[Dave Phillips]

Here's an airprox I had a few months back; I was the captain of the DA62. Perhaps a lesson in how (not) to use EC?

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploade ... 018103.pdf

PS. The terminology sometimes used during the encounter is wrong. Both aircraft had TAS and not TCAS.

[exfirepro]

I fly with my taxi light on all the time.

Haven't picked up any fares though.

To be fair Paul, Your ‘steed of choice’ does look a ‘bit’ like a ‘black cab’ hee, hee

Best Regards

Peter

[exfirepro]

Here's an airprox I had a few months back; I was the captain of the DA62. Perhaps a lesson in how (not) to use EC?

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploade ... 018103.pdf

PS. The terminology sometimes used during the encounter is wrong. Both aircraft had TAS and not TCAS.

Interesting reading Dave and IMO a good example of the benefits of having your own EC Display - even though you were both getting a ‘Traffic Service’. Thanks for sharing.

Regards

Peter

[exfirepro]

@leemoore1966

Yes your thinking and that of many posting on here is very wrong on a number of counts. I will post more later as I have no time this very minute but it is clear that the human factors angle has had no or very little consideration.

That is not a criticism - it is an observation.

Dutch,

That’s a pretty aggressive post if you don’t mind me saying so. Just because a person (or group) has an opinion which is different to your own doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong!

I agree, there is some pure rubbish posted on here at several levels, but I await with interest your views on where the ‘thinking’.... ‘of many posting on here is so very wrong’

...and to see your evidence to support your contention that... ‘it is clear that the human factors angle has had no or very little consideration.’

My personal experience of discussions with Lee & Co over the past 3 years would indicate that to be very, very far from the reality of the case.

You are, of course, entitled to your ‘opinion’ but let’s keep it clean and on the level.

Regards

Peter

[Straight Level]

Yet the merits of being able to see a gliding competition gaggle 80 miles ahead are lauded; do people not realise that in the hour that it takes them to that area in their jalopy, that gaggle will have moved in (a) different direction(s) at about the same speed?

Thanks Dutch for that gem of aviation wisdom
It goes to show, we''ll never be too old to learn something new.
What we learned is open to discussion

[Flyin'Dutch']

@leemoore1966

Yes your thinking and that of many posting on here is very wrong on a number of counts. I will post more later as I have no time this very minute but it is clear that the human factors angle has had no or very little consideration.

That is not a criticism - it is an observation.

Dutch,

That’s a pretty aggressive post if you don’t mind me saying so. Just because a person (or group) has an opinion which is different to your own doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong!

Peter

I thought it was pretty restrained given what has been written to me on here before, including the immediate preceding post by Lee.

People buying PAW want to have EC in the cockpit - great!

They have been sold something that can see a lot and every week a bit more, yup there is the disclaimer no doubt, but part of what cab be seen will depend on a rather longer chain of delivery than direct contact to contact transmission, and how does the punter know that longer chain works? By looking at the numbers of station the unit has contact with. You kidding me?

And once transiting from OGN covered to non covered area? Lee reckons his brain can keep up with that; good for him. Experience seems to suggest that people are quite able to ignore positive warnings (TB20 at Megeve landing wheels up with the gear warning going off anyone) - how about ignoring a negative one.

What about being sold something that you're told enhances your own electronic visibility? Very true but that this only seen by a small number of people? A we are selling loads of units, and you can see and avoid the other traffic.

No point in seeing a faster aeroplane heading for you, if that traffic is faster than you, and your speed and manoeuvrability is such you cannot get out of the way!

I shall not mention the lack of reliability of the earlier units, such that a fair few ended on the shelf in the back of the hangar, as that seems to have been resolved with the newest iterations.

[Dave W]

It's all pretty simple to me, and flame wars on the subject are unnecessary.

Whether it is PAW, or FLARM, or SkyEcho or ADS-B, they are all better than nothing.

And none of them will see everything.

If the one you've got should see something, and doesn't (for whatever reason: antenna positioning, fault, external infrastructure out of range...) then that is not immediately catastrophic.

All of these devices are aids; they are not the equivalent of certified TCAS II units which are always operating in a known CAS environment.

It would be great if the devices were perfect, but none of them will be.

Having something is better than nothing; have what you believe to be the most effective for you and others and what you can afford now.

(Acknowledging that the latter could be "nothing" for the moment.)

And if you have no sensor, but do have a transponder, turn that on.

Help everybody else out - it takes two to collide...

[mo0g]

Anyone else see no correlation between Flyin'Dutch's latest post and his doom laden comments about human factors?

His original comments suggested more than PAW not being optimal, that it was somehow dangerous.

Given the choice between seeing lots of things, or being seen by lots of things, I would plump for the former as I would rather have my fate more in my hands than others. If we are talking 'human factors', I would suggest that knowing you can be seen by more people is more dangerous, because you are more likely to believe that others will see and avoid you.

In actual fact I dont think either is more dangerous, but it wasn't me suggesting PAW is somehow more vulnerable to human factors.

[Dave W]

Given the choice between seeing lots of things, or being seen by lots of things, I would plump for the former as I would rather have my fate more in my hands than others.

And yet if everybody took that view, we'd all be looking but there'd be nothing to see.

[TC_LTN]

Given the choice between seeing lots of things, or being seen by lots of things, I would plump for the former as I would rather have my fate more in my hands than others. If we are talking 'human factors', I would suggest that knowing you can be seen by more people is more dangerous, because you are more likely to believe that others will see and avoid you.

And that is where people are so fundamentally wrong and my only objection to the superb contribution that PAW makes to EC. You will derive far more benefit by being electronically conspicuous to the greatest range of sensors than you ever will by being solely responsible for the interpretation of the depiction of a wide variety of emissions. This has been proven numerous times in multiple studies, several referred to be Gazor but seemingly ignored in the noise.

The 'state' along with the rest of the world has specified a medium by which we shall achieve electronic interoperability and that is ADS-B. Continuing the place our collective heads in the sand and say things like; "something is better than nothing", "it's all I can afford" and "it does what I want it to do" is fine and justifiable at this stage in evolution BUT please do not believe that you are capable of deriving maximum safety benefit without emitting to an international agreed standard (ADS-B). The Human Factors in all of this are that people are beginning to believe that as a sensor operator in a single crew GA aircraft, they can save themselves and the world, they can't. You also need to emit to interoperable standard which will derive you far greater benefit.

[seanxair]

The Human Factors in all of this are that people are beginning to believe that as a sensor operator in a single crew GA aircraft, they can save themselves and the world, they can't.

Backed up by what research? And which people?

[Flyin'Dutch']

It appears that the PAW fanboys think that Human Factors and technical axioms don't appear to them or the product.

They must be super human.



If only their super human skills included the ability to accept that others can hold different views from them and express these without feeling the need to attack those who express those views, oh what joy that would be.

[seanxair]

Where is the attack? And where does anyone say they are impervious to Human Factors affecting them or they don't accept the limits of the device they have, be it PAW, SkyEcho whatever?


If only the super human skills of those that think that these devices are no good or that their owners are 'Fanboys' would allow them to express their views in less arrogant and confrontational terms , oh what a joy that would be

[mo0g]

It appears that the PAW fanboys think that Human Factors and technical axioms don't appear to them or the product.

They must be super human.



If only their super human skills included the ability to accept that others can hold different views from them and express these without feeling the need to attack those who express those views, oh what joy that would be.

My point to you was more that you seem to think those same Human Factors do not apply to your chosen EC, I assume you mean the idea that because you think you can see everything you forego lookout etc? I assume because you havent actually said what it is, but based on that assumption then if you think "everyone" can see you, they can/will avoid you.

In actual fact of course, we all use EC as ANOTHER tool to keep us safe, we don't use it exclusively to keep us safe, hence people asking if there is any evidence to show any "Human Factors" risk to using PAW.

Oh, I forgot, us "fanboys" are super human, so it doesnt affect us, because we know that PAW doesnt give us the full picture on its own, nor does our lookout, nor does our nav software, nor does our service from ATC/LARS. You scare me, the thought of all these other mortals flying about, heads in, because they have an EC solution which makes them visible to everyone else.

[mo0g]

Given the choice between seeing lots of things, or being seen by lots of things, I would plump for the former as I would rather have my fate more in my hands than others. If we are talking 'human factors', I would suggest that knowing you can be seen by more people is more dangerous, because you are more likely to believe that others will see and avoid you.

And that is where people are so fundamentally wrong and my only objection to the superb contribution that PAW makes to EC. You will derive far more benefit by being electronically conspicuous to the greatest range of sensors than you ever will by being solely responsible for the interpretation of the depiction of a wide variety of emissions. This has been proven numerous times in multiple studies, several referred to be Gazor but seemingly ignored in the noise.

You seem to be missing the context here; we are talking about affordable and available solutions TODAY.

My "choice", because of the advocates here, was PAW or SkyEcho2 TODAY. I would rather have PAW today. Should something else appear which offers the same or better view of other EC, but also allows me to be seen by more, AT THE SAME OR SIMILAR PRICE I will consider switching.

What we have here from one person in particular is threadcrapping because they dont like PAW. They are still at it, accusing the OP and the rest of us who use PAW of not knowing its, or our, limitations.

Let me rephrase my original point; I would value more the aspect of being able to see other traffic so I can control my fate as much as possible, even if I am broadcasting my position to everyone in a 50 mile radius. Because, apparently, there are lots of idiots flying around with their EC who think that abrogates their need to keep a lookout, and who knows if my or their EC is working properly...