a few more zeros to be added to the cost of your network subscription to finance that.

[satcom]

Regarding MLAT: one more time expect the technical best solutions from us - we have always release what we promised.

It's got to be better than the PP-MLAT solution.  This is all I ever seem to get from that solution:

4 stations receiving raw data from the aircraft, 168 raw data packets received and processed, and still it can't give a fix on the aircraft.  Useless.

Location Location Location

Not a lot more to say really.....oh and if you were supplying raw data yourself you would get a better hyper curve result

50 miles south and you would get much better results...so why not go mobile and test it :)

[tarbat]

4 stations receiving raw data from the aircraft, 168 raw data packets received and processed, and still it can't give a fix on the aircraft.  Useless.

Location Location Location

But how many ground stations, and how many raw reports does PP-MLAT need to get a fix?  I just don't understand why 168 raw reports aren't enough for PP-MLAT to even draw ONE hyper curve!!

[radarspotter10]

Hi all.
I am enjoying my airnav receiver and the new software is great,  i have no problems or complaints,  so why do people persist in taking down airnav,  i am getting spam email from the vultures site now about Mlat,  but we all know about their the hidden agenda.
from pat

[DaveReid]

But how many ground stations, and how many raw reports does PP-MLAT need to get a fix?  I just don't understand why 168 raw reports aren't enough for PP-MLAT to even draw ONE hyper curve!!

You could have a million raw reports, and the timing data in them would still be useless unless the required number of users all have simultaneous sight, not only of the MLat target, but also of a reference ADS-B aircraft.

Think about it - professional MLat systems only work because they have extremely accurate time synchronisation between all of the ground stations, which requires an infrastructure far more complex than that available to the enthusiast community.  PlanePlotter neatly sidesteps this requirement, but only by including the ability to reverse-engineer the synchronisation using a reference aircraft.

AirNav are going to encounter exactly the same issues with their MLat solution - unless they are planning to wire all the word's RadarBoxes together :-)

[AirNav Development]

>AirNav are going to encounter exactly the same issues

Dave: SBS/Kinetic could never release Mapmode-s because of technical difficulties. AirNav did so and our network is a huge success. Do you think we will do MLAT the way PP does it? The answer is no. Expect no amateur solutions for professional problems from us.

[klm]

Are you seriously expecting AirNav to provide you with a network of worldwide, 24/7, professional MLat ground stations ?  If so, common sense will tell you to expect also a few more zeros to be added to the cost of your network subscription to finance that.

don't remember saying that i expect it from airnav.
but i know that most projects that depent on a few enthusiastic users eventualy dry up and vanish.
maybe some clever guy find a better solution for this.

and what the other networks concerns,  that's a total different story then Mlat, even if there are only 2 users that share there data you get the profit from it. (for the network that is)
its useful to get more shared data, but not necessary
there is a differents between need and useful.
as it looks now mlat wont work as it should because there is to few users that take part

[bratters]

Do you think we will do MLAT the way PP does it? The answer is no. Expect no amateur solutions for professional problems from us.

A new approach? Now that's got me interested.

Let's get back to old WW2 type triangulation  :)

[Allocator]

Nothing old about auto-triangulation, still in use by the Distress and Diversion Cells at Swanwick and Prestwick :-)

Based on radio transmissions though, not Mode S data.