Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
#1809987
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:So how do drones that emit ADS-B avoid PAW emitting aeronautical participants?


You clearly haven't watched Keith's presentation, Frank. I do implore people to watch and draw their own conclusions on the Gospel according to PAW.

The irony of the many minutes spent describing obscuration was certainly not wasted on me.
gaznav, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1809991
Image

Why would one not want to use a 'CAP 1391' device that was self-contained, did not rely on uncertain ground stations, emitted a recognised signal and was visible to other compliant devices and could or will be seen by ATC?

... and gave you direct and appropriate warnings of traffic that was of immediate interest to you rather than a 'potential' deluge of area wide information.
Flyin'Dutch', gaznav, Nick and 1 others liked this
#1809996
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:So how do drones that emit ADS-B avoid PAW emitting aeronautical participants?

on a different note, the incessant attacks from PAW aficionados on Gaznav and making incorrect and false statements is loathsome and frankly should be honoured by having their posts donked or their accounts blocked. Ditto suggesting that Ian would go out of his way to make a particular product 'look bad'

Get over yourselves.

There is enough internet about for those who want to exercise their freedom without having to come on here to insult participants in debate and discourse.


Who was it that suggested that Keiths video contained snake oil and false science without providing any proof? Seems to me that certain aficionados of other devices are making incorrect and false statements about PAW which is indeed loathsome. Works both ways.
#1810001
flyinfox wrote:
Who was it that suggested that Keiths video contained snake oil and false science without providing any proof? Seems to me that certain aficionados of other devices are making incorrect and false statements about PAW which is indeed loathsome. Works both ways.


I don't know?

I see someone suggested that they prefer presentations without snake oil and that is only to be applauded is it?

I have now watched the presentation and would not want to suggest that anyone is trying to market snake oil but a couple of points I did pick up which were incorrect:

* the glider would have been seen if it would have emitted ADS-B; glider pilots clearly understand that as many are getting the SE2, in addition many already have Mode-S both clearly make the gliders visible to CAT. PAW does not make gliders visible to CAT.

*Suggesting that Flyer chose to do their trial in an area where fewer ground stations were

* The section on obscuration is suggesting that other devices are more prone to this than PAW, that is of course non-sense

*The mention that PAW is being legal and therefore not requiring to get permission suggests that others are not somehow legal, is disingenuine.

But leave that all for what it is, nobody has answered me yet how drones using ADS-B currently mandated for Drones who fly beyond the visual line of sight are going to avoid non-ADS-B equipped stuff.
Nick liked this
#1810002
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:the incessant attacks from PAW aficionados on Gaznav and making incorrect and false statements is loathsome


I agree. As with politics, it often goes both ways, but as Im sure many have noticed and Im sure @gaznav would agree, he does post on EC topics with pretty much the same "SE is better than PAW because ADSB is the panacea" stance ever so slightly more than any other topic... :wink:

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, I dont own either PAW or SE, Im relatively lucky in that where I fly we have a great FIS and the aeroplanes I fly have Mode S, the only EC mandated anywhere in Europe... :wink:

Regards, SD..
#1810004
the only EC mandated anywhere in Europe


For the next 17 days and then on 7 December 2020:

Fixed wing aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, for which the individual certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 7 June 1995, are equipped with serviceable secondary surveillance radar transponders having the capabilities set out in Parts A, B and C of Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011, requiring these aircraft to be compliant with Mode S Elementary, ADS-B Out and Mode S Enhanced Surveillance.

and...

Aircraft other than fixed wing with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg or having a maximum cruising true airspeed capability greater than 250 knots, for which the individual certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 7 June 1995, are equipped with serviceable secondary surveillance radar transponders having the capabilities set out in Parts A and B of Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011, requiring these aircraft to be compliant with Mode S Elementary and ADS-B Out Surveillance.
#1810008
and for anyone thinking 'so what' I am not flying any of that sort of stuff.

The slower you are, the more it is of essence that you can be seen by making yourself visible, as you will have to rely on the faster mover to avoid you.

Just think of the situation where a paraglider is able to see the fast jet but the fast jet cannot see the paraglider.

The paraglider is in no position to avoid the fast jet hurtling towards them, they have to hope that the fast jet can see them and will then be able to take avoiding action.
gaznav, Hollman, ls8pilot liked this
#1810016
I haven't seen any of @gaznav Gaznav or @Cub 's posts on this thread, but this stood out:
Flingin' Dutch wrote:I have now watched the presentation and would not want to suggest that anyone is trying to market snake oil
But, you did right? otherwise why mention it? Is that a lame ar53d apology? Try harder.
Also:
- not sure why Keith has been dragged into the thread title
- the tired old 'fixed view' dinosaurs know their positions (yes I know some think I'm one).

A presentation on EC is, fundamentally, a good thing to raise awareness. If you don't agree with some nuances, OK, so do your own EC presentation. Be balanced, explain other views.
In the end we make our own choices based on what information we have, more information is good.
Oops, spelled Flying Dutch wrong
#1810028
I am full of admiration for the work that PAW have done, but pretty convinced they aren't going to become a de facto standard like FLARM or a de jure standard like ADS-B we emit ADS-B and so we're visible to others, still considering what do about a receiver.....
GrahamB, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1810029
johnm wrote:I am full of admiration for the work that PAW have done, but pretty convinced they aren't going to become a de facto standard like FLARM or a de jure standard like ADS-B we emit ADS-B and so we're visible to others, still considering what do about a receiver.....

I agree with your first point.

On the second, I bought PAW in the early days on the basis that it was good, and continues to get better, at detecting more than anything else, and I was already emitting ADS-B via Mode S ES. If it does me a couple more years while everyone else catches up, I'll have had my money's worth.

On a different point, I find the constant sniping and points scoring (from players on both sides of the argument) whenever this subject raises its head tiresome, pathetic and childish. It wears you down, and does nothing to help those who are simply seeking facts upon which to make a decision.

Grow up, FFS, you know who you are.
johnm, Flyin'Dutch', ls8pilot and 6 others liked this
#1810040
johnm wrote:I am full of admiration for the work that PAW have done, but pretty convinced they aren't going to become a de facto standard like FLARM or a de jure standard like ADS-B we emit ADS-B and so we're visible to others, still considering what do about a receiver.....


Yes I agree and I even tried to place an order for PAW on October 5th without success and have been messed about by them ever since with different 'stories' over trying to place an order.
So I have at last come off the fence on this whole EC thing and after lot of thinking I have ordered the system that came out best in the Flyer article in an RV8 ...PowerFlarmADSB.
Yes really splashed the cash and now have PowerFlarm Fusion on its way to me hopefully in the next week.
It certainly should keep me busy over Christmas installing it!
Flyin'Dutch', ls8pilot, Nick liked this
#1810041
gaznav wrote:are equipped with serviceable secondary surveillance radar transponders having the capabilities set out in Parts A, B and C of Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011, requiring these aircraft to be compliant with Mode S Elementary, ADS-B Out and Mode S Enhanced Surveillance.


We've been here before but let me just highlight the whole thing. Sounds like Mode S Transponders to me. And this stuff is going to be 6 tonnes or doing 250+kts.... Pretty sure that kind of kit wont be using either SE or PAW, and ADSB for traffic avoidance - more likely TCAS, which picks up what again??? Oh yeah...Transponders...

EC/ADSB/SD combos etc for GA is great. But lets not pretend that MAC is high risk for GA in Europe, especially if receiving a proper FIS. Getting back to the UK, Id also suggest preventing GA MAC isnt the reason that the CAA is promoting EC.

Regards, SD..
flybymike liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13