Hi Crab,
Yes, you are absolutely correct that there must be added value before small air vehicles will be prepared to provide 'electronic visibility'. FLARM, PilotAware and other systems are good examples of what can be achieved when there are tangible benefits. In both these systems, augmentation of the required 'see and avoid' is the driver - particularly for gliders which operate in close proximity in conditions of DVE (using thermals which may generate cloud). The pilot is made aware (visually or audibly) of other aircraft and, in the case of FLARM, is provided with 'collision detection and avoidance'. FLARM has also moved into the 'terrain and obstacle' avoidance area - for example in Switzerland where they have access to a reasonable eTOD.
In the recent Electronic Visibility by ADS-B (EVA) trial in the UK, NATS and the CAA cooperated to permit GA aircraft to equip with low cost ADS-B ('in' and 'out') to assess the efficacy of 'non-approved' GPS positioning. (The rationale for this initiative was augmentation of 'see and avoid' not navigation aids.) The protocol for showing compliance was contained in the newly-provided-for-the-purpose' CAP 1391. A number of companies have subsequently taken advantage of this by putting on the market, compliant products. These are not expensive and, because they take advantage of the wider markets for drones, will eventually become mass-market products.
The results of the EVA trial can be found in the report but, somewhat surprisingly, the accuracy of the protocol-compliant GPS was roughly the same as the Approved.
This has nothing to do with TCAS which will continue to be used for ensuring collision avoidance in the near-immediate phase of flight.
It is important to see these initiatives in the context of 'autonomous flight' - i.e. not just autonomy from ATC (as with AFR and manned flights) but full mission autonomy.
Jim
Last edited by JimL; 13th Jul 2017 at 08:26.
Reason: Spelling