Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
#1693566
Tim Dawson wrote:We’ve thought about that before, and I’ve explored the possibility of not actually snapping the line to waypoints, but making it appear to snap while actually picking a random location several hundred metres from the target. We didn’t end up doing it though.

At enroute scales the magenta line must be a mile wide anyway, and also, nobody is forced to fly exactly along the middle of it. Who wants to fly that precisely? (Genuine question)

I would love to be able to :D :D
Rob P, kanga, townleyc liked this
#1693572
disgusted wrote:
Ben K wrote:OP; Have you filed an airprox?


Not yet, considering doing so If I can pull together enough of the relevant data for the forms


If it was as close as that then I would recommend doing so. I filed my first ever Airprox last year. I found that the process of filing and the care with which the matter was investigated by the Airprox Board was very heartening.

So if there was a genuine risk of collision then I'd recommend that you file, even if you only have partial information. The outcome may save someone else's life...
GonzoEGLL liked this
#1693600
Personally I think that the single most effective separation measure that VFR pilots can apply is never flying at round-number levels. I avoid like the plague levels such as 2,000' and 3,000 if I can.

On a related issue, some time ago I floated the idea (it gained no traction at all :lol: ) of reviewing the use of mandatory IFR cruising levels. As we know, we are obliged to use semi-circular IFR cruising levels when flying IFR outside CAS. I just cannot understand what that achieves by way of safety. It just concentrates low-level IFR traffic (the guy flying on an IRR and slipping under Class A) into a very small number of altitude bands - where he is then at increased likelihood of meeting another person doing exactly the same! I do not understand what would be lost by allowing such a pilot to select his own IFR cruising level.

And before someone says 'but surely the idea of the semi-circular rule is that they're all flying the same way' you just have to look at it to see that that's nonsense. If I'm flying IFR on a heading that is more or less north or more or less south then I'm potentially going to face traffic on a more or less reciprocal heading +/- a few degrees at exactly the same level because we're both obliged to use that level. Crazy and, as far as I can see, pointless.
rikur_, Stu B liked this
#1693637
Miscellaneous wrote:
Maxthelion wrote:Misc -PAW will alert you to pretty much anything that is emitting a signal. Skyecho will tell you about a more limited range of emitting devices for much more money.

What's needed to use it to its fullest and is there not a Mode S conflict if ADS-B is output? :?


Nothing more than a 1/4" audio cable to your intercom aux in is needed to get the audio warnings. You can overlay the visual stuff on skydemon very easily, but audio warning is really what you should be using it for.

If you do happen to have Skydemon then the way forward is to connect your tablet to PAW via wifi (follow the instructions from either vendor and its quickly done) and then use an audio cable from your tablet to your intercom to get the even more advanced audio warnings from Skydemon.

There is no Mode S conflict because PAW does not (yet) do ADSB out.
#1693650
I do slightly worry at the speed that people are embracing PAW etc, and how they’re going to be more focused inside, when there are huge numbers of aircraft flying around without technology that’ll allow them to be seen.

In the same way that you’d probably ask me to buy PAW for your safety, I’d reciprocate with asking you to bother looking out of the window for me, and not to rely on a device that’s sketchy in terms of thoroughness, at best.

With every measurable unit of additional safety that these systems bring, I do feel there’s an equal measure of loss of safety too, especially at weekends when lots of Permit aircraft are up and about that don’t even have a starter motor, let alone a device that’s going to link to their iPad, (that they still haven’t bought yet)!
Flyin'Dutch', Nick liked this
#1693651
TheFarmer wrote:I do slightly worry at the speed that people are embracing PAW etc, and how they’re going to be more focused inside, when there are huge numbers of aircraft flying around without technology that’ll allow them to be seen.

In the same way that you’d probably ask me to buy PAW for your safety, I’d reciprocate with asking you to bother looking out of the window for me, and not to rely on a device that’s sketchy in terms of thoroughness, at best.

With every measurable unit of additional safety that these systems bring, I do feel there’s an equal measure of loss of safety too, especially at weekends when lots of Permit aircraft are up and about that don’t even have a starter motor, let alone a device that’s going to link to their iPad, (that they still haven’t bought yet)!


If you're not able to look out of the window at the same time as receiving an audio warning from a system on your aircraft then you've probably got bigger problems to worry about anyway. Sorry if I've inferred a step too far, but essentially PAW audio warinings boost your ability to capture targets visually during your normal scan. Of course there are targets out there that are not broadcasting anything, that's why we continue to be eyes out. However if you're saying that being told through your headset where to look for those contacts that are broadcasting is detrimental to safety then I think you're wrong.
#1693669
TheFarmer wrote:In the same way that you’d probably ask me to buy PAW for your safety, I’d reciprocate with asking you to bother looking out of the window for me, and not to rely on a device that’s sketchy in terms of thoroughness, at best.

I’m quite taken aback at this and not sure I know how to react to that statement, are you serious, or is this dramatic effect to emphasise your point ?
If you are serious I would like to hear why you say
sketchy in terms of thoroughness, at best
kanga liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11