What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Thoughts about internet in the air

S

schone

Member
Hi There,

I was sitting and trying to think what would it take for us to be able to provide the GA community as a whole internet in the air. Admittedly i'm only a software guy, and my hardware skills are limited to arduino and such. I'm just trying to think how hard can it be to develop something where whoever wants can put an antenna on top of their home, and share their wifi connection upwards with passing airplanes for a particular radius. Up to the point where we can seamlessly transition from one antenna to the other.

Something like APRS does its tracking, but hopefully with a larger amount of participants and where all of us can enjoy wifi while we're doing our cross countries.

If anybody has more hardware and radio knowledge about this, please by all means, hit me up. I'd love to collaborate!

Thanks!
 
There's a whole lot of empty space out here in the Midwest and more west of that. Take a tour of say Nebraska, for example, in Google Earth. Might work in congested areas but out here, that would be something that would work near a city and then fade off.

If you really want in-flight coverage, have a look at how the airlines do it and see if you can piggyback on them or work up something similar.

Dave
 
The biggest issue is what is the fcc opinion on this. Sure the 2.4ghz band is unlicensed but it is limited in power output to 1 watt. The LTE radios we hang for major providers are 60-120 watts and have a max distance of a few miles. Wifi has a max distance of 300 or so feet I believe.
 
Put me down as someone who would much rather folks be looking out the window than at a "device"....

The intrusion of PED's, even in 121 ops...ain't good. Don't ask me how I know, 121 sterile cockpit rules notwithstanding.

So no, we don't need internet access, other than for essential flight info.

Put me down as someone who says surfing the web or checking email can wait till landing...

Rob
 
I'm with Aggie, what ever happened to the pleasure of looking past the canopy and enjoying the scenery? Maybe even spotting another aircraft or admiring the early settlers as they made their way across this great country at about 15 miles per day. Heck I did that often from a FL and never tired of the tapestry presented.

Cheers, Hans
 
Commercial - internet - yes
RV Flying - internet - make it more pleasant for passengers not crazy about flying?
 
Aggie78 said:
Put me down as someone who would much rather folks be looking out the window than at a "device"....

The intrusion of PED's, even in 121 ops...ain't good. Don't ask me how I know, 121 sterile cockpit rules notwithstanding.

So no, we don't need internet access, other than for essential flight info.

Put me down as someone who says surfing the web or checking email can wait till landing...

Rob
Click to expand...

Put me down as someone who disagrees with every word of the above.

As a guy who routinely crosses this country at 17,500 in his RV...having email ability would make my life a lot easier. Being out of touch 5 hours at a time with a short contact window for fuel and back in the air is difficult if your work depends on you. I'd pay quite a bit for email access....not interested in streaming a movie or anything but email would be great.

Garmin flying, ATC watching, ADSB backing them up....I'm comfortable that an email here or there wouldn't put me in harms way.
 
Last edited:
ColoRv said:
Put me down as someone who disagrees with every word of the above.

As a guy who routinely crosses this country at 17,500 in his RV...having email ability would make my life a lot easier. Being out of touch 5 hours at a time with a short contact window for fuel and back in the air is difficult if your work depends on you. I'd pay quite a bit for email access....not interested in streaming a movie or anything but email would be great.

Garmin flying, ATC watching, ADSB backing them up....I'm comfortable that an email here or there wouldn't put me in harms way.
Click to expand...

That! And passengers sitting there for 5 hours at a time... is why i'm interested in all of this. I also wouldn't mind a music alternative to XM radio. Mind you i don't own or operate an RV of any series yet but i'm dreaming of one.

I am very interested if someone with some hardware and radio expertese wants to try to brain storm together.

As far as how the airlines do it, I believe at first they piggy backed on the ARINC antenna network ARINC has. And the latest (for fast internet and not so intermittent) they're using the Ka band utilizing satellites. Don't think either of these solutions are going to be utilized by us GA ppl unless some company somehow can offer it really cheap (queue: Garmin?).
 
daviid said:
The biggest issue is what is the fcc opinion on this. Sure the 2.4ghz band is unlicensed but it is limited in power output to 1 watt. The LTE radios we hang for major providers are 60-120 watts and have a max distance of a few miles. Wifi has a max distance of 300 or so feet I believe.
Click to expand...

What about HF? Is there any chance of using amateur band radio for this? is there enough bandwidth for data?
 
ColoRv said:
Put me down as someone who disagrees with every word of the above.

As a guy who routinely crosses this country at 17,500 in his RV...having email ability would make my life a lot easier. Being out of touch 5 hours at a time with a short contact window for fuel and back in the air is difficult if your work depends on you. I'd pay quite a bit for email access....not interested in streaming a movie or anything but email would be great.

Garmin flying, ATC watching, ADSB backing them up....I'm comfortable that an email here or there wouldn't put me in harms way.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree more. At 17500' you are presumably operating under VISUAL flight rules. ATC advisories are on a 'workload permitting' basis; not everyone has ADSB. You have a legal and moral responsibility to be looking out the window, not reading emails.
 
schone said:
What about HF? Is there any chance of using amateur band radio for this? is there enough bandwidth for data?
Click to expand...

HF, not really (think text messages). VHF, very limited (think text-only emails). UHF, some utility. Very limited range for V/UHF though. I don't know what the current state of the amateur TCP/IP packet network is these days. At one time there was quite a bit of that going on that would possibly make it practical, but that was in the 90s. I don't know if there is anything other than APRS on the packet network now. You can tell how active I've been...

I agree with those who are concerned about distractions of people web surfing or whatever, but I'd love to see updated weather even if you're not ADSB-OUT compliant. I know that's a very temporary issue.
 
As an educator in Computer Science, I spend a huge amount of time online. I can't really disagree that the occasional checking of email would be detrimental, or that having the ability to use the web to get FBO info, etc., would be a good thing. However, the potential for abuse is great. Having dealt with my own online addictions and observed it in many others, I am afraid of what the effect of Internet access would be. But, to be fair, I'm surprised we haven't seen more cell phone related incidents already.

Still, for myself, when I'm flying I don't need to be sucking the electronic teat. And as a passenger, my device (a Surface Pro) can keep me plenty occupied without an Internet connection, as I've proven to myself on commercial flights. On private flights, I'm usually more interested in the social sphere inside the cabin. Downloaded/ripped music/videos and offline games should be enough for the passengers. But then, I was around before the personal computer (gasp!). :rolleyes:
 
BobTurner said:
I cannot disagree more. At 17500' you are presumably operating under VISUAL flight rules. ATC advisories are on a 'workload permitting' basis; not everyone has ADSB. You have a legal and moral responsibility to be looking out the window, not reading emails.
Click to expand...

Exactly - well said. Placing the well-being of yourself and others into the hands of an entity that makes no promises about separation of VFR traffic seems peculiar.

Things like this are why I'm glad the prophecy of "an airplane in every driveway" never came to pass.
 
Back when I still had my (non-Xpndr equipped) ASW-19 glider, I went above 10,000 feet pretty frequently, and made it to 17,500' myself one epic day in eastern New Mexico.

Another time, coming into DFW over the northwest corner post at 11,000 and still outside the Class B, we had to jog south of the arrival track for another soaring enthusiast out enjoying himself...

There is more traffic out there than you think...but you've got to get your eyes outside to see it. The more time spent staring at gadgets, the less spent clearing for conflicts.

Just sayin'...
 
I agree with several other pilots....not a good idea to be surfing when you should be more attentive to controlling a/c and looking outside more than not.
 
DaleB said:
HF, not really (think text messages). VHF, very limited (think text-only emails). UHF, some utility. Very limited range for V/UHF though. I don't know what the current state of the amateur TCP/IP packet network is these days. At one time there was quite a bit of that going on that would possibly make it practical, but that was in the 90s. I don't know if there is anything other than APRS on the packet network now. You can tell how active I've been...

I agree with those who are concerned about distractions of people web surfing or whatever, but I'd love to see updated weather even if you're not ADSB-OUT compliant. I know that's a very temporary issue.
Click to expand...


Our 777-300's have a SATCOM based internet provider, which I have used before...pretty laggy. Good for email and limited surfing, unusable (IMO) for streaming.

Whether by design or just happenstance, the signal can't make it into the cockpit, thank goodness...

I do wish we had better weather resources built into the gear installed in the aircraft. The ability to make a plan to avoid weather farther away than the range of the onboard radar relies too heavily on the dispatcher....I have better (and more timely) info in my RV-7 with Foreflight and my Stratus in that regard, sad to say.
 
My god, how do you Nancy's convince yourself to start the car in the morning let alone fly? Do the videos of guys floating Oreos into their mouth give you heart palpitations? How about selfies of wives sleeping in back of an RV8? My god they took their eyes off the sky!

Pilots used to fly with charts and written out flight plans, meaning....hold onto your panties here... we had to take our eyes off the sky once in a while to do a calculation or figure something out. You develop an internal clock, look down (tick, tick, tick) look back up and scan. Repeat as necessary. Basic skills necessary to navigate a plane further than your weekly pancake flight. If you really believe an email can't be handled at 17,500 in the same manner, using basic skills...you might want to find a safer hobby....bowling perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Much more useful would be an open-source-developed ELT replacement. Something cheaper and with more capability than the current offering of 406MHz ELT's.
 
Technology wise it needs to be satellite based, anything else would result in large gaps. There are already products out in the market targeting rural areas.. These typically have high latency and very limited bandwidth, how for email and whatnot might work.

I don't share in the fear that pilots would risk their lives playing "Pokemon Go" if given the ability to access the Internet in flight.
 
Last edited:
AviatorJ said:
Technology wise it needs to be satellite based, anything else would result in large gaps. There are already products out in the market targeting rural areas.. These typically have high latency and very limited bandwidth, how for email and whatnot might work.

I don't share in the fear that pilots would risk their lives playing "Pokemon Go" if given the ability to access the Internet in flight.
Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment, the question is how does one bring the cost down... its unlikely any of us in a non corporate/for-profit scheme would be launching a satellite and provide whatever peripherals needed to make this happen
 
How do cell phones work up there?

AviatorJ said:
I don't share in the fear that pilots would risk their lives playing "Pokemon Go" if given the ability to access the Internet in flight.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself, given the opportunity there is someone who will abuse it. How smart is it to take a flash selfie at 300 ft in the black of night?

However, that does not mean all have to suffer.

Now - do cell phones work at altitude? I get 8-15 mbps off my iPhone tether with a 4G tower and ~23 mbps with LTE, per the speed test app. Voice to text might be out, but would certainly allow email in smooth air.
 
I am typing this in the back of an A320 at 35,000 feet and the thought of having access to real time weather products via the internet is pretty cool and would help safety wise. That said, the antennas on the planes are huge and heavy as they have to be gimbal mounted in order to maintain a signal with the satellite during turns etc. Not sure how it can be brought down in size and weight for an RV. A belly antenna to try and access ground stations via cell data might be a workable solution.
 
Nova RV said:
That said, the antennas on the planes are huge and heavy as they have to be gimbal mounted in order to maintain a signal with the satellite during turns etc.
Click to expand...

Actually, most of them are phased array antennas, not gimbal mounted.
 
BillL said:
Don't kid yourself, given the opportunity there is someone who will abuse it. How smart is it to take a flash selfie at 300 ft in the black of night?

However, that does not mean all have to suffer.

Now - do cell phones work at altitude? I get 8-15 mbps off my iPhone tether with a 4G tower and ~23 mbps with LTE, per the speed test app. Voice to text might be out, but would certainly allow email in smooth air.
Click to expand...


Hi Bill,
My cell phone rarely has reception while flying. My understanding is that cell towers have a toroidal broadcast pattern vs hemispherical, so there is little signal pointed upwards.
Its completely understandable. As a rule, cell customers are on the ground. No reason for the providers to waste power sending selfies to the aliens. :rolleyes:
 
Lindbergh's grandkid flew nonstop NY to Paris in a Cirrus a few years ago and I believe he had Satellite Comms for texts. Not sure what he had for an antenna.

Now that FlightAware no longer tracks people on flight following, it would be nice to be able to make a quick enroute position text.
 
I have a full iridium sat phone setup that I would sell to someone wanting Internet/text/voice with wifi

I needed it for a brief period but no longer require the "leash" it creates with clients
 
Before long, google/spacex will have put up a worldwide sat-based constellation and facebook is working on a similar project (more HALE UAS based [high altitude long endurance unmanned aerial system]).

affordable and stable enroute internet access, even in remote regions, is maybe another 10-15 years away.
that being said, there needs to be tailored applications for inflight use/integration with EFBs/avionics. i agree with some posters, fiddling with email or operating a regular web-browser when you really should be PIC of your plane isn't that great of an idea.
on the other hand, there can only be benefits if done right. i mainly see live webcam pictures from places/airports on the ground and even better weather information/radar as interesting applications.

one thing missing right now (other than for TFR) is some dynamic airspace status/management system/broadcast, which indicates hot/cold times of various airspaces/MOA/notam areas etc...

enjoy OSH (envying all who can be there!)
 
hardware vs. software

The thread went quite sideways on whether it was the right thing to do or not. I think the poster wanted to know how to get a signal to do it.
By reading between the lines... he probably figured out wi-fi won't work.
Satellite does... and is available now. But you pay more than you are used to.
Even the G5 jets with full sat. antennas don't get the speed and bandwidth we are used to for fifty dollars a month on the ground. Air Cell spent years fighting the FCC. It cost millions, but they persisted and now you can phone home from the RV or Citation.
But, as far a cheap practical email while in the mid teens in an RV... it just doesn't pan out.
Hope that reply stuck to the question.
 
Kymeta is the name of the company spun out of our Laboratory which is maturing technology that has already been invented by us for a high speed solution to this problem. It uses the existing satellite constellation and will work with the future satellites that companies like Facebook and Google are planning. The antenna will be something like an iPad mini in form. The system is currently installed in commercial vessels, airliners and bizjets. Toyota is just one of our partners and they showed one their cars with the antenna system installed at the NY auto show. Currently the cost of the system is more then we would like to pay for a consumer product, but just like the original GPS systems, the cost will fall dramatically as implementation and mass production ramps up. You can view more information and a cheesy video here:

https://www.kymetacorp.com/market/air/

This technology will be able to provide high speed data to anyone on the planet, in motion or not. I'm hoping it will be a viable alternative that will allow cable cutting at home myself...

When we first published on this technology we were contacted by DOD who said "do not release any further information about this until we meet with you". After they realized that it was a flat panel replacement for the expensive gimboled antennas that currently exist now they told us "never mind". They are interested in a soldier carried version... A million dollar gimboled antenna can be replaced by a Kymeta antenna for a few thousand dollars.

A radar technology version of this was also spun out of the laboratory.

I can't predict when we will be able purchase this as a consumer product, but it's coming.
 
I considered getting DeLorme's inReach Satellite Communicator by Garmin. It will allow you to send and receive 160 character text messages via the already-existing Iridium satellite system. I don't know how well it works in a cockpit at altitude.

At $300 it's not a bad thing to have as it has SAR capabilities.
 
A ground based system would be hopped over so fast as to not be useful. WIFI to get beyond 300 to 500 feet has to be focused making that useless in the air. It would have to be satelite based. Hughes Net or whatever it is called now might work if you could figure out a gyroscopic or computer based antenna aiming system. ;)

The politics of using it I leave to others.
 
Saville said:
I considered getting DeLorme's inReach Satellite Communicator by Garmin. It will allow you to send and receive 160 character text messages via the already-existing Iridium satellite system. I don't know how well it works in a cockpit at altitude.

At $300 it's not a bad thing to have as it has SAR capabilities.
Click to expand...

If you're only interested in sending short text messages via sat com from your RV-10 and prefer a DIY approach. Check this out, it's called RockBlock Mk2 from adafruit. You can hook it up to an RaspberryPi and put together some touch screen interface and use it to send messages from your airplane I believe.

They have relatively attractive plans compared to what you'd get charged if you went to Iridium yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top