Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 95
User avatar
By Rob L
#1805795
patowalker wrote:
Full Metal Jackass wrote:I can tell you, once you come as close to hitting an other aircraft as I did and only EC warned you, only then will you accept that the Mark I eyeball is limited in its possibilities.....


I thought the whole idea of EC was that you didn't come close to hitting another aircraft.


You are mistaken, patowalker: it's simply another tool in your armoury to help you avoid such a situation.
Full Metal Jackass liked this
By Crash one
#1805796
Crash one wrote:Talking about other display options.
I have here an antiquated Airspace Aware unit, seven years out of date, replaced with Runway HD.
Could this be reconfigured to display the Paw radar screen, how etc?
With its full size screen it would be ideal.
Rather than a phone which I may need as an emergency communicator!
Attention of the Paw squad?


My mistake.
No WiFi
#1805797
I have just watched todays Flyer Utube video and also read the FlyerClub article on EC!
Very useful and thought provoking stuff but the problem is that having in the last week or so thought I knew which was I was leaning for perhaps a low cost solution on EC taking in the CAA rebate, maybe I now don't! :?
PersonallyI would have liked to have seen a performance comparison with an installed PowerFlarm Core unit versus the two cheapo offerings.
Is this what the RV8 in the article has that was very briefly talked about?
By patowalker
#1805798
Rob L wrote:You are mistaken, patowalker: it's simply another tool in your armoury to help you avoid such a situation.


What I am trying to understand is why that tool didn't help him avoid the situation. It seems to me that either the tool didn't work as expected, or he wasn't that close to hitting another aircraft.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1805799
Shoestring Flyer wrote:I have just watched todays Flyer Utube video and also read the FlyerClub article on EC!
Very useful and thought provoking stuff but the problem is that having in the last week or so thought I knew which was I was leaning for perhaps a low cost solution on EC taking in the CAA rebate, maybe I now don't! :?
PersonallyI would have liked to have seen a performance comparison with an installed PowerFlarm Core unit versus the two cheapo offerings.
Is this what the RV8 in the article has that was very briefly talked about?



Yes, the RV has installed FLARM (in and out)
Shoestring Flyer liked this
User avatar
By Rob L
#1805801
patowalker wrote:
Rob L wrote:You are mistaken, patowalker: it's simply another tool in your armoury to help you avoid such a situation.


What I am trying to understand is why that tool didn't help him avoid the situation. It seems to me that either the tool didn't work as expected, or he wasn't that close to hitting another aircraft.


Or perhaps the warning was ignored? All forms of EC (and I include TCAS and GPWS here for completeness) involve the pilot in command doing something about a perceived threat given by an electronic device.

Rob L
#1805810
@patowalker

IIRC FMJ’s ‘near miss’ aircraft took off from a different airfield close to his home field as he was on final to land, despite FMJ having broadcast his position and intentions by radio. Approaching from below in full-power climb. FMJ would have had near zero chance of assimilating the aircraft visually as it climbed beneath him and equally, the other aircraft would have found it extremely difficult to acquire FMJ’s aircraft descending from above even had he not misheard the radio calls.

The other limitation was due to the fact that FMJ was using a Zaon MRX - one of the few early (non-transmitting) Mode C /S Aircraft detectors available at the time - which could report relative altitude and approximate distance, but only when it received a transmission from the other aircraft. This, however, would only happen as the aircraft climbed from takeoff to a height where it started to get interrogated by the local Radar unit - in this case reducing the warning to very shortly before the two aircraft came close to collision. Not a criticism of the Zaon BTW - I also had one before I replaced it with PilotAware and found it extremely useful.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

I have myself had a similar near-miss, with a low-wing GA aircraft emitting pure Mode S descending from directly above and behind my (high wing) flexwing back in 2017. Obviously neither of us could see each other and the first warning I had from my PilotAware was as the aircraft descended through +1000 ft. A near 360 scan failed to reveal any danger, so I continued en-route and kept up my visual scan. I then got a further warning advising increased danger level and that the aircraft was now at +500 ft. Remember that warnings from Pure Mode C or Mode S transponders contain only barometric altitude (which allows us to calculate relative altitude) but no position reports. Being still unable to see the aircraft, but reasoning that it must be above and behind and closing, I instigated a clearing turn to the left (there was CAS to the right) and commenced a descent to increase clearance. As I did so, I looked behind and to my right to see a fairly heavy GA type descending directly into the bit of sky I had just left. I instantly forced my plane into a hard dive to the left, avoiding what would have been an inevitable collision. I have since BTW checked the track logs for the flight which show that the aircraft got within 50 feet of me. Without my EC device and its Bearingless Alert, I have no doubt whatsoever that the incident would have proved fatal on my part.

That’s why I passionately defend the reporting of ‘Bearingless’ Mode C or S aircraft where more accurate reports (via MLAT uplink) are not available.

Best Regards

Peter
(PilotAware Development Team)
marioair, patowalker, PaulSS liked this
User avatar
By Rob L
#1805821
patowalker wrote:That doesn;t sound right either. Why would someone so convinced of the benefits, or rather the absolute necessity of EC, ignore a warning? I'm intrigued.


Is that's aimed at me, patowalker (?). I'm also intrigued why anyone would ignore a warning like that.
#1805824
patowalker wrote:
Rob L wrote:You are mistaken, patowalker: it's simply another tool in your armoury to help you avoid such a situation.


What I am trying to understand is why that tool didn't help him avoid the situation. It seems to me that either the tool didn't work as expected, or he wasn't that close to hitting another aircraft.


Even though I've described the situation before, I feel it will be better if I explain it again - apologies to those who have heard this before. It was a Sunday morning and I was returning to my home base. Because of a tail wind, I arrived a few minutes before 9. I circled to the north and waited for the Flugleiter to respond to my calls and just after 9, I made contact and joined the circuit, calling downwind, base and final (as I typically do).

On joining downwind my Zaon started warning me of a target a couple of miles away, below me - around 400 feet lower. I continued onward, noting the target. On base it was now a mile away, 300 feet below me. It started closing - 0.5 miles, 300 feet. I turned on final and was confused. Nobody was typically in the air that early, the frequency was empty, even Langen FIS had been relatively quiet. I was pretty sure that I was seeing the transponder of someone on the ground.

Now the altitude difference started to reduce, less than 0.5miles, the Zaon was sounding a warning. I was descending - after all, I was on short final to land. My first thoughts was again, there is someone on the field with their transponder on - what I'm seeing is the altitude difference changing because of my descent. But I wasn't.

The Zaon was going mad, flashing alert warnings at me and although I was pretty much focused on landing, I was still looking around seeing if I could see anything. I called the Flugleiter and asked 'is there anyone on the field with a transponder on?' The Flugleiter started to reply but something told me to glance down and I saw, just appearing from the root of the leading edge of my wing on the left hand side, the spinner of another propellor.

It was a motor glider which had been flying at 500 feet along the river and had recently taken off from an airfield about 5 miles away using the westerly runway and had obviously assumed we would also be landing westerly. He was overtaking me from below as I slowed on short final. I shouted "W T F" over the air and the Flugleiter looked to short final and saw two aircraft where one should be.

He said that he was pretty much convinced that a collision was going to occur and grabbed the binoculars, saw the registration of the second plane, noted it. I decided the only action was to slow myself. I didn't know what the aircraft was doing and slowed myself as far as I dared. What I wanted to do was keep the aircraft in sight as it flew past me. Had I climbed, I would have lost all visibility with the aircraft. On short final, I typically fly 75 knots. I recall that when glancing at the ASI, I had slowed to around 62 knots in an attempt to create separation - but what other options should I have taken? I didn't know what sort of aircraft it was, nor their climb rate, had I also decided to go around. Keeping the intruder in sight was, for me, the best course of action.

The conflicting aircraft was now also climbing through my altitude as the pilot decided he probably needed to gain some altitude over our airfield. What he didn't realise was that he had flown straight through my short final, maybe 10 - 15 feet below me, same position. Even though his motor glider had a glass canopy, he hadn't been paying attention to what was happening above himself, he was believing I would be coming from the opposite direction and was focussed on that. Had I not slowed, we would have collided.

So please don't say the system failed. It worked as it should have. I didn't take the alert and think 'no, it's a spurious report, everything will be ok if I ignore it'. But without it, I would not have had a clue that the aircraft was there and we would have collided. Even the investigation into the event by the BR, based on the transponder returns from both aircraft recorded by Dortmund's radar, showed that it was extremely close.

Interesting was that the Flugleiter called the other aircraft on the local frequency - and he responded. He'd heard me make my calls but was convinced we were flying on 24, even though I'd announced 06. Because he'd heard my calls, he was focussing on looking for me coming from 24, not 06, hence he would not have known what would have hit him......
By Cessna571
#1805841
I had a proper near miss when a biplane flew about 30 feet above me, right to left.

The first I knew about it was my passenger going “Wow, amazing”, I looked right and saw it just before it went over us.

My passenger had been watching it approach, decided it was going to miss us and didn’t call it out as he thought it’d be amazing to watch close up.

I really make sure I brief my passengers properly now about traffic.

I was flying with PAW and it’s why I always say “none of these things are Radar, the other aircraft has to emit something you can see”.

PAW would have seen him if he’d been transmitting
ls8pilot, exfirepro liked this
#1805846
Some very strident views being expressed here.

Isn’t it possible to have a perfectly acceptable difference of opinion on these matters? Non of us here should be considered un-intelligent.

Bear in mind we have aircraft flying around (legally) without any radio.

- Without a transponder.

- Without any lights or strobes.

- There is a compatibility issue with the various options available, even for those who invest in such a device.

- Nothing is currently mandated. No single system is considered the ‘gold standard’!

- Many of these systems can be amateur ‘lash ups’ with limited visibility.

I didn't claim that you believe people using EC are dumb or ignorant, the term 'dumb and ignorant' refers to the fact that without any form of EC, a pilot could be totally unaware of any conflicting traffic, believing his eyeball Mk1 capable of viewing all around himself, all the time, would believe he is in the sky on his own when the reality he might never have seen the aircraft which could have hit him......

Of course even WITH any form of EC, a pilot could equally be totally unaware of conflicting traffic, never ‘seeing’ the unequipped aircraft that could hit him/her! Pilots equipped with EC need to be just as vigilant with the eyeball as anyone else.
taking precautionery action based on the assumption a position report is correct is potentionally dangerous if one becomes convinced the aircraft is somewhere it is not.

I agree with this. I have no reason to believe manouvreing without visual acquisition is within the scope of the manufacturers’ remit/offering? This is VMC/VFR flying we are talking about here!

The systems being discussed here are named (not by accident) as ‘conspicuity’ systems. For very good reason they are not called ‘collision avoidance’ systems.

Bearing in mind the proportion of GA (not) equipped with any such equipment. The incompatibilities between equipment choices, and the lack of any unifying mandate from the regulator. It seems to me some are investing a great deal of confidence in an approach that is charmingly inconsistent, and more than a little Heath Robinson.

Mandate from our regulator is required. IF they determine such equipment is essential.
Dave W, Miscellaneous, gaznav and 4 others liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1805847
I did find the article in the new issue of the magazine very informative with reference to a number of issues discussed in this thread. I would commend everyone to have a read, if they haven't already.
gaznav, shortwing, ls8pilot liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1805849
@Cub - thanks for posting.

@G-BLEW - thanks for a cracking article.

I did find it easiest to read via this link: http://s3.amazonaws.com/document.issuu. ... ofZUY30%3D

Anyway, you kind of confirmed what I thought:

1. With internal antennae you are only going to get short(ish) range reception. My experience is 3-10 miles aircraft to aircraft for a carry on device. That’s fine for that purpose in my view if this is about aircraft trying to avoid each other within visual ranges. That is effectively the undocumented goal for all of this and not detecting things 10s of miles away that really is just a distraction to GA pilots. I struggle to see most light aircraft over 3 miles away with my unaided 20-20 vision.

2. Using amateur sited and maintained ground stations, regardless of how well intentioned, is just too ‘hit and miss’ (pun intended). When linked to internal antennae above then this is a real problem - I too was shocked at the 2-3 miles that you achieved with a PAW from their much hyped “ATOM Grid”. But then I wasn’t that surprised having struggled to receive FIS-B on a SkyEcho mounted inside my aircraft outside of 20 miles or so - that was during the trial a year or so back. Ground stations are best used for flight information and weather - not for traffic awareness and avoidance.

3. The CAA and DFT have given an incredibly mixed message with the latest funding announcement. Also, the ‘via a transponder is the preferred option’ message is also mixed up when SIL=0 from a cheap non-certified GPS renders you invisible to most certified ADS-B receivers. I hope you get the chance to explain that to Sir Stephen when you meet him. I have done that on other matters in the past and I can assure you that he listens and understands very well.

4. The SDA=1 for CAP1391 needs doing now. If CASA are content, then just get on with it.

5. The Human-to-EC Device interface for PAW, FLARM and SkyEcho is very poor. This needs work by all involved.

6. That the value of bearingless warnings are dubious. If we all emit a GPS position in a signal format that we all can receive (ADS-B SIL=1 and SDA=1) then there is no need for bearingless anymore.

Finally, good job again. I am sure there will be more ideas or comments on this. Perhaps a re-run to address those will produce another fascinating article? :thumleft:
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1805860
Thanks @gaznav , not sure what the link is, but not doing anything for me at least.

1. With any device internal antennae are always going to be suboptimal. Some aircraft will be worse than others. When I first experienced uplink via a portable in the US (Stratus and Garmin GDL39), range was not a problem, but their ground stations would have been high power and FAA funded.

2. For me, if ground transmissions are a part of the traffic solution, they need to be powerful enough to achieve a wide and seamless c overage.

3 & 4 The DfT grant is to be welcomed, but there's plenty of online evidence suggesting that there's still confusion, and now some 'EC argument fatigue' setting in. This could have been done better. The CAA has a very quick and easy win available regarding SDA=1, I do not understand why it hasn't acted.

5. Completely agree, this needs thought and training. Target fixation is an easy trap to fall into, and targets that disappear and reappear (due blanking) can make that worse. Understanding and training needed I think.

6. I am still on the fence with bearingless. I think in most situations it is better to know than not, but it is very much an interim step on the EC journey.

Finally, I had a stab at making a video to accompany the feature



Ian
TheFarmer, Cub, Shoestring Flyer and 6 others liked this
  • 1
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 95