Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11
#1693924
I don't think we have been briefed yet by the PilotAware team on how they're proposing to send multilaterated traffic over to SkyDemon.

The original usage of the NACp field over GDL90 was shown not to work.
#1693928
Tim Dawson wrote:I don't think we have been briefed yet by the PilotAware team on how they're proposing to send multilaterated traffic over to SkyDemon.

The original usage of the NACp field over GDL90 was shown not to work.


:( That sounds worrying, fingers crossed it gets worked out between you guys as they are working great together so far! :D
#1693935
AlanK wrote:Not useless, just not used by certified equipment (at the moment)

The whole SIL thing and who uses ADSB from non certified sources is another question - For now ADSB (in this context) is primarily to see and be seen in the air by fellow GA colleagues - Either PAW or Sky Echo users can see this SIL0 ADSB


So the only additinal benefit of ADS-B SIL=0 to anyone with PAW is that they will be seen by pilots with Sky Echo? I didn't know that SE picked up SIL=0. That means my TRT800 + Aera500 SIL=0 will be visible to more pilots. They just won't know whether I'm coming or going. :)
#1693938
patowalker wrote:So the only additional benefit of ADS-B SIL=0 to anyone with PAW is that they will be seen by pilots with Sky Echo? I didn't know that SE picked up SIL=0. That means my TRT800 + Aera500 SIL=0 will be visible to more pilots. They just won't know whether I'm coming or going. :)


I think that's right, I assumed Sky Echo and "PAW with a Transponder" (or Transponder with any other non certified GPS source) was the same SIL output (now checked and it seems to be SIL=1) but they all see any SIL level so we would see each other.

My understanding is SIL comes into things if it was to be used by ground stations and commercial aircraft at which point it needs to be certified otherwise it is not displayed...at which point PAW with a transponder may have more of a challenge in being accepted ( I think!)

Someone else will hopefully confirm or correct (not withstanding whether the ADSB out on your particular TRT800 works as it should or is useless as mentioned earlier - need to test and let us all know :D )
#1693939
All wonderful stuff, until like yesterday transiting the Southampton zone I hear another aircraft asking for a zone transit and being asked to squawk comes back with no transponder fitted,
I have made my self as electronically visible as I can with paws and Trig 21 with ADS-B out with SIL1 at no small expense to my self but there are still people Flying out there without any form of EC
#1693940
ivor.phillips wrote:All wonderful stuff, until like yesterday transiting the Southampton zone I hear another aircraft asking for a zone transit and being asked to squawk comes back with no transponder fitted,
I have made my self as electronically visible as I can with paws and Trig 21 with ADS-B out with SIL1 at no small expense to my self but there are still people Flying out there without any form of EC


But they have Mk1 Eyeball! ;)
#1693965
ivor.phillips wrote:All wonderful stuff, until like yesterday transiting the Southampton zone I hear another aircraft asking for a zone transit and being asked to squawk comes back with no transponder fitted,
I have made my self as electronically visible as I can with paws and Trig 21 with ADS-B out with SIL1 at no small expense to my self but there are still people Flying out there without any form of EC


Yes but don't jump to conclusions...

I have an SE2 and a Rosetta in my Moth, but no transponder. I'm as electronically visible as I can be, given that I have no electrickery aboard - bleeping and burbling in [almost] every way known to man. But if I'm asked to squawk it's still no can do.
TouringTuggy liked this
#1693982
AlanK wrote:Someone else will hopefully confirm or correct (not withstanding whether the ADSB out on your particular TRT800 works as it should or is useless as mentioned earlier - need to test and let us all know :D )


It has passed the LAA test, but that is done with the aircraft stationary, pointing North. :)

I paid £340 for Mod 11, a new receiver board and software V. 5.2 in May 2012, but according to this, ADS-B is supported as from V 5.3, released in November of that year.
#1694004
PaulB wrote:
AlanK wrote:But they have Mk1 Eyeball! ;)


... and how effective is that?


When DERA did a bunch of trials for the military flying in the mid 90s at low level then if you look 70% outside and 30% inside then the Mk 1 eyeball was deemed effective 98.5% of the time for someone using the taught military look out technique. :thumright:
TouringTuggy liked this
#1694015
gaznav wrote:
PaulB wrote:
AlanK wrote:But they have Mk1 Eyeball! ;)


... and how effective is that?


When DERA did a bunch of trials for the military flying in the mid 90s at low level then if you look 70% outside and 30% inside then the Mk 1 eyeball was deemed effective 98.5% of the time for someone using the taught military look out technique. :thumright:


How can it be 98.5% effective when you can only see 50% (estimate) of the 'sky' from inside the plane?
SL
skydriller liked this
#1694054
I am a bit of a heretic when it comes to EC.
I am not a luddite, I am a professional sotware developer and technically savvy, but I do believe that its popularity here, and with regulators, has more to do with “this something that we can do now” rather than real risk mitigation.

Sure the mk1 eyeball is not completely reliable, nothing is.

Maybe, as someone said it misses 70% of targets, but that is not really the criteria to judge it by.

Sure the idea of mid-air collision is horrific, but what is that risk?

Mid-airs are unusual. If this was really about risk mitigation rather than shiny tech, wouldn’t mandating flying with a parachute or fitting BRS as mandatory be equally valid responses to the risk?

I do not assume that my lookout is perfect, but it and the big sky has worked so far and mostly does.

Mid-air collisions are fortunately rare, I think that most mid-air collisions happen close to airports, in the circuit, not a time when you should be head down watching for electronic traffic, or even concentrating on the audio.

I have held off buying a device for practical reasons as well as philosophical, my cockpit is a pretty hostile environment for loose articles and GPS related things GPS gets confused by aerobatics.

Thankfully the sample size for these incidents is so tiny that statistics don’t work very well, so I am not sure what the answer is, but throwing away the freedom to fly non-radio, non-transponder seems like a loss to me, even though my aeroplan has a radio and a transponder. Is EC worth that loss? I think that there is no data to say that it is, only anecdote.
Sooty25 liked this
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11