iFly GPS Forum

We have a new Forum!  Go here to get started: https://adventurepilot.community.forum.  
The new forum is easier to use and much more capable than the old, we hope you will join our community! 

Below is a copy of the old forum. This will remain available for a short period so you can access and review the information contained here. To continue a conversation, or start a new one, please register and create a post at our new forum location.
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsiFly General Di...iFly General Di...iFly 740b Alerts Are DangerousiFly 740b Alerts Are Dangerous
Previous
 
Next
New Post
7/21/2020 12:52 PM
 
Don Norris wrote:

FYI, from my experience, Flightaware was very sketchy showing my flights with flight following until I got ADS-B out (1090). It has been very solid if I'm flying above 3500ft., but skips a bunch when I'm 2500 ft or lower (ground level is around 1200 ft here on central OK).

My ADS-B in was also very spotty until I installed the ou transponder, but it shows a lot more airplanes than I can visually see on the iFly. I have seen aircraft visually flying lower than me, even within (below) KTULs class C that did not show up on ADS-B in.

I think altitude for the towers and radar to see us is key.

That's interesting, maybe I'll do some testing with FA and see if it's improved since my IN/OUT install. 

It seems that as long as your ADS-B in the iFly display says "receiving" you should be visible to FA or any other ADS-B consumer.  While I know receiving on ones side doesn't mean the tower received *your* transmission, since radio waves travel in straight lines it should be generally true that "if I ss you, you can see me".  Expecially given that a tower can afford the weight to have much better receivers than most airplanes.

In my area I can get some ADS-B traffic down to the ground, and get the "receiving" message (indicating a more complete traffic picture) around 800ft AGL, I usually don't get ADS-B weather until 1200-1500ft AGL.

 
New Post
7/21/2020 2:57 PM
 
FlyingMonkey wrote:

Don, personally I would not rely on FlightAware for much of anything.  I have found their data to be very unreliable.  I have not seen airplanes in their site that I know for a fact were in primary radar coverage and using flight following.  Not sure whay their data is so sketchy, but in my experience it is.

"Your mileage may vary."

We all have our own experiences and observations.  For what it's worth, my experience has been different.  It might be that I'm usually on an IFR flight plan, so I'm the guy punching in my tail number, and not somebody at FSS or ATC who might have fat-fingered my call sign.  It might be that my part of the country has way more sources of data feeding into FlightAware's system so that I'm almost never "off the grid".  It might be because I've lived a righteous life, and karma smiles upon me (that seems highly unlikely to me).  Who really knows.

When I first started flying in 2009, I'd have agreed with you that FA's data was pretty sketchy and unreliable.  But over the years, in my experience, it's gotten very noticeably better, such that now it's pretty unusual to notice a gap or error in FA's tracks for me.

Over that time, FA's been growing their network of ADSB-in receivers, and I installed an ADSB-out transponder, and I think both of those things contributed to their improved tracking of me.

But another thing that helped is changing a setting in my account to "Show position-only flights."  FA used to warn you that this can introduce less-reliable data (which implies that they tend to err on the side of omitting data that they have doubts about).  However, in my experience this substantailly increases the chances that they'll capture my flight and show it to me on flights where I don't file a flight plan or talk to ATC.

I was just about to provide instructions on how to enable that setting, but it's not there anymore.  According to the FA FAQ, that feature has become reliable enough that it is now normal behavior for all users.

So, if your comment about finding FA unreliable is based on recent observations, then I guess this post is worthless and I apologize for the noise.

But if you formed an opinion on FA's tracking reliability some time ago, then it might be worth re-evaluating today, and into the future.  They are continuously improving.

 
New Post
7/21/2020 5:04 PM
 

I think FlightAware is quite reliable nowadays. Also, it gets its data from many sources. iFly (or any other in-flight display) gets data from many fewer sources. Right now, for example, I'm comparing FlightAware on my iPhone with what iFly is displaying on a Windows tablet/laptop sitting on my desk, receiving ADS-B with a Ping ADS-B receiver (that I bought from Adventure Pilot a few years ago) and GPS from a little GPS/GLONASS dongle. iFly shows NO traffic whatsoever just now; FlightAware, on the other hand, shows 22 aircraft, one of them about 5 miles from me at 15,000 feet. All of the distances in iFly are set to Unlimited. Granted, it's indoors, but a few hours ago, when conditions were better, the iFly was displaying 5 aircraft--so it really does work.  Just not nearly as well as FlightAware.

 
New Post
7/21/2020 5:54 PM
 

Aww, man, that's not a fair fight at all.  If you've never looked, FA has a map showing all the sites that feed data into its network:  https://flightaware.com/adsb/coverage

My house has at least a dozen feeders within a 5 mi radius...probably closer to 20.  If I were to compare that network against a single ADSB receiver--indoors at ground level, no less--that's just all kinds of not fair!  :-)

 
New Post
7/21/2020 8:16 PM
 

With a well functioning ADS-B in/out setup that passes a PAPR report, and at a reasonable altitude to send & receive to the towers (let's say 2000AGL in relatively flat terrain), the *only* traffic you should be missing is traffic without a functioning Mode C transponder.  If that's not the case, something is wrong somewhere.  That's whole reason behind ADS-B / NEXRAD.

It doesn't mean you should stop looking out the window as your primary method of avoidance, but the above is what was sold to pilots; we were supposed to get the same view that ATC gets (except maybe special miltary or DHS traffic), because it's literally the same data.  I'm not saying that is 100% what we have now, but it's what the system is supposed to offer.

 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsiFly General Di...iFly General Di...iFly 740b Alerts Are DangerousiFly 740b Alerts Are Dangerous