Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Shoestring Flyer
#1838426
I suspect that the Tutor discussed along with most of the other RAF training aircraft including the Shawbury Heli's has PowerFlarmCore installed with antenna diversity and is seeing far more traffic than a portable SE2 or PAW.
By Shoestring Flyer
#1838427
Dave W wrote:But you've no idea if you are avoiding an aircraft emitting ADS-B and accidentally putting yourself in the wzy of a Balbo of aircraft emitting Mode C / Mode S.


Unsure if the older PowerFlarmCore that the Training Grobs have equipped have it but PowerFlarmFusion ( the current model)also sees Mode S .
By russp
#1838429
Dave W wrote:
low&slow wrote:No. If you have a properly set up aerial you can see Flarm traffic from 10km or more away.

It's technically impressive but I worry it's a distraction to be engaging in any way anything that isn't an immediate or emerging threat.

Anything more than a mile away AND is on a converging track seems irrelevent, which is why I am firming up a view that what drives safety in EC is mostly the effectiveness of the alerts, not the representions of other aircraft on the chart.


One of the most useful features of seeing flarm traffic IS seeing them 10 miles plus away - when there are whole flocks of gliders (what is the collective noun for airborne gliders?) in the summer all circling in the same place or working a competition route it's really really handy to be able to route well clear of the lot of them - arriving in the middle of them and only then being told about them is a LOT less useful.
Shoestring Flyer, MattL liked this
User avatar
By Peter Gristwood
#1838432
Back along, I was passing Wycombe Air Park towards Didcot and came across a sky full of gliders - there was a competition on. The PAW device picked them up, for a bit (pre-ATOM), but the audio went mad with continuous warnings.

Such a relief when they all suddenly vanished just at Benson
User avatar
By Dave W
#1838444
@MattL But... but... You've not avoided a threat - you've avoided one possibility of a threat perhaps occurring in the future. A few aircraft 10 miles away are not a threat now.

MattL wrote:...under a Traffic service...


Not everybody will have that - certainly not all at the same time, especially on a nice day.

I also don't think that a cost:benefit case for mandatory EC has been made cf all the other things GA pilots could spend their budget on that mitigates hazards more likely to kill them e.g. CFIT, LOC-I.

russp wrote:One of the most useful features of seeing flarm traffic IS seeing them 10 miles plus away

I can see that; it is a strategic rather than tactical use of the tool and is more defensive flight planning rather than direct collision avoidance. You spot the gaggle and re-plan, and likely do it once per flight. Would you prefer to do that on the ground, using a near real time internet data source and re-plan your route at that point - or be continually looking at a screen in the air? FLARM output from the gliders enables both; quite different pilot workloads may ensue from each.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1838447
Shoestring Flyer wrote:...PowerFlarmFusion ( the current model)also sees Mode S .


It doesn't tell you where the traffic is, though. It tells you how close it thinks it is (based on signal strength) and whether above or below you but not which azimuth.

It's bearingless traffic and so you cannot strategically (which is what we are talking about) route to avoid that theoretical Balbo.
By johnm
#1838450
Having bought a Skyecho and FLARM subs I'm now going to be able to experiment. Up to now I've been outputting ADS-B and taking a traffic service which I shall continue to do. I don't intend to have audio warnings, the only audio warnings we have at the moment are terrain and gear.

I include Skydemon in my scan and I am assuming that imminent threats will appear highlighted and that overall traffic will be seen moving, so that I can look closer at anything that might be interesting. I will see only traffic emitting ADS-B or FLARM.

One interesting question I have yet to see any answer to is whether any PAW users fly in IMC. Clearly traffic emitting only Mode S does and I won't see those any more than I do now so will still be reliant on traffic service for much of the picture.
By russp
#1838451
Dave W wrote:
russp wrote:One of the most useful features of seeing flarm traffic IS seeing them 10 miles plus away

I can see that; it is a strategic rather than tactical use of the tool and is more defensive flight planning rather than direct collision avoidance. You spot the gaggle and re-plan, and likely do it once per flight. Would you prefer to do that on the ground, using a near real time internet data source and re-plan your route at that point - or be continually looking at a screen in the air? FLARM output from the gliders enables both; quite different pilot workloads may ensue from each.


No I want to see it in the air - in the time between me checking on the ground and my getting close to them they will likely have moved many 10's of miles. In terms of pilot workload in the cruise it's next to nothing added to do.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1838454
johnm wrote:I don't intend to have audio warnings, the only audio warnings we have at the moment are terrain and gear.

I am totally bewildered at that approach John, I see it as being potentially more dangerous than not having EC. I worry that the point/benefit of EC is being missed by many. TBH I have been surprised at the declaration by some who have been quite happily flying with EC, but opting not to have an audio warning.

Generally speaking my approach is switch it on and that's it unless it gives me a warning. Yes I hear the benefits of spotting a gaggle of gliders 10 miles off and that is easily accounted for. Likewise for other particular scenarios. However, not having audio capability is, IMO, a recipe for having head in looking at a display. To my thinking that is not using EC to its best effect; letting it warn you of potential dangers from equipped aircraft whilst permitting you to maximise the effectiveness of the MK1.
Dave W, exfirepro, gaznav liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1838458
russp wrote:In terms of pilot workload in the cruise it's next to nothing added to do.

The potential is for lots more time head in, acting as your own pseudo-controller.

There's an insidious attraction to that but it's a concept that makes me quite uncomfortable.

@johnm, I agree with @Miscellaneous: that's the wrong way to use the tool and your incorrect assumption about how the display works suggests you might want to read up on the SD methodology before flying with it connected to an EC device.
Miscellaneous liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1838462
Dear Lord.

Time was we got into our aeroplanes having read the NOTAM on the flying club wall and checked the 415 / 416. We launched off into the blue, spending a lot of time staring down at a half-mill and desperately trying to align it with dissimilar ground features, or tuning, twiddling, identifying VORs. I am not conscious of a huge number of empty seats at the bar in the evening, left vacant by those who had succumbed to MAC.

Now PAw and SD (pick your own brands) conspire to give us quite a lot of traffic information, so the remote likelihood of a coming together is hugely reduced, and still people are whinging. We have those who 'know' dozens of pilots are fiddling with their iPads instead of looking out the window, and worrying that people are being distracted by traffic warnings and are therefore oblivious to the thousands of nearby aircraft who have no/different EC fitted.

Yes it would be a lovely world if every bit of possibly conflicting traffic was piped to our headsets. It isn't. But it's a zillion times better than it used to be, and there are still not any empty seats at the bar (in my pub, certainly)

Rob P
JodelDavo, Highland Park, exfirepro and 4 others liked this
By Shoestring Flyer
#1838465
Too much 'Heads in' is why I personally don't advocate having traffic on a Nav App.
Traffic on a Nav App creates too much clutter and therefore requires too much of a 'Heads in' approach to assimilate what is shown on the tablet and going on around you instead of 'eyes out'.
A dedicated traffic display in the eyeline, glareshield, or just under is the way to go.
By johnm
#1838466
Miscellaneous wrote: a recipe for having head in looking at a display. To my thinking that is not using EC to its best effect; letting it warn you of potential dangers from equipped aircraft whilst permitting you to maximise the effectiveness of the MK1.


VFR pilots don't seem to understand the scan concept.

If I'm in nice VFR I'll be looking around outside and cross checking key navigation and engine instruments every few moments.

If I'm in IMC I won't be wasting my time looking out, I'll be scanning the instruments all the time.

I have no means of getting audible warnings from portable kit at the moment though Skydemon prattles in the background and prompts me to glance at the screen to see if I'm interested in what it has to say.
By proteus
#1838470
I'm a pilotaware user who occasionally flies in IMC. I've used PAW for a few years now I do like it and think it has improved over time. It is the integration with skydemon that I find excellent and I don't agree that it makes for a lot of clutter on screen.

I don't bother with the audio cable in from the paw box as I tried it and didn't like it. I do find that the audio warning / noise that comes from the tablet can be heard even with my headset, I find this to be good enough for my use.

As I'm in a pretty small cockpit, I have my small tablet on my knee running SD and connected to PAW. and I also have my phone mounted up top which I also run SD on, but just using its internal GPS and then I can also get the weather updates / telegram weather updates when I've got signal.