Portable Traffic Collision System. (PCAS)
 

Hawker Pacific are advertising a small PCAS that actually works anywhere. It interrogates transponder transmissions and displays an alert. There are two models and the larger has an aural alert as well. Made by Zaon, they can be used in any airspace including class G non radar or TCAS instigated transmissions. The Zaon unit can be interfaced with Garmin moving map GPS' to give a pictoral representation on that display as well. Matt, at Hawker Pacific, who is also involved with ADSB matters can give you a better idea than I, a non technophobe can. He is pleased to talk to anyone about Zaon and can be reached on 02 9780 8559 or 1 800 654 983.

This is not an advertisement and I have nothing to gain by bringing this to the attention of a lot of pilots who are concerned about flying mid air collisions. There has also been some misinformation about this unit put on this forum by people with a vested interests in selling another costly concept.

For this reason it is only fair that this misinformation be rectified.

You Tube have a demo, YouTube - Aviation Consumer Aircraft Traffic Display Demo

The Australian Gliding world uses OzFlarm. It's basically a collision avoidance awareness system, but is used as a back up to the pilots LOOKOUT! The ozFlarm is also used as a datalogger, which logs a 3D point in the atmosphere every 4seconds so that the pilots can analyse their flights for better performance next time.

Swift Avionics

I took this up with me a few times when flying commercially, to analyse how I could become a more safe and efficient pilot. One interesting thing I found when bashing around in a BE58 and PA32, if the runway direction was more than 35* off your flight plan track, it was quicker to go for a crosswind or downwind than to deviate for the 5nm final :)


go_soaring! instead

Some more video links;

YouTube - Zaon XRX PCAS, Aviation Consumer

YouTube - XRX Traffic Display on GPS

It will probably be no surprise to some to hear that I have a Zaon XRX PCAS in the V-tail. I bought it after the nearest near-miss I have had in 35 yrs flying.

It appears to work well once you have it set up right.

Is it worth the money?? Don't know - I guess if it stops you having a mid-air it is worth every cent.

Remember though - it is only passive! Relies on the traffic's transponder being pinged by SSR or another aircraft (RPT?) with an active system.

Dr :8

Just had two calls from interested parties who agree with FTDK in that it is passive. Both however agree the msot likely place to have a mid air would be in class E airspace or where TCAS equiped aircarft operate so the unit enhances MK 1 eyeball.

Awaiting further information.

Flarm appears to be an active device.

How much do they retail at?..

Public Announcement
 

Again Mr Murphie is attempting to stir up trouble and I do not intend to bite - however, I do intend to ensure the facts are set straight.

Murphie quote commencing this thread :
FACT 1
The FACTS with which Mr Murphie was acquainted about PASSIVE traffic systems (the same one he is quoting here) are visible as posts 208 and 210 on Saturday just passed - on the locked thread Merged: ADSB.

I thank FTDK for confirming what Mr Murphie was told on 15 November. Passive systems only work under MSSR or TCAS interrogation.

FACT 2
ADS-B works anywhere and does not require MSSR or TCAS interrogation to enable aircraft to aircraft (or ground) alert via ADS-B IN.

FACT 3
FLARM is active although in a different frequency range. The ADS-B OUT/IN integrated unit successfully trialled by Enigma Avionics has been also trialled with FLARM and was receiving FLARM alerts at or beyond 3 Nm.

For the benefit of the moderators, this post is not It is to ensure, as last Saturday, that people are not sucked in to buying something that does not work in much of Class G airspace and the associated CTAFs where radar coverage does not exist nor RPT with TCAS fly.

This thread starts totally misleadingly
Wrong, wrong, wrong :{

I missed that!

NO, NO, NO, NO - it doesn't! In fact, it probably would NOT have detected the aircraft that nearly cleaned me up in the incident referred to above.

ME - mine cost me about $2k, but they would be more than that now with the crash of the Ozzie $. There is a simpler cheaper one that Zaon sell for about US$500, but I have no experience with it. The Avidyne TCAS unit referred to by Ovation in another thread would cost about $20k to retro-fit to a GA aircraft.

Dr :8

The trouble with ANY of these personal traffic avoidance products is that they are invisible to the Air Traffic Service provider.

ONE of the safety benefits of ADS-B IN/OUT was that it could help prevent collisions... by providing in-cockpit alerts.

It's other safety and efficiency benefits rely on ATS receiving aircraft positional data ... which these personal devices don't provide.

Apples with apples ....

Dr

In truth it DOES actually work anywhere.

Provided there is an external interrogation.

The advertisers are telling the truth - if that's what they say. Just forgot the bit about external interrogation :oh:

Two posts before james michael's opportunistic response I wrote;

"Just had two calls from interested parties who agree with FTDK in that it is passive. Both however agree the msot likely place to have a mid air would be in class E airspace or where TCAS equiped aircarft operate so the unit enhances MK 1 eyeball".

I unfortunately mis-interpreted the advertising. I did not post this to cause trouble, simply to pass on an advertisement that I thought would be of benefit to those concerned with mid air collisions.

If an apology be needed to succour the hurt of james michael, please take this as personal an apology that I can humbly offer in the circumstances.:{

I am advised MRX is $850 and XRX is $2500 Australian.

peuce has summed it up pretty well.

J:ok:

Oh come now kiddies, where is GNSS Bing on this subject ... you know seeing as FLARM derives its position info from .....
.
.
.
.
.........NO :uhoh: .
.
.
.
... drum roll please missus music
.
.
.
.
.... .... YES ;) ..... YOU GUESSED IT
.
.
.
.
GPS:eek:
.
... Quick, someone alert ASIS and the media :ooh: :rolleyes:
.
.
E AW ... E AW :E

I have the cheaper Zaon version to which the good Dr refers. It works OK, certainly concentrates the mind when it tells you there's a target 1/4 mile away and 100' above. Trouble is it gives no direction information - but it does get one looking out of the window - which cannot be a bad thing. I don't like all of the wires it needs for audible warning in your headset (sexy female voice though.) Of course it does require the other aircraft to be fitted with a transponder that works and is switched on, which means it possibly detects about half of the aircraft where I fly.

Clearedtoreenter said,
AND and it is a big one, Provided there is an external interrogation source such as SSR radar or a Multi-Lat array or TCAS equipped aircraft within electronic range.

If there is no external interrogation source for the TXPDR then the unit does not work.

I think the only conclusion we can safely draw is that electronic aids of all varieties, including ADS-B and WAAS will not be available in Australia unless AsA can make money out of them, and they will be withheld until they can.

Sunny

You may be correct about WAAS but ADS-B is available now via voluntary fitment (the NFRM was yonks ago) and if you fit to GA (if you can find a system to fit) you can fly VFR without Airservices making a cent.

Profit? Airservices is a Government owned corporation.

However, do you see anyone in private enterprise rushing in to provide WAAS, XM WX, TIS etc? I doubt I'd be purchasing shares based on their prospective profits :)

j.m :ok:
.
Whilst we are at it, perhaps 'the usual suspects' might expand on this little gem from the other thread Please explain to us how EXACTLY you intend to achieve this!! :suspect:

... The usual suspects .... bwahahahah :E ... Oh my giddy aunt :D

Scurvy,

When I read Dick's post, I thought I must have mis-interpreted it. Obviously I didn't ... unless you're as silly as me.

:E .... yeeeeeerrrs peuce we are both silly as a tail wheel :} ... apparently :8
.
Funny init', particularly considering that without sole use GNSS (with all the Bing factors), removal of these navaids might have a dramatic effect on IFR and NVFR planning req's and safety :ooh: :suspect:

It is an unfortunate side effect of the probable demise of the JCP that the extra subsidy for the TSO 146 NAVS for IFR aircraft will be lost.

There has been agreement on the residual navaids but that may now alter - at our cost unfortunately - as the removal program may slow and retention of navaids means extra maintenance or replacement costs.

Scurvy D. Dog, how do I go about it? Simple – by communicating to the industry the cost advantages in removing some of the aids. For example, the NDB at Shellys is being removed, without even a squawk from the industry.

The problem with the JCP is that it mixed the cost advantages of removing the ground based aids, with the cost of ADS-B. Of course, they are quite separate. I totally support removing ground based aids where they do not improve safety in a cost effective way. In fact, I was told by people involved with the JCP at CASA that the greatest saving is from removing ground based aids, and they thought the only way they could convince the industry to support this was by offering the bait of “free” ADS-B.

Of course it is better to keep the ground based aids and ADS-B separate, and decide what can cost effectively be removed in an objective and scientific way. That is what I will be doing. I believe that tens of millions of dollars can be saved by removing a number of the ground based aids.

I should also point out that because I make my statements under my own name, these statements have more credibility than those written by people who constantly hide behind anonymity. If you really believe in what you are saying, there is nothing to stop you from posting under your own name on this site, and actually making statements to the powers that be. Then you will have influence.

.... well now, that is interesting :E ... and when might these CASA people have proffered this opinion in discussions with you? ;)

First debate the (somewhat diverted) topic as current:

JCP
Replacement costs for legacy infrastructure are approximately $60 million for enroute radars and $30 million for non-backup navaids. Ongoing maintenance is in the order of $2.5 million per year.

Given any financial consideration (NPV, IRR or whatever) I'd rate the radar savings a tad higher.JCP
By comparison, the 11 ADS-B ground stations will cost approximately $3 million, with annual maintenance costs of approximately $130,000.

Wow - just think of your theory applied to removing the en route radars.

Then two current topics

Well. I'm anon and I've just posted direct from the JCP - and to be honest I'd rate those written numbers as far more credible than a conversation with CASA. If not, have you queried them with the APG?

The other topic - the 'usual suspects'. This constant carping about people's right to be anon gets you free entry to our heavy metal rock group "USUAL SUSPECTS" - our first hit will have you up front singing on, and on, anon, anon ..... :D

Dr

The thread commenced ex the defunct ADS-B thread where PCAS were dumped on Jabba. It wandered to WAAS and ADS-B via Sunny's thought.

Completely ignoring ADS-B and PCAS, the navaid replacement program now becomes significant as it will affect YOUR IFR costs.

Unfortunately the costs suggested by Dick were embodied in the JCP and if we are to examine the NAVAID situation the current CBA is the JCP CBA.

Perhaps we need a separate thread for that. But retention of NAVAID above and beyond the legacy group IS going to cost GA money and that's a fact.

However, there are still people without TSO 146 GPS who require alternates and NAVAIDS. NVFR gets by with TSO 129 but still needs alternates.

At what cost?

JM - What the f*ck are JCP and CBA?

For my money they can rip out all the NDBs tomorrow. I fly one NDB approach a year - a ceremonial part of my CIR renewal. If I ever needed to fly one in anger I would do it as a GPS overlay approach anyway and just monitor the NDB needle - far safer than chasing that little needle around. If the ADF in the Bo plays up - it will be replaced by another TSOd GPS.

The only ground based navaid that is required is the ILS, cause those in control seem to be too stupid to go with WAAS in this country. Maybe a case can be made for keeping VORs - but I never use them so it is not an issue for me.

What is required is widespread VHF coverage - down to circuit height at every licenced aerodrome and on the ground everywhere RPT goes.

Dr :8

Apparrently, the "Joint Consultation Paper" and the "Costs Benefit Analysis"

They're both here somwehere:

Transition to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance - Joint Consultation Paper

There's a Bubble Diagram as well........:ugh:

Atlas

Spot on as usual

Dr

You have an expensive aircraft very well fitted.

Then there are those out there without $15-20K GPS who are reliant on their VOR or ADF for some of their operations in their $75K aircraft. At prsent the Albury NDB is a hot spot of debate re retention for such people.

Likewise for VOR.

The "unmentionable" provided an incentive to equip with 146 and escalate the demise of the navaids. Even so, the backup network is still quite substantial remembering that should Bing's whizzer ever turn off GPS there is a need to safeguard those very RPT you mention until they land.

But, it's all at a cost. And, likewise VHF coverage. However, VHF won't get you on the ground in IMC.

Even funnier, even a faulty data card can crash that sole means GPS which you only need one of. If you are 'in the soup', in the soup, with your one GPS blank, the good old antique NDB and VOR might seem good friends indeed :)

What a load of drivel !!!!

JM - Do you set out to deliberately mislead or are you just ignorant?

The cheapest TSO'd Garmin GPS (155XL) is currently available for US$2700! Cheaper than a new indicator for my 30 year old ADF.

It would be interesting to know how many people are flying IFR in $75k aircraft equipped only a 30 year old ADF and or VOR. I suspect not many.

As for NVFR - man, I would rather be relying on a modern VFR-only GPS for navigation at night than some of the NDBs around the country that only become reliable from about 20 nm out!

OK, now pay attention cause this bit is tricky!

NOBODY IS GOING TO TURN OFF THE F*CKING SATELLITES!

Aviation is the USA is rapidly becoming totally dependent on the GPS satellites.

You can also use a mobile phone to set off a bomb - but nobody is going to turn off the mobile phone network either!

No - but a GPS will get you down more often, with a greater safety margin, than an NDB approach.

True - but the Garmin 296/396/496/596/or 696 (or in my case "and 696" :E) on the yolk will still get me down.

Do you seriously think the 30 year old ADFs in most GA aircraft are a more reliable option?

If this really bothers you, we can mandate the carriage of a spare data card - at a cost of about $300.

Get real and stop talking complete crap!

Dr :8

Dr

You are obviously having a bad day. It shows. Doesn't make you correct.

For your information my former aircraft, worth $75K, was NVFR and relied on the ADF and VOR for fixes. Nothing misleading or ignorant about that mate.

Likewise for your information ASA have been copping substantial flak from Albury where the locals are obviously mislead and ignorant in wanting the NDB retained.

USD $2700 plus fitment plus updates might just be a little burden for those not currently residing in the manor, old chum :E

The bit about Bing was satire as you well know from my debates with him. No-one is going to turn off the satellites but they do have outages and the data card example was given to me at a meeting on the 10 November. It's real, or the highly qualified pilot was perhaps mislead or ignorant? :ugh:

The garmin GPS on the yolk will get you down? Which TSO does it meet to be legal? The navaids are actually there for legal and safety purposes or the 495 (I have one as backup) would be standard fitment in the A380.

Get real and stop talking complete crap - yourself - and apology for responding in kind, not my usual style. :ok:

Owen

I've looked at the backup network with someone not far from you and it's OK, although Forrest might be a little lonely.

I've also put a paper to ASA re going 'global' for WAAS to try and get enough critical mass (global meaning farming, mining etc in Oz).

PS - what happened to the Tommy - storm?

Yet another furphie - I rest my case!

JM - I am actually having a very good day thank you! I am just fed up with reading all of this rubbish.

Time to face up to it, NDB's are history - along with lights on towers to mark the airways, VAR, flight engineers (mostly)/wireless operators/navigators, Ozzie DME, DME homings and let downs etc etc etc. Its called progress!

Dr :8

Dr

I should have not been facetious. OK, no furphies.

1. Does the G495 allow a legitimate IFR letdown.

2. Here's some more rubbish to ponder. JCP page 13/14 (I have it on good authority that ASA who drafted some of the doc would do ANYTHING to reduce the backup navaids so what you are about to read is the best they could manage). Rubbish, furphie - nay, fact.

8.5 Future Backup Navigation Network
In the expectation that most aircraft will in time be equipped with suitable GNSS
navigation avionics (as part of the ADS-B avionics system), Airservices proposes to
decommission just under half of the existing NDBs and VORs, ensuring that a
‘backup’ network of some 165 navaids remains. This backup network would provide a continuation of navigation services in the event of a GNSS failure. It has been designed to ensure that IFR operations can continue if GNSS is unavailable.

No mention of the 495 on the yoke ;)

Unfortunately the CNS / ATM model has to be designed around ICAO requirements and safety of fare paying pax. If you'd like a pic of the backup navaid network, I'll link it but I assure you the NDB is alive and well and even more so since the JCP passed away.

Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger, nor is it 'rubbish' - it's fact. Your nav charges will include ASA keeping a lot more navaids going a lot longer than planned.

EDITED TO ADD

Pre-that word VOR 88 NDB 200 ADS-B 28
Post-that word 45 120 39

So there are now 43 VOR and 80 NDB in limbo as post-that word is likely defunct.

James I think you have missed the Dr's point.

No the G295 etc is not a legal GPS for IFR use. Nobody ever said it was.

Currently the use of a TSO 146 GPS is all that is required to meet the regs and I can see why. As for a backup should it turn into a smouldering heap, I would rather the G295 over a 30+ yr old ADF...... even in an IMC let down.

One may have a certification from 30 years ago, but that does not mean a thing when it is far less reliable, and in many parts of the country....an NDB available to use.

So I think you are preaching to the converted in a roundabout way. the move to a GPS system is what you have been in favour of all along, and the Dr is also.

A problem you have had with some of your adversories on here has been those with stone age equipment resisting the new era, as proposed by yourself and myself included. The problem is they need to get with the times, and I think the Dr is suggesting that also.

Cheers! :ok:

J

True for PVT and aerial work ops only. RPT and CHTR require two TSO146 or one plus a radio navaid or two radio navaids or a visual approach by day.

D

Too true and a lot of $$ in the good old $120K Cherokee 6 on charter. I think the backup network is here for the long haul.

J

Agreed and well put. I likewise agree with the Dr re the way forward and I'm as frustrated as he is at the setback.

However I did not set out to deliberately mislead nor am I ignorant. That's why I've kept feeding in the facts and data to demonstrate what I stated. I agree entirely with the capability of things like the G495 and the TSO 146 navigator, but the navaid network is not based on those with the new gear until there is sufficient fitment, and we are not there yet.

Somewhere I saw the stats on GPS fitment, cannot lay my hands on it at this moment. But we have some way to go to being able to DEMAND GPS navigation and dump the navaids :)

Not to mention lots of fuel looking for an alternate in a PA31, metro or DHC8 not equipped with twin TSO146 GPS's.

Oh come on guys, give it a rest!

How is a PA32 on charter relevant to a discussion about the need to retain NDBs?

Dr :8

D

:ok: Hadn't thunk of that!

Owen

Sorry to hear - I have a lot of time in Tommys - but you seem to have consoled your grief very adequately with the RV10 :D

As an interest, what avionics are you fitting (relevant to the navaid issue on this thread).

Dr

We cross posted.

What am I misunderstanding in the table at AIP GEN 1.5-4? Are you suggesting we limit the charter to day VFR?

Slight thread drift but here goes
 

Agreed FTD.

It sounds like ASA need to devise a policy similar to NZ but specifically for AU

Airways NZ has confirmed that 95% of the IFR air transport fleet in NZ including charter are RNAV capable and they are moving to remove NDB from service at Aid's EOL. The remaining NDB will be for terminal approaches and one or two enroute tracks. Enroute VOR are also likely to be withdrawn.

Airways NZ has a published policy.

• The development and maintenance of RNAV procedures (non precision and BARO-VNAV approaches, departure and enroute procedures); and
• The integration of RNAV procedures into the Airways navigation network.

Examples are:

1. Direct routing subject to ATM requirements;
2. Efficient profiles;
3. Lower enroute and minimum descent levels;
4. BARO-VNAV approaches, which offer ILS like continuous descent profiles for suitably equipped aircraft;
5. RNAV terminal, arrival and departure procedures.

RNAV procedures will be developed at these locations to provide contingency.

Some associated NDB will be withdrawn.