[mo0g]

assuming no changing headings it would have passed a mile or more behind him, not ' slightly close'

I think you missed the fact that they were on a reciprocal course at the same height heading straight towards each other before Malcolm turned right and descended whereupon he had time to take the screenshot.

Maybe Flyin'Dutch can now recalculate the proximity if the course had not been changed, and we can see if it was as benign as he and others (with dogs in the fight) maintained?

[malcolmfrost]

A couple more screenshots: this time from Aircrew playback. The first shows the contact in yellow at 3.4 miles but I definitely remember first seeing it on my iPad at 2 miles. Vertical separation 100 feet (PAW GPS altitude). Closest point 0.4 nm after maneuvre vertical separation 63 feet.

[PaulSS]

Just for a bit of fun I attempted to project the flight paths assuming Malcom maintained his track when first warned of the target traffic (who, by projection, does not look like he altered course). Seems, by measurement, that the traffic would have passed approximately 0.12nm down the left side of Malcom's aircraft. I think that's close enough for most who aren't flying in formation

[leemoore1966]

Malcolm

Credit to you for having the courage to report your initial and subsequent reports.
I wonder if you were aware in advance the recoil you were likely to receive from some posters.

I am astonished by some of the comments, which could have come straight from the 'Crocodile Dundee' book of wisdom, in the form of
That's not an Airprox ..... This is an Airprox !

Whilst meeting many PilotAware users at expos, struts and through email exchanges, I hear many stories, and I urge them to 'please post their experiences', but I am very sad to say the vast (and silent) majority are not prepared to do this for risk of being admonished by these types of comments.

I know 3 pilots who knew pilots who had died in mid-air collisions, and I have met one pilot who survived a mid-air collision, and even had the footage from his GoPro to show me (which has never been published)

I wonder how many friends and family of these unfortunate few, would wish this type of technology had been available at that time, and possibly be posting on the forum as you have done ?

[JoeC]

Remember kids, don't share flying stories on the flyer forum unless you actually lost a prop, wheel, passenger or limb.

[exfirepro]

As someone who flies without SD or PAW, having someone impartial report their real world experience, backed up with screengrabs is actually very interesting regardless of the naysayers. All to easy to dismiss the sales pitch.

PAW has now found its way onto the budget spreadsheet, but I still haven't found a suitable space for a 7" tablet.

@Sooty25 @rf3flyer

Hi guys,

Don’t let lack of space for a tablet stop you fitting PilotAware. If you have space for a smartphone (current or ‘disused’), you can display traffic from PilotAware over WiFi using PilotAware’s internal ‘Radar Display’ option. Ideally mount your ‘display’ on or just below the top of the coaming so it’s near line of sight as this reduces ‘eyes in time’. This is a very useful option for those who can’t fit a tablet or don’t want to run a Nav System, and for those already running a tablet, both can be run in tandem.

You can (and should) also connect up PAW’s excellent audio alerts via your Intercom/Headsets, as this also contributes significantly to keeping eyes ‘out of the cockpit’ more of the time.

Best Regards

Peter

[malcolmfrost]

Here is a much truncated version of the track as displayed in Aircrew;
https://aircrew.co.uk/playback/ac447a
Hope that works.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've learnt a lot in the last 24 hours!
What I would like to know is who the other guy was.

[Dave W]

A quiet reminder of the Code of Conduct, if I may.

I've just deleted a post under the CoC clause "• Posts intended solely to bait or stoke the flames."

I don't like deleting stuff; it's always best not to make it necessary. Thanks.

[Straight Level]

Here is a much truncated version of the track as displayed in Aircrew;
https://aircrew.co.uk/playback/ac447a
Hope that works.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've learnt a lot in the last 24 hours!
What I would like to know is who the other guy was.

The playback shows 0.4nm after taking avoiding action and would agree with PaulSS that likely to be ~0.15nm if you have not had the warning.
My graphical analysis indicates roughly 340m if avoiding action not taken, 1/2 the length of many runways !

Thanks for sharing Malcolm.

[Paul_Sengupta]

And that's assuming both aircraft would remain absolutely straight and level from the positions depicted on the map.

[Dave W]

Realistically that's all you can do, without a crystal ball, surely?

Lack of said shiny sphere is one reason for the standardised collision avoidance guidance in the Rules of the Air: "I've seen him but don't know if he's going to carry on regardless or manoeuvre out of my way. But if he manoeuvres out of my way, it's likely he'll turn that way."

[Paul_Sengupta]

I'd enter in a certain amount of "randomness" into the equation.

I know I do when I fly...

[T67M]

PAW has now found its way onto the budget spreadsheet, but I still haven't found a suitable space for a 7" tablet.

I use Skydemon in the cockpit on a Samsung S9 phone (not S9+) and it's plenty big enough in my opinion for both navigation and traffic on the same screen, although I do like track-up and have the display vertical to maximise the amount of "forward" view available. I can also plan using the S9, but I concede that is easier on larger tablet (which I also have).

IMO, in the cockpit, bigger isn't necessarily better.

[rf3flyer]

@Sooty25 @rf3flyer

Hi guys,

...Ideally mount your ‘display’ on or just below the top of the coaming so it’s near line of sight as this reduces ‘eyes in time’. This is a very useful option for those who can’t fit a tablet or don’t want to run a Nav System...

I had thought of that but the proximity of a smartphone cripples the compass.

[Tim Dawson]

Could

What a helpful post, thank you.

I echo the sentiments that others have expressed about people jumping on this incident and somehow dismissing it. From the tracks displayed it looks certain that this was a situation that was certain to bring two aircraft very much closer than either would have been comfortable with, and that's the best case. The tools on board prevented that from happening.

This is a good news story. Why are some people so miserable?