[Mike Tango]

My point of view would have been that of saying you have traffic on your <insert preferred EC device here> is essentially meaningless to ATC.

There is nothing ATC can, or at least could, do with that information with regards any of the separation rules or procedures. They are all predicated upon traffic not being seen at all, or being seen out the window with the eyeball.

It’s pointless in this former controllers now dated opinion.

[T67M]

The procedures may not be written yet, but I would expect ATC to use the information as follows:

Not visual, not "one the box" = please keep me advised of they get closer

Not visual but "on the box" = I can track where I should be looking and will ask if I need further assistance

Visual = no further updates required or expected.

[Mike Tango]

The rules and procedures are currently based around type of service being provided. Personally I wouldn’t want these waters muddied further by whether or not an aircraft was EC equipped and then necessarily further muddled by what particular flavour of EC it was.

Not until one standard was mandated in all cockpits anyway.

[Dave W]

Not until one standard was mandated in all cockpits anyway.

[Stuck record] Which, if it happens, I trust will be preceded by a proper safety case and cost benefit analysis and any decision made on the merits of the outcome of those.

[Mike Tango]

That would be down to the Regulator and the industry to decide and then the ATC system will adapt accordingly.

[Paul_Sengupta]

Why does it matter what system is providing the info as long as the person is sure they have the correct aeroplane on their traffic display?

[Mike Tango]

Personally I think commonality of system is quite important if ultimately use of the system were going to be built into the air traffic infrastructure, rules and procedures.

[TC_LTN]

Let's take the debate a little further.

Below is a depiction of a surveillance display being used by a radar controller to provide a traffic service;


G-ABCD is in receipt of a traffic service. The controller has just passed the following traffic information;

"Traffic left, 10 o'clock range 2 miles converging, no height information and further traffic left, 10 o'clock range 2 1/2 miles indicating 200ft below, should pass down your left-hand side"

The pilot looks to his/her left and sees an aircraft slightly below passing down his/her ride hand side. The pilot also notes their SkyDemon traffic display connected to PAW indicating the following;


Which aircraft pointed out is depicted on SkyDemon and is he/she immediately in conflict with another aircraft?

Or, you receive the same traffic information but your SD traffic display connected to PAW shows you this;


Which aircraft is depicted on SkyDemon? Which did he/see out of the window?

How is all of this information best assimilated to mitigate the risk of MAC?

[Paul_Sengupta]

How is all of this information best assimilated to mitigate the risk of MAC?

Using all the information available to try and visually acquire the two targets.

[TC_LTN]

How is all of this information best assimilated to mitigate the risk of MAC?

Using all the information available to try and visually acquire the two targets.

Agreed, but my point is about interoperability. We must utilise a single standard which is interoperable between all parties otherwise the human factors in relation to the many permatations of emission/detection could actually contribute to an unsafe environment not enhance that environment.

[PeteM]

I'm struggling to see what the problem is. I cannot think of anyone I know, who has some form of ECS, thinks it gives a complete picture. We are all aware it picks up SOME traffic.

Equally we are very rarely sufficiently privileged to receive a traffic service - only once have I had that request accepted - more often than not it is simply not available due to workload.

So flawed or not my PAW helps. The one thing it has done is to reinforce just how poor my Mk1 eyeball is (or perhaps has become). Traffic at 3 miles may or may not be seen. But equally that still gives me some time.

Obviously if you are controlling faster aircraft then the picture changes much faster - but equally they generally have more/better equipment (TCAS etc) which may help. Pilots being proactive regarding headings means controller workload must reduce.

If or when 'free flight' ever occurs then ground controlling as I understand it will be very different and there will be much more reliance on aircraft mounted systems.

[gaznav]

#metoo

I would like to see:

1. A common standard (the CAA have already said it’s ADS-B, preferably from a transponder, but other ways will do (or something like that!)) for both In and Out.
2. A proper independent study, preferably by a technical department at a University or similar, into the performance of common portable EC devices - that details Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of each EC system.
3. A set of standard phrases set out in CAP413 for EC device use.
4. Training reflected in the LAPL/PPL syllabi and also bi-ennial flight checks. Discussion of such Human Factors already described. This should be detailed in ‘Training Com’ from the CAA.

After all that, I think we would be in a far better place rather than the “Wild West” we currently find ourselves in.

[Nick]

Hear hear.

Nick.

[Flyin'Dutch']

What he said

[Dave W]

5. A proper comprehensive safety analysis coupled with a cost- benefit analysis vs other safety threats to determine whether there is - or is not - any (current) justification for mandatory EC, regardless of specific technology. [/Stuck Record]