[davef77]

Weather avoidance on long distance VFR trips has been a consistent source of uncertainty for me. Do I head East here? West there? Give up and land now, or carry on - looking over my shoulder to be sure I'm not being boxed in - before heading back the way I came to abort?

If only I could see near real time rain and cloud developing whilst I am en-route rather than assuming that what it looked as if it was going to do 3 hours ago when I started this leg is what it is actually doing. FIS by voice VHF is all very well giving me METAR, but that only gives me spot information. For area information, I need to assimilate a picture.

So: FIS-B would be truly valuable.

It isn't really "real-time" though. The accident report section in Pilot magazine this month, sorry Ian, has a couple of american fatal accidents caused by exactly this problem.

Pilots navigated based on the in-cockpit weather data, except the data was out of date and so they flew into trouble, middle of a thunderstorm in one case. Result in in-flight breakup of the aeroplane.

This isn't weather radar. There is a significant lag while the data is accumulated, synthesised and then distributed, according to the report, of over 15 minutes. A lot can happen to a storm in 15 minutes.

I use online rain radar and other stuff on the ground. But I do wonder if there is a danger of people seeing this as a poor-person's weather radar?

[G-BLEW]

I use online rain radar and other stuff on the ground. But I do wonder if there is a danger of people seeing this as a poor-person's weather radar?

Probably, but those who do will find out soon enough that it isn't. Some will be able to talk about it, others not so much.

That shouldn't stop others using it properly and benefiting from its advantages.

Ian

[davef77]

It does, otherwise we would be having mid air collisions every other day. Or have I missed them on the 10 o'clock news?

It doesn't, well at least not very well or reliably. The lack of mid air collisions is largely thanks to not many aeroplanes sharing quite a bit of sky.

Ian

I am not really sure that I understand that argument.

If I had the only aeroplane, I would be able to fly anywhere I liked and not bother looking out of the window and I would be safe.

Wether I am safe because I look out of the window or because there are statistically few aeroplanes in my bit of sky is accademic.

This may be a problem if there was an explosive growth in GA, because the big sky would be less of a protection. But there isn't an explosive growth in GA.

The level of GA is not increasing and the level of MAC is not increasing.

I think that this is seen as the current problem because we have some cool tech, not because this is the most important problem to fix. We are in a hype-cycle around the tech

If we are ficussed on safety, there are other things that would give more bang-per-buck.

I suppose that the drone thing may become an explosive growth, but so far the combination of looking-out and the big sky is working.

Long may it continue.

[G-BLEW]

I am not really sure that I understand that argument.

My argument is that our eyes aren't very good at spotting other traffic. I think there's plenty of research to back up that view.

Ian

[davef77]

I am not really sure that I understand that argument.

My argument is that our eyes aren't very good at spotting other traffic. I think there's plenty of research to back up that view.

Ian

Agreed

[Ian Melville]

It isn't really "real-time" though. The accident report section in Pilot magazine this month, sorry Ian, has a couple of american fatal accidents caused by exactly this problem.

Are you sure you wern't accidently reading Joe Fournier in this months Flyer Accident 1 and 2

[Dave W]

I was careful to say "near real time".

[bookworm]

I use online rain radar and other stuff on the ground. But I do wonder if there is a danger of people seeing this as a poor-person's weather radar?

If, in the old days before datalinks, pilots would have simply cancelled flights when there was any convection around, then I could see the significant risk in this. But we didn't leave the aircraft tied down. We muddled through, sometimes with a stormscope to warn of the worst of the convection. Otherwise, we might as well not fly IFR at all in the spring and summer. Some of it was uncomfortable.

A week ago was a good example -- a few long fronts and troughs stretching for thousands of miles across Europe. The low-level sigwx had an "ISOL EMBD TS/CB" along the whole front -- fair enough, difficult to depict where the convection might be. In flight datalink radar allowed confidence that the worst of the weather was hundreds of miles away -- or in some cases that it was not, and a change of plan was required. The Golze ADL 140, though it has all the limitations of latency, was magnificent, and made it a significantly smoother ride. Weather over UAT would be even better,

[PaulisHome]

My argument is that our eyes aren't very good at spotting other traffic. I think there's plenty of research to back up that view.

I agree. And I think it's worse than most people think.

I reckon my lookout is pretty good. If I fly with other people, I generally see more aircraft than they do. But still, there are aircraft I only pickup at the last moment (and I guess some I miss completely). So there's a certain proportion I don't see till too late, if at all.

But generally, they are moving relative to me, and that helps me see them. The dangerous ones are those that aren't moving relative to me - and they are more difficult to see. I can only conclude that the likelihood of me seeing those is less than the proportion I see as a whole. So I can be smug about my good lookout, but I'm probably fooling myself.

Conclusion: the lack of collisions is at least as much due to the big sky, as it is to lookout.

I fly with Flarm, and that has picked up a few head ons within 100 ft vertically and 100m laterally this year - before I've seen them. That's close enough to make electronic conspicuity really useful.

On the issue of traffic densities, I would suggest that in certain areas, at certain times, the traffic density of gliders is much, much higher than other GA. It's just unevenly distributed. So:
- Southern England, outside CAS, especially through the various choke points
- a good gliding day (in summer,especially in competition season)
- in the afternoon
- below cloudbase

In those conditions I think it might be 10:1 gliders:other GA, from observation (and looking at a few FR24 playbacks). It's probably susceptible to some analysis from FR24 data - most cross country gliders show up because they carry Flarm. I'm less sure what proportion of the powered GA fleet carry transponders though. Any guesses?

Paul

[davef77]

It isn't really "real-time" though. The accident report section in Pilot magazine this month, sorry Ian, has a couple of american fatal accidents caused by exactly this problem.

Are you sure you wern't accidently reading Joe Fournier in this months Flyer Accident 1 and 2

Oops, quite right

[Rod1]

“I'm less sure what proportion of the powered GA fleet carry transponders though. Any guesses? “

Depends on your precise defenition of GA, but around 75 – 80% have a transponder of some kind.

Rod1

[wigglyamp]

How many of that 75-80% actually have their transponder turned on?

[T67M]

Based on the number of aircraft I've NOT detected on my PilotAware, I'd suggest about 30% actually have the transponder turned on...

[G-BLEW]

Based on the number of aircraft I've NOT detected on my PilotAware, I'd suggest about 30% actually have the transponder turned on...

Before I accidentally broke my pilot aware, I noticed quite a few discrepancies between the traffic it reported and the traffic shown on via my Xaon XRX (the latter showing a lot more traffic), so I am not sure how accurate the 30% might be.

@wigglyamp My transponder turns on and goes to ALT automatically (with speed) how many new installs are configured in this way would you say?

Ian

[NregMechanic]

As a PPL just here from the US, having the mandatory 2020 ADS-B date has been quite nice, rather than depending on folks toying with a variety of systems which may not communicate too well together: PilotAware system (which is cool mind you), FLARM, Mode-C, and ADS-B (way up traffic) like in the UK - the US is switching to ADS-B from MODE-C for all the busy airspace and letting the wild west reign where all the un-controlled bubbas fly and where transponders aren't required.

THAT SAID, having a Stratux (which I brought here if anyone wants to tinker with it) is especially helpful in picking up most traffic (especially if you're in a Mode-C veil) as well as in flight weather for free. I use mine with Naviator (Android) and have GPS navigation with it, and a back-up BETA BETA BETA AHRS window in case I wanna get motion sick watching the screen while my friend is flying.

Just my 2 cents and sorry if I came in at the wrong time with the wrong input to the conversation. Having the CAA take your input is awesome, and ADS-B rocks; see and be seen!