MLAT is now live on Flightradar24

[wfreireec]

In Ecuador with two or more receivers MLAT would have a better coverage. A new receiver on SEGU, SESA or SESD help a lot.

SEMT SEGU airports as they are used by many private planes as points to refuel on long flights.

Regards

[GitseBase]

MLAT in Suriname

In Suriname plans are underway to achieve MLAT coverage.
One FR24 receiver is going to be installed at the Johan Adolf Pengel International Airport (SMJP) and one in the west west of Suriname (near SMNI).
Together with F-SMZO1 and F-SMZO2 MLAT should be possible.

Are there requirements as to the placing of the receivers to achieve optimal coverage. (distance, pattern etc.. etc..)

[delcomp]

In Suriname plans are underway to achieve MLAT coverage.
One FR24 receiver is going to be installed at the Johan Adolf Pengel International Airport (SMJP) and one in the west west of Suriname (near SMNI).
Together with F-SMZO1 and F-SMZO2 MLAT should be possible.

Are there requirements as to the placing of the receivers to achieve optimal coverage. (distance, pattern etc.. etc..)

Except that MLAT requires four Recievers,....Where All Recievers then recieve the same signal.

And with ADS-B being a Line of Sight reception,. The higher the Antenne, The better the results.

Not forgetting ,. Buildings High Towers,. Trees/Woods) Hills and Mountains can make a differrents to your reception.

[GitseBase]

Except that MLAT requires four Recievers,....Where All Recievers then recieve the same signal.

And with ADS-B being a Line of Sight reception,. The higher the Antenne, The better the results.

Not forgetting ,. Buildings High Towers,. Trees/Woods) Hills and Mountains can make a differrents to your reception.

This part is clear to me.

Let's say that all 4 (or more) receivers have a line of sight. How would the distance between the receivers affect the precision of the M-LAT. ?
In my case 3 receivers are located (in an almost perfect line )from north to south with approx 12.5 NM between. [Receiver 1 ----12.5 NM ---- Receiver 2 ---- 12.5 NM ---- Receiver 3]
The fourth receiver is 100 NM to the west of the receivers

[Oblivian]

This part is clear to me.

Let's say that all 4 (or more) receivers have a line of sight. How would the distance between the receivers affect the precision of the M-LAT. ?
In my case 3 receivers are located (in an almost perfect line )from north to south with approx 12.5 NM between. [Receiver 1 ----12.5 NM ---- Receiver 2 ---- 12.5 NM ---- Receiver 3]
The fourth receiver is 100 NM to the west of the receivers

It was like that here for a while. And mlat was far and few. Then a couple appeared some 200nm away off to one side and it was all on. When aligned the opposite axis location is hard to distinguish and can make incorrect zig-zag patterns.

Sent from my XT1092 using Tapatalk

[GitseBase]

It was like that here for a while. And mlat was far and few. Then a couple appeared some 200nm away off to one side and it was all on. When aligned the opposite axis location is hard to distinguish and can make incorrect zig-zag patterns.
....

I made a map with the flight paths and (planned) FR24 receivers.

Oblivian, so if i understand you correct in the current setup MLAT results would be next to none for approaches into the airport where receiver 3 is located?

Click to enlarge

[Oblivian]

The areas to the left might be OK with the 3 in a row.

Here the paths ran N/S nearly over top of them. So one to the other side of the tracks made it all happen.

Where the 2 outters are (4 and the planned) should cover it nicely I'd imagine. But it may have results off to the left with the separation they have now. If it was further to the north/south it may strike issues if you catch my drift

For example. If you have 3 in a row, and want to calculate the position (Red) and there is a short length of variance. How do you know which side (blue dots) the W/E loctation is.

However if the station off to the right (circled) was in action, It could fill the missing part of the equation

mlatlayout.jpg

[GitseBase]

Thanks for the explanation. It confirmed my suspicion that 3 in a row could be problematic.

The red dot on the right is the legend :P
Receiver 1 and Receiver 2 are live at the moment and Receiver 3 and Receiver 4 are planned. Receiver 3 located is at the airport to have ground coverage.

Problem is that the FR24 receivers from Guyana and French-Guiana have a very limited range of around 150 NM and do not cover Suriname. A receiver to the east near the border with French-Guiana can reach the border with Guyana if located strategical thus providing 5 receivers available for MLAT. In an ideal situation that could probably cover Suriname and French-Guiana with MLAT
Best would be to have a receiver in the south but that is next to impossible to achieve.

[Olov]

Thanks for the explanation. It confirmed my suspicion that 3 in a row could be problematic.

The red dot on the right is the legend :P
Receiver 1 and Receiver 2 are live at the moment and Receiver 3 and Receiver 4 are planned. Receiver 3 located is at the airport to have ground coverage.

Problem is that the FR24 receivers from Guyana and French-Guiana have a very limited range of around 150 NM and do not cover Suriname. A receiver to the east near the border with French-Guiana can reach the border with Guyana if located strategical thus providing 5 receivers available for MLAT. In an ideal situation that could probably cover Suriname and French-Guiana with MLAT
Best would be to have a receiver in the south but that is next to impossible to achieve.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dhnmmwe0nmfz5gz/Sk%C3%A4rmklipp%202016-02-09%2013.02.25.png?dl=0

Three (!) receivers in French Guiana with very very limited coverage, didnt even enable coverage data on the screenshot because it was so little. A few nm.

Suriname receivers pretty good, both covering almost the whole country to the south. And 200nm out in the ocean.

Guyana receiver only covers roughly 50nm in all directions.

To get stable MLAT in the area we would need a bunch more receivers, or get better performance from the ones we have. If anyone is up for it, let me know!

*Edit: We have one new receiver shipping to Suriname at the moment, location will be in Zanderij. Looks like a really good location, fingers crossed!

[GitseBase]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dhnmmwe0nm...02.25.png?dl=0

*Edit: We have one new receiver shipping to Suriname at the moment, location will be in Zanderij. Looks like a really good location, fingers crossed!

Receiver at Zanderij (Airport) is installed as of today
Now we can see ground traffic.


Problem with (French)Guyana is that the receivers are there, but that they probably need to be placed higher.
The feeder from Guyana isn't active on the forum and there is no means of contacting him or the feeders from French-Guiana.

I'll check if there are people near the border with a tower where an antenna can be placed.

[Olov]

Receiver at Zanderij (Airport) is installed as of today
Now we can see ground traffic.


Problem with (French)Guyana is that the receivers are there, but that they probably need to be placed higher.
The feeder from Guyana isn't active on the forum and there is no means of contacting him or the feeders from French-Guiana.

I'll check if there are people near the border with a tower where an antenna can be placed.

Good results from Zanderij indeed.

Let me know if you find good locations in the area, I would be willing to relocate receivers with poor performance.

[Windsurfmaniac]

That 3 in a row is not the perfect setup, but the new one in SMNI could change the situation, right?

[bjd]

Today I noticed a lot of traffic attributed to T-MLAT radar that is not (or should not be?) MLAT, e.g. that I see on my own receiver with proper non-MLAT positions.
Sometimes they switch back and forth between an N, F or regular T feeder and T-MLAT. I see this above the Netherlands, but it looks the same in other areas as well.
Is this normal, because I don't remember it was like this before?

[bjd]

Nevermind, everything is back to normal, no more T-MLAT on almost everything

[GitseBase]

That 3 in a row is not the perfect setup, but the new one in SMNI could change the situation, right?

The 3 (in a row) have great range so it will all depend upon the quality of the SMNI receiver if we can achieve MLAT on FR24.

Finding someone to put up a receiver is not a big problem, but to increase the range you need to be willing to spend some bucks.
I have a pole construction that is 10 m (33 ft) high and the plan to increase it by another 1.7 m is in the making.