AirNav Mlat

[Anmer]

There's an interesting (continuing) debate over on the AirNav forum concerning Mlat:

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=6578.msg76342#msg76342

Tarbat has made a proposal which may be at variance with the PlanePlotter Licence Agreement?

I would like to see two things:

1. An Airnav specific MLAT system, where the MLAT calculations are all carried out on a central server, with the MLAT'ed aircraft positions distributed across the Airnav network.

2. A change to Radarbox to access the OLE/COM interface from Planeplotter to extract MLAT'ed aircaft and integrate them into the Radarbox aircraft lists and maps.  We can already view MLAT'ed aircraft from Planeplotter in Radarbox 3D (using the KLM interface), it would be nice to be able to view them in 2D as well.

The PlanePlotter agreement specifically states:

Data must only be retrieved from the Internet sharing system using PlanePlotter software and such data must not be published or distributed in any form.

I'm not sure if Tarbat is wanting to integrate shared Mlat data from PP or just his own requests, though I don't see much point if he can plot local aircraft using the proposed AirNav Mlat solution?

I suppose it depends on COAA's definition of "internet sharing system"?

Should be interesting to see how this debate progresses.

[viking9]

I would imagine that Bev would never allow AirNav to do that without a hefty licence fee.

Whatever he implies by 'internet sharing system', Bev has absolute control as he can just shut out any sharer breaking his rules.

[Anmer]

Thanks Tom.  Seems Satcom agrees:

Option 1

I thought the idea was that AirNav were developing thier own Mlat !!

Option 2

Against COAA policy as defined in the EULA
No Mlat or shared  plots to be broadcast/re networked outside of the PlanePlotter network.

Users found to be attempting to re network the data would of course be switched off immediately [ it would be pretty obvious within minutes what was happening ]

Anyway , with AirNavs own Mlat system about to be rolled out , option 2 won't be needed.  :O)

[Sun Worshipper]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am) but I thought mlat was a complete no go area with current Radarbox hardware, let alone software.

[viking9]

You can request mlats with a RadarBox but you cannot send the raw data required to be a Ground Station to the PlanePlotter servers so you have to pay the annual €12 (+VAT) fee
.

[Anmer]

I could be wrong (things change so often in PlanePlotter) but I think, strictly speaking, only those using receivers capable of delivering "raw" data can initiate a Mlat request using their own data and location?

RadarBox isn't (currently) capable of delivering the required "raw" data and an Mlat request will only be fulfilled if other, raw data receivers have already plotted the aircraft.

As Tom says, only Master Users can initiate an Mlat request.  Those with suitable receivers and meeting stringent PP requirements can apply to become an approved Ground Station (GS) and will qualify for free Master User. Continued GS status is dependent on regular sharing data with PP.

Others can become Master Users by paying an annual fee, currently 12 Euros.

The key issue for RadarBox users is that they can't become approved GSs and, apart from having to pay an annual Master User fee, they can't contribute to the GS network.  As Tarbat found, he wasn't getting many Mlat plots in his area due to a lack of GSs.  Even if he were surrounded by lots of other RadarBox users, he'd still be dependent on approved GSs in his locality, all using other receivers..

And since AirNav has been promising to deliver its own Mlat solution for over 2 years, I can't see RadarBox becoming an approved GS receiver.

[viking9]

Hi Mike,

As I understand it you can be a Master User and initiate mlat requests even if you have no VR box, providing you pay the annual fee. Being a Ground Station supplying raw data regularly allows you to be a Master User without paying the annual fee.

Here's what the PlanePlotter website says:

If you are a PlanePlotter licence holder but you cannot contribute raw data regularly, you can request temporary Master User status for an experimental period of 21 days using the link below. If you request the 21 day trial, you are not committed to paying any fee unless you want to continue to use it after the end of 21 days. After that, you may choose to pay a small annual fee of Euro 12.00 (plus VAT in EU countries) to continue as a Master User. To request your 21 day free trial, please follow the link below.

and from the Wiki:

Option 2 - Master User - data user only

If for any reason you are unable to meet the criteria of becoming a Ground Station e.g. you are a RadarBox user, don't have SBS or are simply unable to leave the computer on for long periods of time, then paying is the only option.  Visit http://www.coaa.co.uk/mlat_request.php and continue clicking through to complete the process; this gives a 21 day trial after which you can chose to pay the annual €12 fee if you wish.  Having done this, follow the above from step 6

[Anmer]

I didn't think a RadarBox user could "contribute" to an Mlat plot task because it can't deliver raw data.

For example, if a RadarBox user had only one other approved Ground Station within the local area, I suspect an Mlat request for a local aircraft would fail whereas if he, instead, had a suitable receiver it might plot.  If that makes sense?

As you say someone without a receiver can be a Master User by paying a fee and get other Ground Stations to deliver an Mlat plot?  But these "PP viewers" aren't part of the Mlat Ground Station network, much the same as a RadarBox user.  I think!   

The mind boggles.

[viking9]

Mlat requires at least three ground stations able to 'see' the target before a successful fix can be achieved. It also, incidentally, currently requires an aircraft broadcasting full ADS-B within a defined area as a reference. Sometimes this condition is not met even though there may be 40 ground stations 'seeing' the aircraft. Bev is a very clever man, that's why multilateration of non-positional aircraft on a global scale has not been done by anyone else.

[tarbat]

Tarbat has made a proposal which may be at variance with the PlanePlotter Licence Agreement?

What I have proposed would not breach the EULA.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=6578.msg76395#msg76395

[Anmer]

If that's the case, all well and good.

I'm sure AirNav would check with COAA beforehand.

[satcom]

Have I missed something here.....this discussion goes back two months 

[Anmer]

Have I missed something here.....this discussion goes back two months 

Tarbat has just joined Radarspotting and has added his comments today.

[satcom]

Ahh , right , thanks Mike...thought I was caught up in Ground Hog day !

Welcome Chris

John

[Anmer]

I see someone on the AirNav forum has asked for an update on the oft promised Mlat.  Be interesting to see what excuse AirNav comes up with this time?  At least we had factory visits and demo flights of the A388 and B787. 

January 2012
"MLAT feature will be released by us, do not worry, the details are deliberately kept quiet and not passed on to anyone outside AirNav (including beta testers) as this is sensitive information and has a competitive disadvantage if released too early.

We understand and thank you for your patience regarding ShipTrax, unfortunately many projects in the world with massive budgets (A380, 787 all the way down to mobile phones) experience delays from software, manufacturing that are very difficult to perceive before hand. For this reason we are not giving any specific timelines for any projects untill near release.

There are many projects lined up (including MLAT) and rest assured they will be ready and you will be pleased when they arrive "

Latest question;

September 2012
"Airnav team, any more update on Mlat since 7 Jan 2012 when you posted "MLAT feature will be released by us, do not worry" on this thread? Thanks"

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=6578.msg83641#msg83641