Electronic Conspicuity in the UK

[Lima Juliet]

PS. And the CAA have already said it is their system of choice: https://www.caa.co.uk/News/ADS-B-can...ons,-says-CAA/

[BEagle]

Indeed, LimaJuliet! Which is why SkyEcho2 looks like becoming the system of choice.

However, traffic warning over the intercom of genuine collision threats as I heard from the Trig system are a must. It was like having an 'e-wingman' with you, except that the warnings were announced in a clear, female Scots voice which certainly gets one's attention!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that a lot of light aeroplanes are flying the PilotAware "amateur lash up built in somebody's shed" and mode-S or ADS-B. Speaking only for my syndicate's aeroplane - TCAS equipped aeroplanes will see our Mode-S, but we'll see just about anything with the PilotAware. Not mind you disputing that PAW is a lashup: getting it faintly neat and tidy in our cockpit was quite a challenge (although we managed, and obviously don't have much by way of classified wiggly amps!), it's an uncertified (and uncertifiable for now) system, and that's a problem. On the other hand it's available, affordable for people spending their own money, and does appear to work.

Anything, thanks those who have contributed what military aircraft are outputting - from responses above I make that...

Conspicuity
BBMF - FLARM, (Mode-S?)
Typhoon - ADS-B


Seeing
BBMF - FLARM
Air Cadets - FLARM
Tucano - TCAS 1
RAF Heavies - TCAS I or II
Tornado - ACAS(?)
Typhoon / Lightning - Primary radar

Is that correct? There are gaps there clearly - presumably the heavies all have ADS-B?

What are the rotaries carrying?

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Lima Juliet

PS. And the CAA have already said it is their system of choice: https://www.caa.co.uk/News/ADS-B-can...ons,-says-CAA/

Not sure where I stand on this.

The FASVIG trial was allegedly completed late 2017, but there seems no report on it. I was at the last RAeS GAG conference where FASVIG proudly announced a trial of six(?) installations, and virtually came to blows with the PAW team who apparently hadn't been in the loop and were claiming a couple of thousand installations.

So on the one hand we have a bunch of amateurs with a lashed up system, but it works, seems to be in a couple of thousand aeroplanes. And on the other hand we have a CAA sponsored "professional" trial that seems to have tested stuff in single figure installations, then not actually reported their trial, nor engaged with the amateurs who have been leaving them behind.

Whatever else that is, it's a mess.

What I am clear in my mind is that we should be concentrating on getting traffic warnings into cockpits - conspicuity to ATC, whilst necessary for other reasons, isn't a solution to collision risk.

G

[oldmansquipper]

The answer is simple (allegedly) . Extend lower altitude 'controlled airspace' to cover 99% of the U.K.
That way, GA will be able to have their collisions in the remaining 1%, and, of course, the reducing emergency services will be able to predict where they will be needed. A 'Win win' for certain recent 'airspace consultations'.

(For the record I am familiar with FLARM, and we are about to fit one to our Glider. However, as a pilot who had 'LOOKOUT' beaten into me from day one, I am a bit concerned that, if mandated, it will become the main collision avoidance system for some. I have a nightmare vision of some pilots heads down, staring at an electronic nav system - never looking out and boreing on regardless until the FLARM Screams! )

just IMHO.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Lima Juliet

But Genghis those diagrams are very misleading. Because what you can see is very dependent on head position. If I put my face next to the left hand window in a PA28 I can see a lot more than the diagram shows. If I put my head forward I can see a lot more up.

Presumably you're familiar with the concept of "Design Eye Position", or DEP which is essentially what's being exploited there - and is standard in evaluating such things.

I could slacken off my harness, move my head, massively improve view in one direction - at which point I've removed instruments and other directions from my scan. Of course, yes there may be other ways to evaluate view out of a cockpit, but I'm not aware of them. Can you provide any links to alternative methodologies?

Hammer and Molnye are the only two I've ever used, and Hammer I find a little more honest.

G

[Lima Juliet]

Yes but the DEP might be a standardisedposition, but it still gives a false impression in my own opinion. Human’s adapt their look out to compensate for the challenges like canopy arches and window frames. However, those sorts of diagrams make no allowance for that. Therefore, in my view (no pun intended), they are misleading.

When used with Sky Demon or other software then these devices then the pilot can be warned aurally by beeps, hoots and squeaks. Some even call out the traffic direction or height relative to you. You get what youpay for.

As for Pilot Aware’s claims of thousands of users, that is probably how many they have sold. However, I know of many that bought them and used them a couple of times and then stopped - too many wires, loose dongles, intrusive antennae and the requirement for power from a seperate source. I was even offered one second hand for 50 quid, which I declined as you need to keep buying a licence to use it.

I have updated your list for you:

Conspicuity/Detection
Mode S - all military aircraft, some with ADS-B Out in the ES element

FLARM - BBMF, all Tutors, all Vikings, Vigilants (until scrapped earlier this month), Tucano and I know they did a trial with Hawk but not sure where that went. The new Prefect is due to get FLARM, but I am unsure on Texan, Phenom, Jupiter and Juno. Pretty much all, except Viking, are PowerFLARM so they also detect ADS Out.

Primary and Secondary RADAR - Typhoon and Lightning. Tornado GR4 can use its ground mapping RADAR in a limited air to air mode and does so for finding the AAR tanker, but it is optimised for ground mapping and other modes. E3D and Sea King AEW has primary and secondary RADAR.

JTIDS/MIDS - this datalink will receive the RADAR picture from ships, ground RADARs, AEW/AWACS aircraft. This can also show the presence of aircraft that are either a pure RADAR detection or a secondary Mode A/C/S return and display it in the JTIDS equipped aircraft. Many have JTIDS/MIDS capability including Typhoon, Lightning, Tornado GR4, E-3D Sentry, Sentinel R1, Hercules C130, Voyager, A400 and Sea King Mk 7 - there are probably more that I have missed.

ACAS/CWS - this has been a long time coming in Tornado and the work from this will likely go on to the procurement of other systems. It is basically a Collision Warning System (CWS) that detects in a similar way to TCAS but has been militiarised for fast jets. Some info here https://assets.publishing.service.go...e_Redacted.pdf

TCAS I or II - all heavies, some helicopters and some of the training fleet like Phenom, Tucano and Hawk. Again, I know of quite a few but have not flown all of these. Obviously, TCAS will detect ADS-B Out if it is SIL=1 or above, but those using the Pilot Aware’s GPS for their Mode S ES transponders will pnly be outputting SIL=0.


There is RAF representation at the CAA/MOD Electronic Conspicuity Working Group. My understanding is that ADS-B is the favourite over and above the proprietary systems like FLARM, which has a strong global following, or things like the UK-only Pilot Aware.

I 100% agree with BEagle. That ADS-B is the ONLY way to go. So many aircraft would see ADS-B if it was SIL=1 or above (ie. from a certified GPS source) and that would include the military. This Pilot Aware phenomena has seduced the Light Aircraft market because it is cheap (although once you buy a battery, a tablet, some software and some velcro, it isn’t that cheap). But the only thing that Pilot Aware emits is around 870mhz that is the ‘free to use’ band that is used for shops RFID tagging, burglar alarms and motor vehicle tracking - that is its real limitation. Also, the chances of it being embodied in any military aircraft is ZERO as it is completely uncertified, without any assurance of its quality whatsoever.

[Lima Juliet]

Oh, and if you don’t believe me on people buying and not using Pilot Awares, one has just come up for sale on the internet

https://afors.com/aircraftView/43491

Bought a year or so back, never really used much as had no where to put it in flight. Only used a handful of times. Licence has expired now (£12 to renew) so instead being sat on a shelf some else can use.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks for all that gen.

And yes - having fitted it into our shareoplane, it is possible to fit it neatly, but is most certainly not designed for elegance.

G

[Lima Juliet]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

Thanks for all that gen.

And yes - having fitted it into our shareoplane, it is possible to fit it neatly, but is most certainly not designed for elegance.

G

And you’re an engineer, pal!

I suspect that will also be another Achilles Heel for this equipment. Some Light Aircraft pilots just fly the aircraf. Filling up with fuel, checking the oil level and cleaning the bugs off are as engineering focussed they get.

[BluSdUp]

Genghis
I am the Manager of the Kids of The Magenta Line.
Map scale at 180Nm and the righthand windows full of checklists and highwizz west so no sun glares at the multiple phones and pads in use.
The tendency to rely on electronics is scary, and the knowledge of limitations and practical use is not good.
And the old WX radar they know nothing about, specially how to verify it with the fact ! ie OUTSIDE, big picture.

BTW, I love the Hammer diagram, neat!
Regards Cpt B

[leemoore1966]

Originally Posted by BEagle

PliotAware will eventually become the conspicuity Betamax. It uses unlicensed frequencies so will never be certifiable.
...
When I reviewed a number of conspicuity devices a year or so ago, the only one which was of any use was the Trig device which didn't need a display - and gave only genuine collision warnings. I was quite shocked at the 'panel gazing' of many of the GA pilots involved - VFR implies L00KOUT, not staring at some iToy!

That is a compliment - most people know that Betamax was a better technology, but VHS had a better marketing strategy by securing deals with the film distributors, and we have no wish to be certifiable, although it seems some remarks on forums can sometimes appear certifiable !

I agree with your comments regarding not staring at an iToy, hence I was pleased to read the following article on CHIRP, whereby a PilotAware user was able to avoid a sticky situation using his 'amateurish unlicensed dogs dinner of a toy, Lashed up in a shed' (search PilotAware Rosetta to see what this really looks like)
If you want to read a genuine article by real users, go to page 4 Situational Awareness, no staring at iToys involved in this article
http://www.chirp.co.uk/upload/docs/G...20Version).pdf

Normal service is now resumed - please return to bashing PilotAware ....

[BEagle]

PilotAware, otherwise known as 'Explosion in Maplins'...…

If not the Betmax, then perhaps the 8-track or Elcaset?

[leemoore1966]

Originally Posted by BEagle

PilotAware, otherwise known as 'Explosion in Maplins'...…
If not the Betmax, then perhaps the 8-track or Elcaset?

Relieved to see you found the article interesting and informative enough to provide a thorough, detailed, educated and articulate response

[Lima Juliet]

I read the article Leemoore1966 and I immediately thought that all the Go Pros, Pilotaware, tablet, wires, cables, batteries, antennae and plugging into the aircraft audio may have led to the pilot being distracted in the first place. When I have a look at some of the General Aviation posts on FaceBook I am aghast at the amount of fiddling with gadgetry in flight that would get you 6 points and a £200 fine in a car!

However, going back to Genghis’s original post, as we fly our aircraft globally then we need to have detection capabilities of international standards and not a proprietary standard like Pilotaware. FLARM is bad enough, but as it is mandated in several countries and strongly encouraged in others for gliders, that are notoriously hard to see, then it is worth it. In my humble opinion introducing another proprietary system at a low cost is counter to creating a safe environment as it just dilutes the chances of getting a detection of it by another system. 1090 Mhz mode 1, 2, 3 and 4 with C and ADS-B is already out there in use by the military and civilian operators, so why introduce something else?

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by handleturning

This is the problem. The glider community tend to swear by FLARM and generally shout about it long and hard if you ever get into a discussion on such matters. An incomplete picture is more dangerous than none at all, particularly if used by low hours pilots without the experience to back it up. Understand Benson and Linton have FLARM displays in the Twr (but cannot use them for controlling), which raises some very interesting HF questions.

Flarm is so good for gliders as it won't keep giving alarms when (for example) thermaling in a gaggle when other systems would be constantly giving alarms. It's also low enough power to use in a glider, many of which only have 2 x 7ah bricks for power. It also used to be very cheap, and as carry on equipment could be used in anything.

Can also understand Benson 'having a Flarm display' given it was from Benson an air experience flight departed that ended in tragedy for the two occupants, though IMHO it was completely avoidable without any sort of electronic conspicuity device.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by 2 TWU

Re the Tucano, don't know what FLARM is but I was flying the machine when TCAS was fitted. TCAS was, and presumably still is, a great back up but not a replacement for proper lookout.

https://flarm.com/

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Cats 5 - appreciate the benefit that FLARM brings to the glider community in terms of not false alarming when thermalling. However, the continuing refusal of the glider community to fit transponders does give the rest of us a real problem.

Frankly, modern gliders significantly out perform legacy bits of kit. Having the performance to add a little bit of weight (Trig make transponders marketed as light enough for paragliders for crying out loud!) means, imho, the glider community should step up to the plate and add the same conspicuity measures the rest of the world are using, so we can see them and avoid them, and ATC can reliably monitor them using SSR. Doing so on a voluntary basis will prevent the need for the CAA to mandate their carriage.

Imho though the old argument of weight/power no longer holds water due to a combination of performance of gliders and size/weight of modern transponders (and heaven forbid, two way radios....)

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by pba_target

Cats 5 - appreciate the benefit that FLARM brings to the glider community in terms of not false alarming when thermalling. However, the continuing refusal of the glider community to fit transponders does give the rest of us a real problem.

Frankly, modern gliders significantly out perform legacy bits of kit. Having the performance to add a little bit of weight (Trig make transponders marketed as light enough for paragliders for crying out loud!) means, imho, the glider community should step up to the plate and add the same conspicuity measures the rest of the world are using, so we can see them and avoid them, and ATC can reliably monitor them using SSR. Doing so on a voluntary basis will prevent the need for the CAA to mandate their carriage.

Imho though the old argument of weight/power no longer holds water due to a combination of performance of gliders and size/weight of modern transponders (and heaven forbid, two way radios....)

I have pointed out why many gliders don't fit transponders - power draw. Weight is not the issue in most gliders being used for XC (loading with water is common in gliders where this can be done), power most certainly is especially since some XC flights can be 5 or more hours. If fitting a transponder was as cheap as changing to 833 radios was, and they took as little power, more people would do so though for some of us it would still be very expensive as the panel is small and some gliders would need to have a new panel with some of the other instruments changed.

The few people who have brought brand spanking new gliders have had transponders fitted, but then what's £2k when you are spending well over £100k?

A low power transponder was promised (can't remember who by) but has yet to appear. Also most of us are not all flying the latest and greatest - I know someone doing great flights in a glider built in 1968. He has recorded flights taking over 7 hours this year as have several people from other clubs. Fitting any sort of transponder may well cost him more than his whole glider is worth. Remember that by a large we fly the best, most expensive glider we can afford.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Surely power available is merely a function of the weight of the batteries carried? Appreciate if you're going for ultra long endurance flying this might be an issue but the reality of a few hours airborne isn't that 8 HR epic power requirement?

I do also appreciate that such things cost money, and (particularly at the glider end of the market) a lot of people are right up against what they can afford as a hobby. However, for example, in a similar way to other mandated bits of kit (appreciate new radios were less expensive) given plenty of notice (say a 2025 cutoff) then most people should be able to afford the investment.

Where UAVs stand in all of this, buggered if I know. I genuinely don't think there's a practical solution to the risk of mil low flying having a mid air with a UAV. The only practical solution I can see is to make commercial operations notam'd and make mil aircraft sufficiently robust that a collision with anything sub-commercial is unlikely to be catastrophic.