Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 16
#1538975
But that's forgetting the opportunity costs of spending £600 on this. If it was the only thing that would increase GA safety then your point is well made.

But it's not, and as I pointed out earlier in the thread that £600 could just as well be spent mitigating other hazards that threaten GA pilots other than MAC.

For example, loss of control in flight or on the ground results in many more accidents, injuries and fatalities than mid-air collisions do. That £600 could instead be spent on mitigating those hazards by way of training and practice. Is that a better use of the money?

Well, it depends on the individual pilot, but my point is that there is no bottomless pit of cash, and choices have to be made - as we all well know. If we all had unlimited funds we would all buy every new bit of kit going to reduce risk at the margins as well as do all that extra flying that will sharpen our skills. But we do not.

There is a tone I detect in places in this thread that if you do not spend on a conspicuity receiver then somehow you are thoughtless and potentially dangerous. I am saying that is not so, and there may be more likely hazards to mitigate from the finite pot of cash. People who choose to do that should not be subject to implied criticism, and I think some in this thread are doing that - maybe unconsciously.

Don't get me wrong: I think ADS-B is a wonderful thing, and ADS-B IN with the additional in-flight information features that Cub teasingly refers to would be even more wonderful. But it's not everything, and likely not even the critical thing to sustain and enhance overall UK GA safety.
nallen, karlbown, GolfHotel liked this
#1538997
Hi Dave

GASCo speak about the "safety six" in GA, which are the top 6 safety events/issues in GA, and have this rather natty stick of rock to show them:

Image

Skyecho with Sky Demon or the other compatible nav display systems could be said to combat 3 of the 6 - certainly 2 of them, being "airborne conflict" and "infringement". However, the 3rd is harder to quantify but the more technology and automation we carry in the cockpit then generally the less likely human errors become a factor - be that because it increases our capacity or because it removes the need for our fallible human senses. [edit: thinking about it knowing where you are and seeing the height of the terrain may also stop CFIT, so that is a tentative 4 out of 6].

I too remain hopeful for a sub £500 pricepoint as subconsciously £600 is one the way to £1000!

Best

Gaz
shortwing liked this
#1539008
First off, I should say I really like the Sky Echo device and I would spend the £600 if there was a guarantee that it would detect everything - the problem is, it's reliant on people wanting to buy it which is a completely different ball game.

I understand the points about syndicates, but I rent a plane from the organisation I learnt with. Let's say they have a fleet of 15 aircraft - they would need to invest £9000 to cover the fleet - I think that's absolutely worth while - however, if you look at the PPL syllabus and this type of denial that GPS exists while training, trying to convince the club to invest in something like this is difficult if not impossible.

I had to purchase the PAW device and bearing in mind I pay approximately £140 an hour to rent an aircraft it's a big ask to buy another device which isn't mandated and offers less functionality (as I can already detect ADSB with the PAW). There is no one to share the cost with and hence the PAW was at the right price point for me. As Sky Echo slowly takes off, with my investment in PAW I will be able to 'see' them even if they can't 'see' me - not perfect but far better than neither aircraft knowing each of us are there.
#1539009
@ChrisRowland : Well, quite. Transponders and GPS moving maps already mitigate all these stick of rock things to a reasonable degree so far as technology is concerned; including MAC if Mode C or S (or even Mode A) is carried and tbe other aircraft has TCAS.

ADS-B supports collision avoidance better, but it's not something that mitigates a threat not already mitigated by older - and already more widely used - tech.

Which is why I feel no guilt in using my funds to fly more in the short term and address other hazards, intending no doubt to upgrade to ADS-B at a later date when funds allow and the market is even more mature.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1539042
chrisadams wrote:Before anyone gets too carried away by this device, one should note that it's tailored for the UK market (CAP1391 compliant). Already there is mention on another thread that UAT might be on its way (Cub's postings), so the goalposts could move eventually. This device appears to only work on 1090mhz, though no doubt uAvionix could quickly produce a dual band version..


I think you will find that SkyEcho is already capable of much more exciting functionality than is being utilised in the UK today.
#1539057
gaznav wrote:...but the more technology and automation we carry in the cockpit then generally the less likely human errors become a factor...

I realise I'm pulling that comment a little out of context but I don't think I could disagree more. Children of Magenta

Cub wrote:...SkyEcho is already capable of much more exciting functionality than is being utilised in the UK today.

Exciting? I doubt it.
To be clear, I don't doubt the rest of the statement, just that adjective in this context.
[edited to remove my pejorative adjective.]
neilmurg liked this
#1539093
I guess it depends on what you qualify as exciting. Exciting for me has been seeing the deployment of simple, intuitive functionality into the cockpit which really makes a difference from a safety perspective as well as allowing the operator to simply and easily do stuff that they may not have otherwise contemplated.
gaznav liked this
#1543248
G-BLEW wrote:That ought to be as close to a 'no brainer' as you're likely to find.

Ian
PS If I didn't have mode S ES with ADS-B out already my answer would be YES


Undoubtedly a lot of people will want to stick with PAW and/or FLARM but I certainly see being able to carry on and operate an all singing, dancing ADS-B transceiver and use it in conjunction with an existing transponder installation, as a major factor in some people's purchasing decision.
gaznav, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1543290
Price would be a critical factor. It would have to compete with Pilot Aware at £200. PAw handles P3i and (optionally) FLARM which the proposed unit would presumably not. For aircraft already equipped with ADS-B out, or with a compatible Mode S-ES transponder, PAw already provides a complete solution. For aircraft with Mode S or A/C transponders, there is a small advantage in the proposed device - but that small advantage cannot command a large price tag. Having a non-zero SIL is no advantage to light aircraft, and so commands no price premium.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 16