Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1692720
Strictly speaking, and according to the protocol, the ring does represent the estimated range. However as reported above, estimating the range is virtually impossible though if someone had a database mapping hex codes to transponder powers that would help.

Nobody should underestimate the work that has gone into the PilotAware system to make sense of all this stuff and make something useful out of it. The original subject of this thread puts it into perspective.
exfirepro, kanga, gaznav and 2 others liked this
#1692751
Tim Dawson wrote:Strictly speaking, and according to the protocol, the ring does represent the estimated range. However as reported above, estimating the range is virtually impossible though if someone had a database mapping hex codes to transponder powers that would help.


Hi Tim / All,

The difficulty - especially with GA - is that every single transponder installation has slight variations which affect the strength of the transmitted signal, and this is further complicated by significant variations in Traffic Receiver installations. This caused us a load of headaches during initial Mode-S range testing. I’m just happy that it all works to the degree it does without any significant alteration having to be made to the trigger levels since PAW Mode-S was first introduced.

It should, however, as you suggest be possible to fine tune Mode-S warnings at least from high power (CAT) installations by identifying their Hex IDs from PilotAware’s existing ID database and applying a compensating factor to the trigger levels to eliminate rogue warnings from distant CAT Mode-S aircraft.

Nobody should underestimate the work that has gone into the PilotAware system to make sense of all this stuff and make something useful out of it. The original subject of this thread puts it into perspective.


Your comments are much appreciated. Hopefully by working together on initiatives such as you suggest, we can continue to improve detection and alerting for our users for otherwise ‘Bearingless’ aircraft until a more technological solution becomes universally agreed.

Best Regards

Peter
rohmer liked this
#1692804
Shoestring Flyer wrote:Traffic warning by audio I am afraid does not appeal to me one bit either. Somebody jabbering in my ear would certainly annoy me in a busy circuit.
That’s a very good point.

I have a switch on my intercom that silences the PAW and I do find I turn it off in a busy circuit.

However generally flying about I think the PAW audio alerts are an excellent way of keeping your eyes outside but still getting traffic info.

I have yet to use the Skydemon audio warnings in anger. Need to give that a go this weekend I reckon.
#1693062
As an Airline Pilot and GA pilot I must commend the teams at SD and PAW for producing software and Hardware that is exceptionally good. The combined result is a system that is nearly as good as TCAS, and trust me that costs a lot more than £1k!!!!
Nothing for VFR pilots should or can replace the MK1 eyeball however hearing aircraft 3 o'clock 200 feet above is very very useful.

I hope that these two teams can continue to work together to produce even more improvements over the forthcoming years.

Oh and btw we also have bearing less targets on £90m aircraft so it really isn't easy!
T67M, kanga liked this
#1695741
Ridders wrote:“Sky Echo 2 - Not seeing bearingless targets“ and the answer is - we said it would do it, but it won’t after all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=112223&start=30#p1695703


That is not true. It will, but the company are not content with it (as are others). So quite rightly they have chosen to abandon the technology - see my bold in their release:

After conducting our beta testing, we do not feel that the experience provided by the SkyEcho 2 will match the high quality and integrity solutions that uAvionix has grown to embrace, and therefore we are discontinuing our intent to implement such a feature. While many of the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) applications wish to implement a range associated with these alerts, uAvionix does not believe that any range calculation based on received signal strength from a transponder is credible due to varying transponder transmit power levels between aircraft. Providing such a range may mislead the pilot, which could introduce a dangerous sense of false-confidence. Whilst we acknowledge Mode C/S proximity has some utility, it provides no positional reference and is no substitute for maintaining an effective lookout.


I agree with my own experience of this used in a different environment.
#1695744
I really can’t see how:

A) SkyDemon can have the patience to let this all make it look like they’re following a bit of a last cause, and therefore diluting their independent market credibility somewhat. (Supportive comment towards SD in case anybody wonders).

B) Pilots are going to buy into all this when it’s so ridiculously complicated and not very reliable.

Sorry. When we are flying we should be flying. Not fiddling around with something that distracts us and clearly doesn’t work properly yet.

It just seems so much of a case that this has all gone off rather half cock as a concept in terms of uptake/development.
#1695778
TheFarmer wrote:I really can’t see how:

A) SkyDemon can have the patience to let this all make it look like they’re following a bit of a last cause, and therefore diluting their independent market credibility somewhat. (Supportive comment towards SD in case anybody wonders).

B) Pilots are going to buy into all this when it’s so ridiculously complicated and not very reliable.

Sorry. When we are flying we should be flying. Not fiddling around with something that distracts us and clearly doesn’t work properly yet.

It just seems so much of a case that this has all gone off rather half cock as a concept in terms of uptake/development.


We are all early adopters of the technology that's emerging at this price point. That brings benefits, complications, dead-ends, frustrations and about a million forum pages. There are some similarities to the early days of GPS, my original Magellan had one channel and had a signal for at least five minutes every hour.

Ian

Ian
kanga, gaznav, townleyc liked this
#1695791
Comparing early GPS (that worked 100%) as a nav aid to anti collision safety aids that don’t work is a pretty dubious comparison.

It would be very hard to justify a discussion like this to the general non-flying public if there was a GA mid-air any time soon.
#1695796
I wonder if the non-flying genera public would be amazed that we don't routinely use such tech? Most non-flyers that I speak to think we're under "air traffic control" at all times so they have little knowledge but make assumptions.
#1695799
TheFarmer wrote:Comparing early GPS (that worked 100%) as a nav aid to anti collision safety aids that don’t work is a pretty dubious comparison.

It would be very hard to justify a discussion like this to the general non-flying public if there was a GA mid-air any time soon.


I was just trying to say that the low cost electronic conspicuity sector is going through some growing pains.

Ian
gaznav, ls8pilot, kanga liked this
#1695807
I think what we are/will see is a bit like the certified v permit aircraft natural settling - one end you will have the certified, tested and data validated but potentially more conservative kit, and the other end perhaps the more experimental, technology pushing but sometimes less certified kit. There is a market and demand for all comers, but I don’t think you will get total convergence as the conceptual approach is different.
gaznav liked this
#1695812
The alternative to what we have at the moment could easily be that nobody gets anything for years until the tech alternatives are bedded down to perfection, and the prices will be high accordingly.

Or, perhaps more likely, nobody gets anything.

Because there's no commercial incentive or impetus to develop the kit.

Early adopters pay for development for all: Consider it a public service. ;)
gaznav, PaulB liked this
#1695833
TheFarmer wrote:I really can’t see how:

A) SkyDemon can have the patience to let this all make it look like they’re following a bit of a last cause, and therefore diluting their independent market credibility somewhat. (Supportive comment towards SD in case anybody wonders).

B) Pilots are going to buy into all this when it’s so ridiculously complicated and not very reliable.

Sorry. When we are flying we should be flying. Not fiddling around with something that distracts us and clearly doesn’t work properly yet.

It just seems so much of a case that this has all gone off rather half cock as a concept in terms of uptake/development.


I agree a consolidated approach would be better, but given the slow rate of progress with "official" solutions then what we have is far better than nothing. We have two mature communities (Flarm and PAW) both with at least a couple of thousand of users each in the UK and many years of development and use behind them.

For Flarm I would say it identifies 80% of my potential threats, it's not at all complicated, and while it does not in any way replace the need for good lookout it certainly helps. I would imagine PAW does something similar......

So while ADSB may be the formal solution you can get something that helps today, (PAW or Flarm, or both) and that works with very little fiddling.

I personally would rather have something than nothing....... I get verbal warnings and a simple "LED Clock" indication - I don't find this distracting. You do however need to use any EC in the right way - supporting not replacing lookout and always being aware that the target(s) you see may not be the only ones. I would imagine that this will always be the case.....