How expensive to retrofit a TAS to DA40?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How expensive to retrofit a TAS to DA40?
Hello guys,
I'm wondering how expensive to retrofit a TAS Traffic Advisory System into a DA40 (40.3xx) equipped with G1000? It seems we need to have the transponder replaced?
Thank you,
Kevin
I'm wondering how expensive to retrofit a TAS Traffic Advisory System into a DA40 (40.3xx) equipped with G1000? It seems we need to have the transponder replaced?
Thank you,
Kevin
kevinlee251,
The real question is: Why would you want to??
Why not spend the money on something that might be usefully, like a complete refresher on low speed flight and handling.
The risk of dying in a mid-air collision in Australia is near as makes no difference, zero. In fact, statistically, it is "vanishingly small", which is statistical zero. Somewhat less than an asteroid wiping out life on earth.
On the other hand, low speed loss of control continues to steadily contribute to the accident totals.
Tootle pip!!
The real question is: Why would you want to??
Why not spend the money on something that might be usefully, like a complete refresher on low speed flight and handling.
The risk of dying in a mid-air collision in Australia is near as makes no difference, zero. In fact, statistically, it is "vanishingly small", which is statistical zero. Somewhat less than an asteroid wiping out life on earth.
On the other hand, low speed loss of control continues to steadily contribute to the accident totals.
Tootle pip!!
CTE,
We could have a pointless argument about collision statistics, the incontestable fact is that low speed loss of control is a major cause of death and injury, mid-air collision not not.
I am afraid that, in too much of Australian aviation "perception of risk" unrelated to facts plays far too great a part in so called "decision making".
There is a damned good reason why a refresher at Flight Safety for a GA pilot spends so much time on low speed flight. In the typical Australian biennial flight review here, it doesn't rate, but woe betide somebody who doesn't get their "radio work" ( as opposed to communicating) spot on, despite its non-contribution to beneficial air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
We could have a pointless argument about collision statistics, the incontestable fact is that low speed loss of control is a major cause of death and injury, mid-air collision not not.
I am afraid that, in too much of Australian aviation "perception of risk" unrelated to facts plays far too great a part in so called "decision making".
There is a damned good reason why a refresher at Flight Safety for a GA pilot spends so much time on low speed flight. In the typical Australian biennial flight review here, it doesn't rate, but woe betide somebody who doesn't get their "radio work" ( as opposed to communicating) spot on, despite its non-contribution to beneficial air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
Vanishingly small?
Without even resorting to Google:
Moorabbin - two aircraft collide over Carrum inbound. A 152 and pilot are lost.
Moorabbin - two aircraft collide on final, lives lost
Jandakot - A Cessna mows down a recreational aircraft on final from behind, luckily both pilots escape
Latrobe Valley - A Cessna mowes down a light aircraft on final from behind, pilot is lost
Bankstown - Cessna and Liberty collide, a pilot is lost
Hoxton park (yes I know it's closed) - two aircraft collide, two people lost
I don't think that can be considered "statistically zero."
Without even resorting to Google:
Moorabbin - two aircraft collide over Carrum inbound. A 152 and pilot are lost.
Moorabbin - two aircraft collide on final, lives lost
Jandakot - A Cessna mows down a recreational aircraft on final from behind, luckily both pilots escape
Latrobe Valley - A Cessna mowes down a light aircraft on final from behind, pilot is lost
Bankstown - Cessna and Liberty collide, a pilot is lost
Hoxton park (yes I know it's closed) - two aircraft collide, two people lost
I don't think that can be considered "statistically zero."
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Kevin,
first check with Diamond wether this is an upgradable G1000 System and they are positive it is possible! There are a lot of pi**ed off customers now left with non-upgradable G1000 systems ...
first check with Diamond wether this is an upgradable G1000 System and they are positive it is possible! There are a lot of pi**ed off customers now left with non-upgradable G1000 systems ...
Squawk 7700,
At the risk of being pedantic, two of the accidents you mention were on the ground, I trust you are not suggesting ADS-B should be used to see if the runway is clear for takeoff or landing.
As for the rest, you have the "wonderful" example of the Australian approach to "organising" traffic to unnecessarily increasing collision risk by concentrating the actual traffic in narrow lanes, eliminating to a large degree the "big sky" level of protection.
Having said that, the accidents quoted are statistically meaningless without rates, and occurred over many years, and all had one thing in common, they occurred in areas where ADS-B will not substitute for the Mk.1 eyeball, for the primary (but not the only) reason I have already mentioned.
I would seriously question the sanity of any pilot who suggested that you need ADS-B to tell you that you are likely to find traffic in and around an airfield, particularly a capital city secondary airport.
I have many years of experience of TCAS, from its earliest days to the most recent and greatly improved most recent versions, there is a bleeding good reason why you normally disable the RA functions in the approach area.
Like TCAS, ADS-B has the capacity to become a major distraction to a good lookout in and approaching the circuit, thus increasing risk, not decreasing it, which is exactly what studies in US have already found.
As I said originally, spending the money on making certain your low speed handling competency is right up to scratch is far more likely to reduce risk --- produce a "safety" dividend if you prefer the S word.
As uncomfortable as many aviators find it, facts are facts.
Tootle pip!!
At the risk of being pedantic, two of the accidents you mention were on the ground, I trust you are not suggesting ADS-B should be used to see if the runway is clear for takeoff or landing.
As for the rest, you have the "wonderful" example of the Australian approach to "organising" traffic to unnecessarily increasing collision risk by concentrating the actual traffic in narrow lanes, eliminating to a large degree the "big sky" level of protection.
Having said that, the accidents quoted are statistically meaningless without rates, and occurred over many years, and all had one thing in common, they occurred in areas where ADS-B will not substitute for the Mk.1 eyeball, for the primary (but not the only) reason I have already mentioned.
I would seriously question the sanity of any pilot who suggested that you need ADS-B to tell you that you are likely to find traffic in and around an airfield, particularly a capital city secondary airport.
I have many years of experience of TCAS, from its earliest days to the most recent and greatly improved most recent versions, there is a bleeding good reason why you normally disable the RA functions in the approach area.
Like TCAS, ADS-B has the capacity to become a major distraction to a good lookout in and approaching the circuit, thus increasing risk, not decreasing it, which is exactly what studies in US have already found.
As I said originally, spending the money on making certain your low speed handling competency is right up to scratch is far more likely to reduce risk --- produce a "safety" dividend if you prefer the S word.
As uncomfortable as many aviators find it, facts are facts.
Tootle pip!!
two of the accidents you mention were on the ground
the accidents quoted are statistically meaningless without rates, and occurred over many years
When did 8 lives+ become "statistically meaningless?"
Without a toubt TCAS / ADSB aid in awareness when approaching the circuit. As for pilots not looking out the window; a training issue perhaps?
Do you have a reference for the
studies in US have already found.
Squark7700,
The NTSB web site would be a go place to start, then FAA.
As has been said, Sunfish is on the money, in principle the problem is well known and understood, and any pilot who need ADS-B to understand that aircraft might be found around aerodromes would probably be better of fishing.
With all due respect, if "training" was the answer, why do we have any accidents, after all, all pilots have been "trained". How much effort has been put into VFR into IMC propaganda, but it still happens??
One thing that is clearly not understood is the fidelity of the various displays, in reality (have you ever used TCAS 11 on a modern display) it will only tell you there are aircraft around --- at best. Using any of the systems (so far) for traffic separation around an airfield can lead to all sorts of nasty surprises.
Tootle pip!!
The NTSB web site would be a go place to start, then FAA.
As has been said, Sunfish is on the money, in principle the problem is well known and understood, and any pilot who need ADS-B to understand that aircraft might be found around aerodromes would probably be better of fishing.
With all due respect, if "training" was the answer, why do we have any accidents, after all, all pilots have been "trained". How much effort has been put into VFR into IMC propaganda, but it still happens??
One thing that is clearly not understood is the fidelity of the various displays, in reality (have you ever used TCAS 11 on a modern display) it will only tell you there are aircraft around --- at best. Using any of the systems (so far) for traffic separation around an airfield can lead to all sorts of nasty surprises.
Tootle pip!!
TAS is very much like relying on RT for traffic separation and situational awareness, it would work if everyone had aircraft equipped and zero failure rate. You're better off spending more time looking out, rather than staring at EFIS and EFBs.
You're better off spending more time looking out, rather than staring at EFIS and EFBs.
Exactly, which is what the NTSB/FAA message is, that is so hard to get across to the X-Box generation of any age.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technological solution:
Microsoft HoloLens (or any other augmented reality system)
providing full HUD for traffic information, airspace boundaries (vertical and horizontal), airfield information, weather radar.
For traffic, it would work very well if _ALL_ aircraft are equipped with ADSB-Out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qym11JnFQBM
C'mon Australia. Aren't we the smart country?
Microsoft HoloLens (or any other augmented reality system)
providing full HUD for traffic information, airspace boundaries (vertical and horizontal), airfield information, weather radar.
For traffic, it would work very well if _ALL_ aircraft are equipped with ADSB-Out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qym11JnFQBM
C'mon Australia. Aren't we the smart country?
