[Rob P]

It's clear we have two proprietary manufacturers and one new US entrant.. .

FLARM, PilotAware, Uavionics?

Looks like three to me

Rob P

[Pete L]

It's clear we have two proprietary manufacturers and one new US entrant.. .

FLARM, PilotAware, Uavionics?

Looks like three to me

Rob P

The point was the proprietary nature of the air protocol. Especially Flarm. That kind of variance has been largely beaten out of the computer and networking industry. Since we are no longer in the EU, only the CAA posesses a large enough hammer.

[ls8pilot]

It's clear we have two proprietary manufacturers and one new US entrant.. .

FLARM, PilotAware, Uavionics?

Looks like three to me

Rob P

Rather more than that - Flarm technology devices are offered by around a dozen or so manufactures including Flarm, LXNAV, LXNavigation, Air Avionics, Triadis, SkyNav, Aboba, Hensoldt Avionics, EDIAtec etc etc

There are of course many more ADSB receivers, but AFAIK only Uavionix offer a CAP1391 device - when we get a similar number of manufacturers offering CAP1391 (or Pi3) we'll be much better placed.

[Flyin'Dutch']

If it had been mandatory to carry ADS-B there would have never been a rebate of a device which is on the market for 500 quid.

[andytk58]

I am quite convinced that ADS-b as we have it in the UK is less about MAC and much more about UAVs.

So you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

What I am wondering is why subsidise what must be, at the moment, an interim solution.

Why not the American solution of proper certified ADS-b, with the carrot of in cockpit weather as the GA benefit.

At least certified ADB-b will have known performance parameters and an external ariel.
And ATC can use its output, not so with our varied mish mash of solutions.

Andy

[Hollman]

How many more times?: The drones. Unless we all emit something that they can see, and can therefore avoid us, they will never have the freedom to operate as business would like. Our man v man MAC is probably not the issue, so it may be pointless debating it.

I fly infrequently in a low and slow machine, and am happy to follow the CAA 'mandate' and accept the subsidy for an ADS-B device, as I would like manned ac and drones to avoid me, but see point 1.

I may be wrong of course.

edit - @Andy - there ya go. and johnm and Cub

[Full Metal Jackass]

Over here, if mandating EC in busier areas means I can get better access to airspace whilst improving my situational awareness, then the few hundred £££s as shared amongst in the group will be a small cost compared to the fuel savings and safety benefits that will be realised over the years.

Why should mandatory EC give us better access to airspace? Even now, with transponders and primary / secondary radar, certain airspaces are effectively prohibited for GA. Why? Partly because the controller doesn't trust the typical GA pilot not to become a total muppet and blast through an active final with CAT around. {1}

So how would suddenly forcing EC on GA pilots make their airmanship so much better? As far as the controller is aware, we are no longer "muppets whom he cannot trust to fly responsibly" but are now "muppets with EC whom he cannot trust to fly responsibly"


{1} other reasons are available.....

[Sooty25]

A week or so ago, I was sat in my office when I heard the local air ambulance fly over. It was decelerating. So I had a quick look on FlightRadar24 to see where he was landing.

After a minute or two I'd worked out where he was and then went for a quick scroll about to see who else was flying. I spotted someone clearly just having a "fly-about", clicked on it and thought "cor, I like them!" Checked where he departed from and looked on g-info to see if it was locally owned. It was. "Hmm, 912iS under the cowl, nice!."

So I left FR24 on one screen while I continued working on the others, just watching him goofing about at around 7-800ft going nowhere and sure enough he returned to his departure airfield, with its remote hangars and nobody living on site.

Whilst all I was, was a jealous voyeur, somebody else planning their next round of Rotax thefts would know precisely where that one was.

Whilst I'm fully aware of the potential air-to-air benefits, we really must resolve the privacy issues and ensure our data remains air-to-air, air-to-traffic control only. The day it is announced that EC is to become mandatory, will be the same day I petition OfCom to go after every single FR24 et al, receiver station under Section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

[rdfb]

In terms of risk to life, GA is around 1 in 10^7 per hour and an airline passenger is around 1 in 10^9. CAT gets the benefit of both TCAS and ground surveillance.

I think you're misusing this statistic. It's accepted that MACs are far more likely in the vicinity of a busy aerodrome. What's the risk to my life, operating as I do from an aerodrome with a busy ATZ? Much higher than 10^7 per hour then, during that phase of flight. Because your 10^7 figure (assuming it's accurate) is being lowered by all of those operating from private farm strips.

If that means that those operating from private farm strips want mandatory EC to be limited to busy ATZs, I'd be fine with that. It'd still take most of the MAC risk away for me.

[MattL]

@rdfb makes a key point I think:

Just looking at actual MAC events is a very dodgy way of assessing risk.

The risk varies massively by operating location and sortie profile.

The risk to individuals varies massively by their flying rate, location and flying role.

Event outcome severity is usually very high, and to multiple parties.

Barriers for consequences are very limited - ie survivability measures in aircraft design / operation for this event are virtually nil

[James Chan]

Why should mandatory EC give us better access to airspace? Even now, with transponders and primary / secondary radar, certain airspaces are effectively prohibited for GA.

Because one can squeeze more aircraft into the same volume of airspace. Lots of information on why use of EC improves capacity on the web, including here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic ... 3Broadcast

Why? Partly because the controller doesn't trust the typical GA pilot not to become a total muppet and blast through an active final with CAT around.

Well I occasionally use controlled airspace and hear more clearances issued than hearing muppet-like behavior. More trust is only going to be built through engagement and integration, and not by exclusion, segregation and suspicion.

So how would suddenly forcing EC on GA pilots make their airmanship so much better?

I don't think there is a strong link between mandating EC and airmanship. A casual link might be that it makes more people aware who else is around them so that their flying behavior may be altered (e.g. I won't do some loop-the-loops here because I can see all this around me).

[Miscellaneous]

Just looking at actual MAC events is a very dodgy way of assessing risk.

Surely another challenge with looking at MACs is that when compiling statistics incidents cited go back, often, over many years. Surely that is not representative of today's risk? How does one quantify the effectiveness of EC over the past few years, particularly with the latest uptake? I guess a starting point is looking at the number of GA fleet now having EC.

Logic dictates that if the risk was low before EC, it's lower now.

The biggest effect of mandating EC is likely to be reduced numbers in the air as more and more hang up their headsets.

[patowalker]

The risk to individuals varies massively by their flying rate, location and flying role.

So you propose that Peter should pay to reduce Paul's risk, because Paul's flying role requires him to fly often, in busy airspace?

[Skybolt1]

For what it's worth, I think the whole EC thing is counter-safety, it just means more people looking into the cockpit rather than out of it. Basic airmanship seems to have been forgotten. I think many people on this forum will over-estimate the exposure to the EC issue in the wider community. Most people just want to fly and don't read forums.

As for mandatory, then it's another piece of electronics to maintain, charge up or whatever, and if it breaks - no flying until it is fixed! No thanks. I think it's just a move by stealth to use open airspace for drones, and we will be paying out of our pockets to permit it to happen.

I expect there are many people who will cling onto the technology because it makes them feel safer, but it certainly is not infallible and is no substitute for looking out of the window.

I'm not overly keen on my trace being visible to all and sundry on these phone apps either. Imagine imposing that on car drivers!

[Rob P]

Warning of close aircraft delivered through your headset does not stop you looking out of the window. It just motivates you to look harder.

Rob P