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 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
#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