Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1650048
Rob L wrote:..But moving on from my previous post, I was reading the Wycombe incident with some sorrow, having had knowledge of mid-air collisions (some fatal, some not). :(


There is also this one that was very close to being fatal as well: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-in ... ent=weekly

No FLARM in the tug aircraft, which to me is a surprise. Apparently, the toss-up between being a distraction from good look out to giving worthwhile warnings seems to be cited. Again the common standard of EC is mentioned.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1650094
gaznav wrote: Again the common standard of EC is mentioned.


Yes, but the gliding club's safety actions are limited to the use of landing lights and possibly Flarm. ADS-B is not given a thought.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1650172
Not so, direct quote from the report:

“Technological advancements such as PowerFLARM, with an improved display and the ability to detect FLARM, ADSB-Out and transponder equipped aircraft, appear to offer enhanced capability over legacy electronic conspicuity (EC) systems”

And having re-read it a second time to make sure I was not mistaken about my comments on standardisation:

“A target outcome for the ECWG was to define an industry standard for EC devices designed for the UK market. Their aspiration was that by standardising EC technology, equipment costs would reduce, leading to wider adoption of such systems across the GA and gliding communities.”
Last edited by gaznav on Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Maxthelion
#1650210
It would seem that the gliding club could adopt FLARM, and the power operators could get PAW and see the FLARM traffic with an OGN uplink, and everyone would have a much better chance of seeing and avoiding. Maybe there haven't been enough collisions yet.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1650212
Maxthelion wrote:It would seem that the gliding club could adopt FLARM, and the power operators could get PAW and see the FLARM traffic with an OGN uplink, and everyone would have a much better chance of seeing and avoiding. Maybe there haven't been enough collisions yet.


Yes you could do all sorts of things and that's the problem. There are competing technologies and we haven't yet converged on either a single one or a coherent standard way of using them in combination .
Flyin'Dutch', Nick, gaznav liked this
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1650222
Maxthelion wrote:It would seem that the gliding club could adopt FLARM, and the power operators could get PAW and see the FLARM traffic with an OGN uplink, and everyone would have a much better chance of seeing and avoiding. Maybe there haven't been enough collisions yet.


Will the OGN upload work at low level? Or will there have to be an OGN transmitter very close by?
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1650239
CloudHound wrote:is the onset of dementia a factor?


I suspect it's not quite as stark as that. I know three 80+ pilots (all with more experience and expertise than I will ever have) who have hung up their headsets in the last few months. In two of the cases it certainly wasn't any onset of dementia that triggered it, but an honest and self-aware recognition that they just weren't as cognitively sharp as they once were.

It must be a difficult decision to make - and we're all heading there.
By low&slow
#1650279
Dave Phillips wrote:I know it may appear to be a bleedingly obvious statement, but there is little point in sucking-in data if you're not squirting-out your data in a format that everyone else can decipher.

patowalker wrote:I agreed that a common standard was mentioned in the report, but the glider club does not intend to adopt it.

Because transponder & transponder + ADS-B out worked so well for the Cessna & Cabri? What use would transponders or ADS-B out have been to the tug and glider? Who are they supposed to be getting a traffic service from? Luton? Farnborough? They were at 900' agl, Farnborough won't be any use. How can a controller offer any sort of meaningful service to that many aircraft moving unpredictably in such a small area? Tug flights are short, about 7 minutes. Does the controller really want the tug requesting a traffic service every 10 minutes? And then switching back to the airfield frequency 4 minutes later? What if it's a busy day & they're using 2 or 3 or more tugs? The controller will be doing nothing else but talking to tug pilots. The idea that the current "standard" equipment can be of any use in this sort of situation is ludicrous.

The only viable solution is one that doesn't entail any sort of radar service, & that currently means PAW or Flarm. PAW would be the mother of all false alarms in such an environment, assuming they could persuade all the private owners to buy & subscribe. As everything else in the vicinity is Flarm equipped, Flarm is the obvious solution. They should have done it years ago.
Nick liked this
By PaulB
#1650305
johnm wrote:Yes you could do all sorts of things and that's the problem. There are competing technologies and we haven't yet converged on either a single one or a coherent standard way of using them in combination .


Does the ADS-B standard have some "field" in the data for the source of the data (eg whether it was FLARM, or SkyEcho etc. & certified, or not (Is the latter effectively SIL?)

Just pondering that if all devices pumped out their position in "1090" packets and all devices received them, then (for example) FLARM could recognise other FLARM transmissions and do all it's clever proprietary glider stuff that it apparently does yet still be received by SkyEcho and PAW without the need for uplinks.