Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 28
#1573255
Correctamente Dave,

I've got a Trig transponder and whilst it was being installed I had an RS232 tail left for future hook up; it's a permit a/c.

Problems I'm facing apart from a lack of time include

Power - I can't keep carrying batteries around, need permanent feed
Clutter - I've already got an XGPS-150E on the glare shield and an iPad Mini on my knee
PAW - Forgotten how to set it up. More clutter with leads and 2 aerials and not much room on the coaming.

So I need to correct all of the above to get a system that helps but doesn't hinder.
#1573258
Hi Dave,

No. A Mode S ES transponder provides ADS-B OUT functionality, when provided with a suitable GPS position data feed.
Dave W wrote:PAW already provides ADS-B OUT functionality when coupled to a suitable transponder.

This has been said so often I have finally decided to call it out. Please can we stop using that terminology that seeks to bestow on PAW by association some special ADS-B OUT functionality. If that were true I would be within my rights to claim "My old Garmin 296 GPS already provides ADS-B OUT functionality when coupled to a suitable transponder".

In this particular use case, PAW, like untold other devices can, is simply providing an NMEA GPS position data feed.
Last edited by shuttle on Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1573260
OK: "The same conspicuity, that can be seen by the same equipment, as basic ADS-B OUT".

How's that?

The big difference that is provided over the untold number of other GPS devices is that PAW also enables you to see other ADS-B (and similar) transmitters.

Don't get me wrong: I still think the eventual answer to enhanced EC is significant take-up of ADS-B, but PAW is a very timely and affordable stepping stone on the way there.
#1573261
A month ago, if you had asked me, I'd have found every excuse not to fit PAW.

Since the WCO incident I have been seriously re-thinking that.

It's not just a cost issue, it's an installation issue in one particular aircraft, it is difficult due to space and power, and as we don't fly that with a tablet, gave us nothing.

With discovering in this thread that audio out direct from the PAW is now an option, and our intercomm has an audio line in, I am now giving it very serious consideration as an installation just giving us audio traffic prompts.

Portability would give me the option to use it in the other aircraft I fly (already mode C equiped) and possibly the third that may be joining our stable.

It is almost becoming inevitable for me to go the PAW route. Three permanently installed Mode S isn't ever going to be in the plan this side of a lottery win.

For those with budget and panel space for "everything certified", do carry on. For those without that, but fit PAW, you can have a cheeky smile to yourself when you spot and avoid the other lot without, them even knowing you were there!
exfirepro, ChrisT, rf3flyer liked this
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1573301
Hi Wave

That is a very rough estimate I make, by comparing the aircraft I see, which do show up on my Power Flarm, compared to the aircaft I see which don't show up on it.

I do get aircraft shown I don't spot as well, in all honesty. So worryingly I am probably missing double that figure too.

Nick

Edited to add: Transmitting nothing that I can see.
Last edited by Nick on Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1573328
As I read it, Sooty won’t see Nick with his PFLARM and Nick won’t see Sooty with a PAW. Personally, I’m saving my pennies for a SkyEcho and Sooty/Nick will see me but then I won’t see them. That is the real issue here and until the REGULATOR regulates and mandates one system, then that won’t change.

Best

Gaz
Antair, Marvin liked this
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1573332
Gaz, you've missed that both Sooty and Nick have Mode C, so with PowerFLARM and PilotAware, they'll both get alerted about each other (albeit with no position). Sadly, however, Gaz with a SkyEcho still won't get an alert from either Sooty or Nick.
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1573334
Well I do see ADS-B, Mode S and I can see PAW and PAW can see me. I am transmitting ADS-B out through my Trig TT21.

I did test it with a PAW equipped aircraft, we did a circuit around each other I could see him for 360* and the distance away on my LED display. He could see my position through 360* on his iPad.

We both were impressed.

Nick
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1573336
I don't see "the system" as being the problem.
Flarm offers a unique protection to the Gliding community. The problem there, has always been, to see them, the power-pilot has to buy those unique features that are not needed, in order to see those aircraft. Some power-pilots have paid that ransom. PAW, in association with OGN appear to have developed a method to filter-off the small bit of pertinent information and deliver it to the power-pilot with a £200 PAW (plus, of course, their modest annual licensing-fee, which makes some others look like extortion)

When you resort to mandatory fitment, you then dramatically increase the cost, because it has to be Certified and approved......In the case of PAW, it would still be a couple of years away and be like Sky Echo....3 times the price !...also, with a totally captive market, there's no incentive to sell anything as cheaply as possible....there's every incentive to bleed the punter dry, 'cos they " gotta" have it or stop flying.
The only mandating I can see being necessary, is making the necessary protocols "open-source" and compatible with each -other. PAW, I understand, is already OS. We all know that , until the OGN work-round surfaced, the "cheapest " fix was to buy a Flarm Mouse, which was still damned dear.
The low-end of GA has it's needs met by low-end Electronic Conspicuity.
The people who can afford airways, IFR, pressurised, etc, will hardly notice the cost of a mandatory approved transponder, etc. but to the small Permit, Flex, PP, hang-glider, foot-launched, etc. It would either ground them or price them out of their hobby altogether.
exfirepro, T67M, rf3flyer liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1573337
gaznav wrote:... and until the REGULATOR regulates and mandates one system, then that won’t change.


I can't see a rigorous cost benefit analysis supporting either regulation or mandation in the short term. Obviously I may be wrong, since one hasn't taken place, but the reasons I say that are at least twofold:

1. GA fatalities mostly occur due to CFIT and Loss of Control in flight. Spending money elsewhere without addressing those does not support the "Benefit" side of the equation.

2. The financial and opportunity costs of mandating ADS-B to the entire GA fleet would be an enormous weighting on the "Cost" side of the equation, thereby demanding even more of a benefit to compensate.

I also suspect that such a mandation is not viable within the Regulator's own ways of operating since enhanced EC (by which I mean "more than just transponder") is evidently becoming much more prevalent compared to only 5 years ago. The issue is being addressed already, given that an overnight solution is impossible.
#1573339
T67M wrote:Gaz, you've missed that both Sooty and Nick have Mode C, so with PowerFLARM and PilotAware, they'll both get alerted about each other (albeit with no position). Sadly, however, Gaz with a SkyEcho still won't get an alert from either Sooty or Nick.


So let me see if I’ve got this right. I have the following options

Buy PowerFlarm, use the GPS in that to feed an ES enable Transponder and I can see gliders, they can see me and I can see mode-s, Mode a/c and ads-b and anyone with ads-b or flarm can see me. But I cannot see PAW unless they either have AFS-B out or a transponder.

Buy a PAW and use the GPS in that to feed an ES enables transponder and I can see ads-b, Mode-s and a/c, PAW equipped aircraft and FLARM in certain area where I’m in range of a ground site but FLARM cannot see me unless I add a FLARM mouse/gadget to my PAW

If I don’t have an ES transponder I buy a ADS-B device that I can use to transmit an ads-b position so those without PAW or FLARM can see me.

If I just have an ads-b device like a SkyEcho then I can see ads-b but no one else but most of the devices can see me except ATC.

Have I missed anything? I’m losing the plot

How much is this going to cost me, and how is this helping the question of electronic EC?
gaznav, cockney steve liked this
#1573344
T67M wrote:Gaz, you've missed that both Sooty and Nick have Mode C, so with PowerFLARM and PilotAware, they'll both get alerted about each other (albeit with no position). Sadly, however, Gaz with a SkyEcho still won't get an alert from either Sooty or Nick.


Hi T67, I know they might be carrying other stuff that allows them to see each other, but from a pure point of view the PFLARM can’t see PAW, the PAW can’t see PFLARM (unless in range of a participating OGN station), both can see the SkyEcho but the SkyEcho sees neither!

That was the point I was trying to make :thumright:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1573347
T67M wrote:Gaz, you've missed that both Sooty and Nick have Mode C, so with PowerFLARM and PilotAware, they'll both get alerted about each other (albeit with no position). Sadly, however, Gaz with a SkyEcho still won't get an alert from either Sooty or Nick.


gaznav wrote:As I read it, Sooty won’t see Nick with his PFLARM and Nick won’t see Sooty with a PAW. Personally, I’m saving my pennies for a SkyEcho and Sooty/Nick will see me but then I won’t see them. That is the real issue here and until the REGULATOR regulates and mandates one system, then that won’t change.

Best

Gaz


the thing is, it takes two pilots to not see each other in order to have a mid air collision. If, however, just one of those two pilots sees the other, then the collision can be avoided. And that is the point, even if there are 3 or 4 different systems with different combinations of visability to each other, it all reduces the chances of a MAC, you don't need both pilots to take evasive action..

The key is to reduce the chances. You will never eliminate it. If you are going to start mandating stuff, maybe every 2 seat aircraft should be compelled to having both seats occupied to ensure the maximum visual look out possible. But then maybe every occupant should be trained and certified as a compitent lookout, and every aircraft should be painted "hi viz green". There comes a point where you stop with regulations...
Nick, Dave W, exfirepro and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 28