New weather radar app designed for small aircraft

G

gestureman

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
4
Location
Oxford
Display Name
Display name:
Rob Ellis
I have developed an app which gives you a live radar image of the rainfall in front of your aircraft in flight.

It uses a link to National Weather Service data which it updates as you fly, plus your phone or tablet's GPS. It works up to about 3000ft and requires a cellphone data connection.

It is limited to Android phones only and is available from the Google Play Store. Its called "Aircraft Rainfall Radar".

Let me know what you think.

- Rob.
 
gestureman said:
I have developed an app which gives you a live radar image of the rainfall in front of your aircraft in flight.

It uses a link to National Weather Service data which it updates as you fly, plus your phone or tablet's GPS. It works up to about 3000ft and requires a cellphone data connection.

It is limited to Android phones only and is available from the Google Play Store. Its called "Aircraft Rainfall Radar".

Let me know what you think.

- Rob.
Click to expand...

1. It's not live, it's Memorex:D
2. As such it is subject to same time delay limitations as NEXRAD
3. Marketed the way you have above, pilots unaware will think they are Ted Dupuis and try to pick their way through storms with it.
4. It's a good thing that pilots are being educated about #2, so they don't try #3
 
Last edited:
So, you're marketing a product that requires pilots to violate FCC regulations in order to use it as intended?
 
Jaybird180 said:
1. It's not live, it's Memorex:D
2. As such it is subject to same time delay limitations as NEXRAD
3. Marketed the way you have above, pilots unaware will think they are Ted Dupuis and try to pick their way through storms with it.
4. It's a good thing that pilots are being educated about #2, so they don't try #3
Click to expand...

Hope the developer has good liability insurance.
 
Needs lightning strike data as well.
 
The app is subject to the NEXRAD radar processing delay, which is calculated and shown in the top right of the display. It's usually about 10-15mins and an animation function shows you the current trend on the display so you can compensate.

Lightning strikes is a good idea - I will look into the data availability.

Thanks,

- Rob.

PS. If the Feds close in, I will run to Moscow. Didn't it used to be the other way around?
 
The delay makes it useless for tactical decision making, the cellular connection requirement makes it useless for most of the flying I have done in the US. Even NEXRAD from the satellite or whatever feed is useless, up to dangerous, for anything besides strategic planning when it comes to convective systems; they just grow and shift too fast. Once ATC was trying to tell me to turn 60° right to avoid a major cell they were seeing, as was the Garmin 496 my buddy was heads down in trying to tell me to turn right as well. Only problem was looking out the window I could see that the big badassed black and green cell they were talking about was now exactly where they were trying to tell me to go, and I had light skies and elevating ceilings direct ahead with reasonable looking bases flanking. Told ATC they were trying to turn me direct into the cell as it had moved, and they called a Mooney who was behind me who had taken their directions and redirected him in my trail.

If the RADAR is not based in the airplane, it it no good for tactical guidance through weather. When it is tied to a platform that may or may not work at any given time, makes it worth less than nothing in a cockpit. Sounds like a nice app to tie into an Umbrella Alarm to warn people walking around with good coverage that they may want to pull their umbrella out.
 
I agree with Henning. I have found all of the apps that rely on cell phone connections are worthless to people who actually fly.
 
Plus keeping the cell connection service active while flying can really eat into battery reserves. At least that has been my experience with the iThingies.
 
Plug 'em in, Mike!

I have a standard dual USB charger and keep both the phone an iPad plugged in while flying. It doesn't charge the iPad but will hold the battery steady or, worse case, slow the discharge rate down to a snail's pace.
 
JeffDG said:
So, you're marketing a product that requires pilots to potentially violate FCC regulations in order to use it as intended?
Click to expand...
Edited to add bolded word to clarify that not all cellphones are prohibited in the air because not all of them are covered under FCC Part 22. Only the 800MHz phone are prohibited from being used up in the air. Other bands, 1.9GHz, 2.5GHz are not covered under that part and are not subject to that rule.

Regardless the bigger issue is that cellular phone systems are not designed to be used while airborne and depending on a cellular data connection while airborne to pick one's way through the WX is just plain STUPID!
 
ScottM said:
Edited to add bolded word to clarify that not all cellphones are prohibited in the air because not all of them are covered under FCC Part 22. Only the 800MHz phone are prohibited from being used up in the air. Other bands, 1.9GHz, 2.5GHz are not covered under that part and are not subject to that rule.

Regardless the bigger issue is that cellular phone systems are not designed to be used while airborne and depending on a cellular data connection while airborne to pick one's way through the WX is just plain STUPID!
Click to expand...

The issue is, almost all phones can use 900MHz, and the user has zero control over which band their phone uses at any particular time.
 
JeffDG said:
The issue is, almost all phones can use 900MHz, and the user has zero control over which band their phone uses at any particular time.
Click to expand...

And the bigger issue is...who really cares?!?! :rolleyes:
 
To limit me to altitudes that require cellar connectivity makes the app all but useless. You have created a nice toy but it's not at all truly useful.
 
Henning said:
The delay makes it useless for tactical decision making, the cellular connection requirement makes it useless for most of the flying I have done in the US. Even NEXRAD from the satellite or whatever feed is useless, up to dangerous, for anything besides strategic planning when it comes to convective systems; they just grow and shift too fast. Once ATC was trying to tell me to turn 60° right to avoid a major cell they were seeing, as was the Garmin 496 my buddy was heads down in trying to tell me to turn right as well. Only problem was looking out the window I could see that the big badassed black and green cell they were talking about was now exactly where they were trying to tell me to go, and I had light skies and elevating ceilings direct ahead with reasonable looking bases flanking. Told ATC they were trying to turn me direct into the cell as it had moved, and they called a Mooney who was behind me who had taken their directions and redirected him in my trail.

If the RADAR is not based in the airplane, it it no good for tactical guidance through weather. When it is tied to a platform that may or may not work at any given time, makes it worth less than nothing in a cockpit. Sounds like a nice app to tie into an Umbrella Alarm to warn people walking around with good coverage that they may want to pull their umbrella out.
Click to expand...
ATC radar is no good? When did this story take place?
 
JeffDG said:
The issue is, almost all phones can use 900MHz, and the user has zero control over which band their phone uses at any particular time.
Click to expand...

Who care about 900MHz in the US? It is not even a cellular allocation here. The issue is with 800MHz. And yep the user has virtually no control except some operators do not have any roaming agreements with 800MHz operators. But it would be hard to impossible for the average person to find that out.

I was just picking nits with you on that issue. The bigger one is that the cellular systems is not designed for airborne use and any operation you get is just plain dumb luck. It is not dependable enough while flying to bet your life on it.
 
gestureman said:
The app is subject to the NEXRAD radar processing delay, which is calculated and shown in the top right of the display. It's usually about 10-15mins and an animation function shows you the current trend on the display so you can compensate...
Click to expand...
Still too much delay to safely compensate for, IMO. Cells can be building and moving so fast that that it can/has been difficult to avoid stuff that we're looking at with on-board radar 10 miles out, especially as you factor in the delay of coordinating clearances with ATC when busy...

Art VanDelay said:
To limit me to altitudes that require cellar connectivity makes the app all but useless. You have created a nice toy but it's not at all truly useful.
Click to expand...
Yup. Seems like even in the flat areas 3,000 barely gets you above the MVA, so at useful flight altitudes, this would be useless.
 
gestureman said:
I have developed an app which gives you a live radar image of the rainfall in front of your aircraft in flight.

It uses a link to National Weather Service data which it updates as you fly, plus your phone or tablet's GPS. It works up to about 3000ft and requires a cellphone data connection.

It is limited to Android phones only and is available from the Google Play Store. Its called "Aircraft Rainfall Radar".

Let me know what you think.

- Rob.
Click to expand...

Rob, just a few thoughts here..

Your idea of using pilots' everyday carry items (i.e., cell phone, ipad, etc.) to provide them with inflight capabilities at a fraction of the cost is a good one. The benefit here is that your target market, and likely early adopters of technology, have pointed out there concerns and the limitations of your first version of your product.

If you could figure out a way to address their concerns and develop a fraction-of-the-cost device to receive the data as required, then you would likely have a high acceptance rate.

The competition right now is, please someone jump in here, $899 for XM weather for iPad or Stratus for $799. At what pricepoint would many more pilots purchase a device that used their smart phone or tablet? $400? $200? $100?

Just some thoughts.
 
Hi,

It's confession time - I only fly 100 mile trips and rarely go above 3000ft. I love cloudy days and playing in the layers. I wrote the app a year ago because I once got caught out by a small patch of heavy rain. We have a Cessna Caravan at our airfield with a rather nice weather radar fitted and I got jealous.

Since then I have found the radar app really useful, particularly in helping work out the difference between just dark cloud and rain cloud whilst in the air. It's also useful in telling you whether the rain you can see visually is isolated or a front which you cannot get around.

Like all sources of information to the pilot, it should never be used in isolation and is certainly not infallible. Those of you who can fit a weather radar unit to your wing are definately going to get a better service. The rest of us now have an app!

- Rob.
 
The storm chasers would probably be a good market for your app, although they have some pretty sophisticated tools already available to them. They have to address the data latency as well. Read more at the StormTrack forum.
 
FLA-MAV said:
Rob, just a few thoughts here..

Your idea of using pilots' everyday carry items (i.e., cell phone, ipad, etc.) to provide them with inflight capabilities at a fraction of the cost is a good one. The benefit here is that your target market, and likely early adopters of technology, have pointed out there concerns and the limitations of your first version of your product.

If you could figure out a way to address their concerns and develop a fraction-of-the-cost device to receive the data as required, then you would likely have a high acceptance rate.

The competition right now is, please someone jump in here, $899 for XM weather for iPad or Stratus for $799. At what pricepoint would many more pilots purchase a device that used their smart phone or tablet? $400? $200? $100?

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

Pilots? $9.99 app.
 
Hey, if you're only flying an ultralight at 500agl, I'm sure your coverage is fine. Out this way, anything above 1000agl is quite unreliable.
 
Actually I find the worst place for cell reception is on the airfield itself. The number of times I have been struggling to call a destination prior to takeoff.

If I was a real geek, I'd invent a 30KW cellphone booster.

- Rob.
 
gestureman said:
Actually I find the worst place for cell reception is on the airfield itself. The number of times I have been struggling to call a destination prior to takeoff.

If I was a real geek, I'd invent a 30KW cellphone booster.

- Rob.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting, Ft Mead would have direct reception of your phone instead of having to spy on you through your service provider.:D
 
gestureman said:
Actually I find the worst place for cell reception is on the airfield itself. The number of times I have been struggling to call a destination prior to takeoff.

If I was a real geek, I'd invent a 30KW cellphone booster.

- Rob.
Click to expand...
GEEK ALERT: Amplifiers have already been invented. What you mean is to design a 30kW (note the lower case k for kilo, the capital K means Kelvin) cellphone booster. Even so, amplifying the uplink would do nothing to help your coverage as it is a downlink issue. You need more power from the base station.
 
Henning said:
4 or 5 years ago, I figured they were getting the same paint feed from NEXRAD.
Click to expand...

If you were talking to ARTCC, then yes, there could be a delay. Not as old as your 496 though. Terminal radar is real time...well seconds old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top