Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 98
User avatar
By gaznav
#1803924
@TheFarmer

I use these connected via bluetooth to my iPhone running @Tim Dawson’s excellent SkyDemon that is fed GPS and ADS-B/FLARM from my SkyEcho - it literally tells me when I get close to things like airspace and other traffic without the need to look inside the cockpit. Really simple words too, like “Traffic, 12 o’clock, 1 mile, 100ft above“

These kind of bone conductIng headphones cost me £9.99 from eBay, fit comfortably underneath my GA headset and don’t stop me from hearing the radio/intercom. So no looking in for me, apart from normal instruments... :thumright:

Image
#1803925
gaznav wrote:@TheFarmer

I use these connected via bluetooth to my iPhone running @Tim Dawson’s excellent SkyDemon that is fed GPS and ADS-B/FLARM from my SkyEcho - it literally tells me when I get close to things like airspace and other traffic without the need to look inside the cockpit. Really simple words too, like “Traffic, 12 o’clock, 1 mile, 100ft above“

These kind of bone conductIng headphones cost me £9.99 from eBay, fit comfortably underneath my GA headset and don’t stop me from hearing the radio/intercom. So no looking in for me, apart from normal instruments... :thumright:

Image


These look worth investigating! Do you have a link?....Or what is the actual name?
#1803931
TheFarmer wrote:@Straight Level

Well, I’m sorry, but with more and more people now flying around with their heads in their iPads seeing about 20% of the chainsaws that are coming at them, I kind of feel that there will be many more people who’ll be having to justify that to families too when they miss one.

You might well be a ‘head in your lap’ kind of chap who loves gadgetry (even if it is rather sketchy in reliability), but I reckon I’m probably safer than you by keeping my eyes out rather then relying on seeing a small proportion of what’s out where while I stare at a screen just before my EC device disconnects from it randomly.


@TheFarmer

Well, I'm sorry, that is a totally wrong assumption.

It takes just a one or two second glance just like any other instrument.
In fact if nothing is shown on the screen within 3 or 4 miles of my position it will be another minute or so until I look at the traffic screen. I'm HAVING to looking out the window...... for you !
So 4 or 5 seconds per minute glancing at a screen to see the actual position of traffic traffic is much better use of my time instead of <only> looking out the window in the forlorn hope of getting a visual on YOUR aircraft.

All this "stare at a screen" guff, is just that, guff.
Get an EC device and you'll soon find out how poor your visual scan is. ;-)

SL
exfirepro, Full Metal Jackass, rdfb and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By tnowak
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1803945
I mentioned my experience with SE2 about 10 pages back!
I tested SE2 in my house and over approx. 12 hours of continuous use SD twice displayed a warning message (approx. 5 hrs apart) about lost connection. I simply recycled SD to get the connection back and am not sure what caused the issue.

Also, with a fully charged SE2, I got in excess of 20 hours operation when set to Receive only (I already have ADS-B OUT via my TT21).

When I test flew SE2 last week it performed perfectly (solid GPS lock, solid WIFI connectivity and working ADS-B Out/FLARM detection) for my 90 minute flight.

I am completely happy with SE2 (and SD) and have no concerns about reliability.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By tnowak
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1803946
Forgot to mention that I have SD audio connected to my radio so I am not looking on my smartphone for a "target" to be displayed on SD.
SD tells me when it has detected something that may be a threat.
gaznav liked this
#1803950
Cessna571 wrote:@Straight Level
We had all this about SD from Farmer, now he loves it.
Move along, nothing to see here.

Just hope it doesn’t dissuade anyone else from being conspicuous.

Indeed, I am pasionate about EC. Every year i get 3 or 4 "too close for comfort " instances with other GA that clearly just did not see me. Now I'm no paragon of eyesight or visual accuity so my guess is that means there are a similar number of power or rotary pilots saying "that b**** glider did'nt see us". If you fly around thinking you are seeing everything you are deluding yourself, its the one you dont see that matters.

There have been MACs where one aircraft is fatal and the other lands ok...... just pause and think how the surviving pilot/crew must feel?


Even if its rare £250 for (say) 5 to 10 years seems a reasonable amount to pay....
exfirepro, Nick, Cessna571 and 3 others liked this
#1803987
Straight Level wrote:Get an EC device and you'll soon find out how poor your visual scan is. ;-)

ls8pilot wrote:If you fly around thinking you are seeing everything you are deluding yourself, its the one you dont see that matters.

I don't offer this post as an argument against EC, far from it :naughty: , however...

Quite frankly the aircraft not seen are totally irrelevant, as long as they miss. they don't figure. Stats show conclusively that 99.99999% of them would have missed whether you had EC fitted, or not. There's no need to see every aeroplane within n feet horizontally and vertically. It is a strawman to build the case around a comparision in numbers of aircraft seen with and without EC.

So, an argument that you will see lots more than without EC is not an argument for EC and does nothing to further the cause.

Let the argument focus on the consequences of the 0.00001%, or whatever it is. :wink:
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1803990
Miscellaneous wrote:
Straight Level wrote:Get an EC device and you'll soon find out how poor your visual scan is. ;-)

ls8pilot wrote:If you fly around thinking you are seeing everything you are deluding yourself, its the one you dont see that matters.

I don't offer this post as an argument against EC, far from it :naughty: , however...

Quite frankly the aircraft not seen are totally irrelevant, as long as they miss. they don't figure. Stats show conclusively that 99.99999% of them would have missed whether you had EC fitted, or not. There's no need to see every aeroplane within n feet horizontally and vertically. It is a strawman to build the case around a comparision in numbers of aircraft seen with and without EC.

So, an argument that you will see lots more than without EC is not an argument for EC and does nothing to further the cause.

Let the argument focus on the consequences of the 0.00001%, or whatever it is. :wink:


Umm.... interesting viewpoint. So if you take the case where Pilot A did'nt see Pilot B and Pilot B has a late sighting of Pilot A and takes violent avoiding action to avoid a collision , that's OK is it ?

Having been in that situation (a number of times in 3000hrs flying) I have to say it's not OK with me, nor do I regard that as a zero risk situation.
Nick, exfirepro liked this
#1803994
ls8pilot wrote:Umm.... interesting viewpoint.

It's not a viewpoint, it's reality. :wink:

ls8pilot wrote:So if you take the case where Pilot A did'nt see Pilot B and Pilot B has a late sighting of Pilot A and takes violent avoiding action to avoid a collision , that's OK is it ?

That doesn't fall within the 99.99999%. That falls within the 0.00001% where there is a differnece between not having and having EC. Your argument is a nonsequitor to my way of thinking. :D

I say again for clarity. I am not arguing against EC. :wink: Just challenging the method of argument. :D
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1804007
Miscellaneous wrote:
ls8pilot wrote:Umm.... interesting viewpoint.

It's not a viewpoint, it's reality. :wink:

ls8pilot wrote:So if you take the case where Pilot A did'nt see Pilot B and Pilot B has a late sighting of Pilot A and takes violent avoiding action to avoid a collision , that's OK is it ?

That doesn't fall within the 99.99999%. That falls within the 0.00001% where there is a differnece between not having and having EC. Your argument is a nonsequitor to my way of thinking. :D

I say again for clarity. I am not arguing against EC. :wink: Just challenging the method of argument. :D


You are right to say that EC for spotting an aircraft 2 miles away is interesting but not vital.

I think my concern is the 0.00001% figure for "real" benefit from EC - my perception based on experience is that this is too low, so I'm curious as to what that is based on?

If I divide "close encounters" into "medium" (i.e. you've got a couple of seconds to assess the situation then do something to increase separation) and "high" (ie immediate bank, pull up or dive) I would estimate the occurrence of "medium" is about once every 30 hrs flown and "high" maybe once every 200-300 hrs.

There is another category which is "too late", where you just shut your eyes and pray - I've never had that , I'm glad to say.

In reality every "high" ought to be an Airprox, but I've only done that procedure once, and I suspect there is a lot of under-reporting of potential Cat B airproxes, so I dont think we really know the stats.

So I guess I would estimate universal EC would have a real safety benefit (to me) every 200-300 hrs or so - for me that's about one in 2-3 years. Given the closer proximity in gliding I think Flarm prevents that situation (glider:glider) about once a year for me.

Of course you could say that even in the case of my "high" occurrence we may not have actually had a MAC and I accept the rate is going to vary depending on type of aircraft, type of flying etc.
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1804010
Straight Level wrote:Get an EC device and you'll soon find out how poor your visual scan is. ;-)

SL


@Straight Level

Your enthusiasm is admirable. However, as you’re statistically far more likely to be killed by a meteorite falling on your house, I’d say your £250 would have been better spent on an insurance premium against that.

The CAA hate the anonymity of GA and are desperate to withdraw our freedom. Once they have every flying device being traceable, they can then implement all sorts of charges, discipline, and restrictions on us. As it is now, we enjoy our flying freedom as we always have done.

Selling EC to us as ‘you’ll all suddenly stop crashing into each other’ is a clever way to get us all to buy into their desire to get us all completely under their control.

I don’t hold insurance for being struck by a meteorite, but I know I’d rather pay £250 (if I had to spend it on safety) on that insurance for something more likely to happen to me, than completely lose my aviation freedom that I’ve enjoyed for 31 years.
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1804013
TheFarmer wrote:@Straight Level

Well, I’m sorry, but with more and more people now flying around with their heads in their iPads seeing about 20% of the chainsaws that are coming at them, I kind of feel that there will be many more people who’ll be having to justify that to families too when they miss one.

You might well be a ‘head in your lap’ kind of chap who loves gadgetry (even if it is rather sketchy in reliability), but I reckon I’m probably safer than you by keeping my eyes out rather then relying on seeing a small proportion of what’s out where while I stare at a screen just before my EC device disconnects from it randomly.


I'd thought you'd succumbed to temptation and bought an SE2?
  • 1
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 98