[PaulB]

More importantly though, is it time for me to patent my wind-powered transponder? It runs off a kid's windmill that you stick out the DV window ...

Should be possible to make a single chip solution powered either from its own battery or from the phone/fondleslab (the one you run the UI on) via the USB cable.

This is quite a neat idea

https://www.uavionix.com/news/uavionix- ... -solution/

[davef77]

Flying old aircraft should be the same as driving a classic car though - your pretty exempt from new safety tech rules.

That only works because there are so few old cars about. If there were millions and they were crashing into other cars all the time killing their occupants because they didn't have seat belts or airbag or crumple zones, they'd be banned pretty quickly... or forced to take on board some of the new safety features.

Do you have any evidence that old aeroplanes without transponders are crashing into otherwise safe GA aeroplanes?

I am a technologist. I have no argument with progress, but I don't believe that draconian legislation banning all aeroplanes that don't look like yours is the way to go.

For me, flying is about freedom more than anything else. That includes the freedom for others to do things that I am not interested in.

I am not interested in flying an IFR equiped aeroplane. If I didn't need one for competitions, I wouldn't be that bothered about having a radio.

My current aeroplane has a transponder, most I have owned did not. I feel no safer with it.

I am willing to believe that there will be some benefits, but I have not seen any data to suggest that you are currently safer with, than without. If that was the case then I would expect to see the accident statistics full of old non-radio aeroplanes, but they are not.

If someone can put traffic on my iPad without cluttering my very small cockipt in my EASA aeroplane with loose articles, then I may be interested. But to be honest it is not top of my list to spend money on.

Maybe I am cavalier WRT risk. Maybe I am realistic. I don't really know. I think that the data is on my side though. Aeroplanes are not falling outvof the sky every day.

Mid-air collisions are horrific, but they are also fortunately extremely rare. I don't think that the data says that they are on the increase?

The old killers are still the most common causes, controlled flight into terrain, loss of control in VMC, low level aerobatics, loss of control IMC.

So maybe we should ban all GA instrument flying, make aerobatic instruction mandatory and ban all low-level aerobatics before we make transponders mandatory? <tongueFirmlyInCheek>

Mid-air collisions represent about 4% of fatal GA accidents. Mechanical failure is about 8.5%. Maybe I should spend my money on good maintenance first, before collision avoidance?

I wear a parachute, one of the reasons is that in the event of a mid-air it would given me one more potential option.

I think that a lot of the current focus on collision avoidance is because we are close to having the tech, rather than because it will save lots of lives. We humans are not very good at understanding risk

So please, let us not jump off the deep end and start banning things!

[Dave W]

Do you have any evidence that old aeroplanes without transponders are crashing into otherwise safe GA aeroplanes?

There is of course evidence that they are not.

Not to say that electronic conspicuity isn't a good idea; it is, for several reasons.

But not such a good idea that it must be mandatory for all aircraft in all airspace.

As we've discussed before, spendi g the same amount on more flying and hence increased would mitigate against the rather more common CFIT and loss of control accidents that kill and injure more people every year than MAC. I suspect that more experience in the circuit may mitigate more than electronic conspicuity would against a repeat of several of those, too.

[GolfHotel]

I've got a lot of sympathy for the comments from the two Dave's on top of me.

Most MAC are in the circuit, about 2/3 I understand, and EC needs to be quite sophisticated to filter out such targets.

I've flown with ADSB in and out for the last 2 years. It has certainly alerted me to aircraft surprisingly close. But never a risk of collisions.

I'm not sure I would add it if it hadn't come with the aircraft.

Like most equipment it also comes with responsibility. Leave it on after landing and the Airbus behind you may get a TCAS alert on short final. Balls, how to upset the neighbors.

[G-BLEW]

I do a fair bit of flying in the US every year and would make a couple of observations

- I find uplinked weather useful for touring. It's addictive and I'd love to have it here
- In areas where there's a lot of ADS-B traffic (ie a lot of the busy Florida training areas) it significantly improves your ability to spot traffic visually and your situational awareness. I find it particularly useful when approaching airfields as it helps me build a much better picture of what's going on.

I don't really think of ADS-B as a last second collision avoidance technology, but as something that turns an unknown environment into a better known environment. Like vaccination, the benefits accrue with mass adoption. My personal view is that some kind of mandate is the only way that will happen, and I hope that any such mandate is inexpensive and simple while bringing benefits for everyone.

Ian

[kanga]

..


More importantly though, is it time for me to patent my wind-powered transponder? It runs off a kid's windmill that you stick out the DV window (a hat mounted version will be developed for open cockpit use).

At JAM visitors may see our 1920s Gloster Gamecock with such a windmill on each lower wing, close to fuselage, within arc of propeller, so that they start working as soon as engine is running.

(By contrast, the Venturi on the C140 seemed not to be effective in creating the suction for the giro until flying speed, 1940s technology!)

[BlackadderIA]

..


More importantly though, is it time for me to patent my wind-powered transponder? It runs off a kid's windmill that you stick out the DV window (a hat mounted version will be developed for open cockpit use).

At JAM visitors may see our 1920s Gloster Gamecock with such a windmill on each lower wing, close to fuselage, within arc of propeller, so that they start working as soon as engine is running.

(By contrast, the Venturi on the C140 seemed not to be effective in creating the suction for the giro until flying speed, 1940s technology!)

Oh well, I guess I'll have to come up with something more original to make my fortune - pedal powered transponder maybe? Only proper sky gods use the rudders anyway.

[Roy]

We reference to the original post, I think data protection is an understated problem, it may not be desirable to have your location known (and therefore personal details) for security, business or personal reasons.

I'm unclear why the CAA makes aircraft owner's details publicly available over the internet, you certainly wouldn't find the DVLA handing out such information without good reason or without verifying who and why such information was requested.

We know that the mk1 eyeball is not 100%, but given the number of aircraft not transmitting mode C/S for various reasons neither is there a 100% electronic solution at present, definitely trying to use both systems is not without problems.