The place for technical discussions about GA and flying.
Forum rules: Technical discussions about GA only, please.
By cockney steve
#1606997
At the recent GASCO evening at Manchester Barton aerodrome, questions were asked about what EC was carried. I'd say about 30% of the attendees claimed to have PAW....but, there again, I suppose GASCO are largely speaking to the converted, anyway.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1607016
leemoore1966 wrote:Hi Dutch

I think that sums up why the question regarding the number is irrelevant
If the number was anywhere between zero and infinity, it would have no impact on your EC choice

Thx
Lee


That logic defies me.

But if it works for you then that is fine. You clearly don't want to share either number or percentage, and I can live with that.
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1607022
How can the logic defy you? I'd come to the conclusion that you were an intelligent person, so I'm surprised such simplicity doesn't compute.

You asked for a number. If you got that number, there's nothing in your list that bears any relevance to it and, therefore, you still would not have chosen PAW.

No matter what the number was you would still be saying how PAW doesn't fulfil your needs, it wouldn't be gracing your panel and, so, it doesn't matter what the number is.
karlbown liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1607023
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:4. The 'spread' across the GA spectrum appears to be fairly limited and mainly across the UK; add to that the notion from various threads that a fair few folks had bought the kit for it be relinquished to the drawer after a few flights with it.
5. A fair bit of my flying is outside the UK and in environments were FLARM is widespread in use; never yet seen a PAW in 'the wild'


How about items 4 & 5?

If the number is tiny in the fleet there is no point in getting PAW, if the number is massive then it makes sense to get PAW, as it would de facto be a standard.

Hence my suggestion from that post:

but think that half of the GA spectrum would be a good starting point.
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1607041
How about items 4 & 5?


Well, in 4 you've already decided the number "appears to be fairly limited and across the UK". How will knowing how many units have been sold change your perception? If you thought it was too few before having a magic number in your hand then that's not going to change if you do get that figure. You've obviously done a lot of research if you can talk of the " 'spread' across the GA spectrum" and judge the effectiveness, or otherwise, of PAW. Or did you just stick your finger in the air and conjure up such a sweeping statement with no data whatsoever?

No 5 comes as no surprise because PAW has never pretended to be THE international standard and its licence restrictions for the P3I frequency are well documented. Having said that, in your travels abroad did you see many ADSB contacts or Mode C/S? It is quite UK-centric so you're going to see more in the UK than abroad. Flarm is everywhere because many gliders worldwide are equipped with it, so it's small wonder that you see Flarm contacts. BUT, even if we accept that you don't see many while flitting around France or elsewhere, how will knowing how many units have been sold alter your opinion of its effectiveness abroad? You can treat that as rhetorical because we know the answer.

Anyway, as ever this has derailed the thread. The original poster has a PAW unit and wants to make best use of it. We know you don't consider PAW worthwhile but the OP clearly does (even without knowing how many have been sold), so let's return to the original thrust of the matter instead of using it as a soapbox to pronounce (alleged) learned views.
leemoore1966 liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1607051
PaulSS wrote:We know you don't consider PAW worthwhile but the OP clearly does (even without knowing how many have been sold), so let's return to the original thrust of the matter instead of using it as a soapbox to pronounce (alleged) learned views.


Soapbox - speak for yourself.

Another poster asked the question about numbers, I merely said that I had asked the same and no answer had been forthcoming.

Lee after his explanation as to why the answer was not going to be forthcoming, asked me a question to which I gave a reply, which included the - in my view biggest issue - lack of not using an international standard. I presume that is an allowable view?
By cockney steve
#1607066
A purely hypothetical view, as most here know, I am not a licensed pilot .

The "average -bimbler " is an infrequent flyer (Benchmark = Commercial pilot or , say, 3 flights flights a month ) Their reactions and skill-level will be at less than optimum. As a bimbler of low hours and frequency, they are unlikely to be venturing to foreign climes, will probably avoid both controlled airspace and long UK journeys into unfamiliar territory.

I'd suggest , therefore, that PAW would give them the security-blanket and workload reduction that will aid their safety, at a very modest, affordable cost.
Of course, the device has it's limitations, not least of which is the fact it costs 1/3 the price of it's nearest competitor.
A cunning work-round to the FLARM protected- market strategy appears to be working. Given the fact that FLARM was specifically tailored to a niche market (gliding) and it's unique needs of frequent close-proximity engagement in lift, and the length of time it's been on the market, It's hardly surprising that it has such large numbers out there.

PAW is a product aimed at a different sector, with a different ethos and a different business model. It seems to me, an outsider, that here's a group of people who said to themselves,-
" Lots of low- budget flyers have a need for conspicuity at low cost, It doesn't need the huge expense of Certification. We can build something round the amazing" Raspberry Pi ", cheap as chips and with lots of bonus features that will make a flashing strobe look like a poor joke.
As I said, I watched hands go up. There were a contingent of Glider pilots there, some had both FLARM and PAW.
It's not rocket- science to look at how long both devices have been available and then observe the rapid uptake of PAW, It's development has been amazingly fast and it's moved from a "hobby-shed lashup" to a portable , practical safety- aid that's totally suited to the market it serves.
It is being adopted abroad and no doubtwill find widespread acceptance there, Just think, English was a foreign language to the rest of the world, for centuries...yet now , after a couple of hundred years, it's accepted as the international universal standard.
I wonder how many "knockers" also said the same about Sky Demon when it originally appeared. market acceptance takes time.
Really, people, you are very lucky that such competent, clever and dedicated people are willing to use their skills to fill the needs of such a tiny market.
DISCLAIMER! I have never knowingly met anyone involved directly with the production or development of any of this equipment. I try to speak as an objective independent observer. :thumright:
User avatar
By leemoore1966
#1607078
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:.. in my view biggest issue - lack of not using an international standard. I presume that is an allowable view?


Hi Dutch,
There are many conflicting views on this entire subject, so I think we are all in good company :-)

I noticed a recent announcement by uAvionix for the Drone Aware technology, which interestingly will broadcast on a 'subscription free' frequency. From their recent white paper this describes usage of the ISM band (as per FLARM & PAW), so seems they are not averse to using a non-'international standard',
Do you have a view on this ?

You mentioned you have ADS-B out via a transponder, what are you using for EC-in display of traffic ?

Thx
Lee
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1607081
leemoore1966 wrote:You mentioned you have ADS-B out via a transponder, what are you using for EC-in display of traffic ?

Thx
Lee


Nowt as I currently have no medical due to a majorish health issue - but light at the end of the tunnel!

Once back in the air, hopefully later this year, I think I may opt for the latest SkyEcho offering - have already got FLARM as both jalopies can be used as gliding tugs. Gliders are the most difficult to spot due to their visual signature and operating characteristics - and I say that as an avid glider pilot.

Re drones using same frequency as the PAW/FLARM I just want everyone (or at least as many people as possible) to use the same comms channels for EC comms; it would have been great if FLARM/PAW would have used/been able to use ADS-B, but if it is technically possible and affordable to have kit which uses whatever frequencies are used out there and integrate that in a neat display then that is fine by me. And the more providers/offerings of kit there are out there the better as that will no doubt encourage competition and the price down.
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1607096
Nowt as I currently have no medical due to a majorish health issue


No matter that we might not share the same views over EC but I hope that light at the end of the tunnel comes soon and that you can give yourself a full recovery chit :thumright:

I'm very interested in your thoughts on the SkyEcho 2 over PAW and I'm going to conveniently ignore the Mode S trial and assume that everything works out and they solve the squabble over Mode S and ADSB at the same time.

I'm also going to ignore the fact that SkyEcho costs quite a lot more than PAW.....maybe I shouldn't as the more the merrier and fewer $$s encourages many.

You've got ADSB Out already, so you're sort of buying duplication (it's not really duplicate because you can obviously only use one at a time). Presumably you would disconnect your transponder ADSB Out to take advantage of the SkyEcho's SIL 1, as opposed to the (presumed) SIL 0 you're using at the moment. So that's a plus if you do so, otherwise it's an equal.

SkyEcho2 will have UAT weather as well. Plus (unless you're only a sunny day flyer when it's probably just as easy to look out of the window).

You've got Flarm. That's good; why not plug it into PAW and get that on screen with the other PAW outputs? You're assuming Flarm will work with SE but so far they've only said they are working on those developments. Much like they weren't able to give any detail on how PAW will be integrated, nor if Mode C/S actually works (or how it will communicate with Sky Demon).

SE has ADSB In....so does PAW

PAW has P3I.......SE does not, nor does it have an equivalent. Maybe they'll be able to receive it....maybe.

PAW has the OGN. SE does not. Presumably they'll claim that if they can receive P3I then they can get the OGN. See above re that reception claim.

By using serial converters it's easy to output PAW to an EFIS and, of course, transmit GPS to, for instance, a transponder for ADSB Out. Sky Echo mentions USB C but says nothing else.

It seems to me that, in your case (already with ADSB Out), you're gaining UAT weather but gambling on SkyEcho's claim to be able to integrate PAW (maybe OGN), Flarm and Mode C/S. These are already available with PAW but SE are only talking about having them.
User avatar
By T67M
#1607185
None of the EC solutions will ever be a panacea, not even ADS-B, so to an extent it doesn't matter how many other aircraft have an specific form of EC. ANY of the receivers will give you SOME benefit.

My PilotAware has certainly been the FIRST form of alert I've received in at least six events which had the correct geometry to result in a potential MAC and required some deviation to ensure safety. In one case it was against PAw, in one case against ADS-B, and in four cases it was Mode C/S. In the same period I've also spotted four aircraft "too close for comfort" which has no form of EC (or which failed to cause an alert via PilotAware), giving PilotAware a "not-hit" rate of 60% - which feels pretty good for just £200!

I have only done a very small amount of flying with SkyEcho-1, so it's not really fair to make a true comparison, but based on the flights I have done I'm sure it would work as well against SE and other ADS-B conflicts. Of course, SE1 doesn't detect Mode C/S targets, although this is claimed to have been added in SkyEcho-2, which should give the SE2 about the same performance as PilotAware.