Collision Avoidance vs. "See and Avoid" for GA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collision Avoidance vs. "See and Avoid" for GA
I was asked for my opinion on a particular technology (PCAS - Portable/Passive Collision Avoidance System) by a colleague at work. A company (internal) pilot opinion survey had revealed that whilst people knew about the technology, none had fitted it to their aircraft. My colleague asked the question; given that this technology offers 'a decent amount of benefit for the cost' why was this the case?
I will not offer my opinion here as I intend to show this thread to my colleagues and do not want to 'set the tone' or prejudice the outcome in any way.
So, I would be extremely grateful to hear opinions on this, broadly along the lines of
1) Do you know what it is?
2) Do you have it?
3) Would you buy/fit it?
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
I will not offer my opinion here as I intend to show this thread to my colleagues and do not want to 'set the tone' or prejudice the outcome in any way.
So, I would be extremely grateful to hear opinions on this, broadly along the lines of
1) Do you know what it is?
2) Do you have it?
3) Would you buy/fit it?
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess this is an example...
Zaon Portable Collision Avoidance System - PCAS XRX Onyx - MyPilotStore.com
So, answering the questions:
1) Do you know what it is?
See URL above - I didn't but I now do
2) Do you have it?
Nope
3) Would you buy/fit it?
No
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
No panel space, no power.
Most importantly though I presume it requires everybody else to also be equipped with a similar device for it to work (e.g. like Mode-S, FLARM or TCAS). Unless there's complete interoperability between the various technologies then there's a great risk that it won't spot the other guy (particularly if they don't have any device on board).
Zaon Portable Collision Avoidance System - PCAS XRX Onyx - MyPilotStore.com
So, answering the questions:
1) Do you know what it is?
See URL above - I didn't but I now do
2) Do you have it?
Nope
3) Would you buy/fit it?
No
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
No panel space, no power.
Most importantly though I presume it requires everybody else to also be equipped with a similar device for it to work (e.g. like Mode-S, FLARM or TCAS). Unless there's complete interoperability between the various technologies then there's a great risk that it won't spot the other guy (particularly if they don't have any device on board).
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gpn, I don’t think you’re quite right about everybody needing it. AIUI, Zaon etc. requires everyone to have a transponder on, but not necessarily to have their own Zaon. Flarm, on the other hand, does indeed need everyone else to have FLARM to be detected. The full scale TCAS requires everything else to have a transponder to be detected, but only gives automatic conflict resolution to mode S equipped aircraft (when the two TCAS’s “talk” to each other).
No doubt an expert will be along to correct me if any part of this is wrong.
Chris N.
No doubt an expert will be along to correct me if any part of this is wrong.
Chris N.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Do you know what it is?
Yes
2) Do you have it?
No
3) Would you buy/fit it?
Probably not
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
- It's a bit more clutter in the cockpit.
- There's a danger it may give a false sense of security and keep eyes inside the cockpit rather than outside.
- Quite a few aircraft don't have transponder fitted or turned on.
- The perceived risk of a mid-air collision is greater than the US accident statistics show the real risk to be.
Aviation Consumer did a review of the top 10 safety investments sometime last year and the traffic warning boxes didn't make the list. In the US there are about 10 midairs a year and they have about a 50% survival rate. From memory, in the UK there seems to be about 1 a year with a similar survival rate. Put simply, there are a lot more common ways to kill yourself than hitting another aircraft, and you're better off spending the money trying to avoid those real risks.
The top ten most effective safety investments according to Aviation Consumer:
1) An instrument rating
2) A real, thorough flight review
3) Add a rating
4) Fuel totalizer
5) In-cockpit weather link
6) Progressive maintenance
7) Seatbelt harness for older aircraft
8) 406 MHz ELT
9) Cabin airbags
10) Vortex generators
It's interesting the top three are all pilot-training related.
Yes
2) Do you have it?
No
3) Would you buy/fit it?
Probably not
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
- It's a bit more clutter in the cockpit.
- There's a danger it may give a false sense of security and keep eyes inside the cockpit rather than outside.
- Quite a few aircraft don't have transponder fitted or turned on.
- The perceived risk of a mid-air collision is greater than the US accident statistics show the real risk to be.
Aviation Consumer did a review of the top 10 safety investments sometime last year and the traffic warning boxes didn't make the list. In the US there are about 10 midairs a year and they have about a 50% survival rate. From memory, in the UK there seems to be about 1 a year with a similar survival rate. Put simply, there are a lot more common ways to kill yourself than hitting another aircraft, and you're better off spending the money trying to avoid those real risks.
The top ten most effective safety investments according to Aviation Consumer:
1) An instrument rating
2) A real, thorough flight review
3) Add a rating
4) Fuel totalizer
5) In-cockpit weather link
6) Progressive maintenance
7) Seatbelt harness for older aircraft
8) 406 MHz ELT
9) Cabin airbags
10) Vortex generators
It's interesting the top three are all pilot-training related.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a Zaon in one of our aircraft at work, I would certainly not buy one for my own aircraft, my current experience suggests the unit may not display traffic position correctly, to the extent it could result in avoiding action in the wrong direction!
Nice idea but I will wait till they get them right and look again, CTAF radio works better right now.
Crash
Nice idea but I will wait till they get them right and look again, CTAF radio works better right now.
Crash
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
- It's a bit more clutter in the cockpit.
- There's a danger it may give a false sense of security and keep eyes inside the cockpit rather than outside.
- Quite a few aircraft don't have transponder fitted or turned on.
- The perceived risk of a mid-air collision is greater than the US accident statistics show the real risk to be.
- It's a bit more clutter in the cockpit.
- There's a danger it may give a false sense of security and keep eyes inside the cockpit rather than outside.
- Quite a few aircraft don't have transponder fitted or turned on.
- The perceived risk of a mid-air collision is greater than the US accident statistics show the real risk to be.
I have good vision (still 6/5) and often spot other aircraft well before my second pilot BUT after using TCAS and TAS (about 8 years now, 4 different aircraft types) my eyes have literally been opened to how many other aircraft can pass close by unseen (even in what would be classed as excellent visibility, the problem being lack of contrast).
Also, unaided lookout simply can't see through that lump of cloud between you and the aircraft that is going to hit you from above and behind, or immediately below and climbing towards you.
Some who firmly believe that the sky is usually clear and their own unaided lookout is perfect might just be the ones who most need TCAS/ TAS help. They might perceive the threat of collision to be less than it is, simply because they aren't seeing how many other aircraft are actually around them.
My type of ops require often VFR to IFR and back to VFR, most of it in class G airspace. Whatever the conditions, almost on every flight I encounter at least one aircraft who fails to comply with the rules of the air, especially with regard to giving way to an aircraft on the right. Assuming that everyone has passed the air law exam, that leaves two possibilities. Firstly, some pilots know the rules and ignore them, or secondly, some do fail to see other conflicting aircraft. I know I might not have seen some of these aircraft so early myself without TCAS to assist me, obviously some I do see perfectly without, or I probably wouldn't still be around writing about it after thirty one years of flying for a living. It's just as possible that I have failed to give way to other aircraft myself because I failed to see them.
The risk IS out there because the human eye is far from infallible, as more experienced pilots come to realise. Yesterday I spotted (quite late / close) a metallic red Jetranger with white registration lettering (I won't post the reg here), flying westbound, south of Bovingdon and north of the LHR zone yesterday, coming in from my left. That aircraft flew a steady course and passed immediately in front of my aircraft at the same altitude, so my right of way. I maintained course as long as was safe then slowed rapidly to let him past; it seemed he hadn't seen me at all but I had seen him, so had Heathrow Special controller. However, he was one of those not transponding at all and perhaps not talking to someone who might have given him traffic info on my aircraft.
An ex-colleague of mine has suffered mid air collisions twice, both times in helicopters and both times with two pilots on board. Once from above and behind, an aircraft descended onto him, inside regulated airspace. Another time another helicopter hit him from below. A good lookout on his part wasn't good enough on either occasion, because the other aircraft were both out of his field of view. He has developed an exceptionally good lookout (!) but is also very enthusiastic about the benefits of TCAS, which also works when a mere unaided lookout cannot.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly with TCAS at work and it's invaluable. Outside of controlled airspace, which is where most GA aircraft operate, it's useless as until the very last microlight has one fitted it's a distraction.
In VFR flight, nothing should distract from lookout. A device like this has added risk of a false sense of security. Not for me, not even as a back up aid.
In VFR flight, nothing should distract from lookout. A device like this has added risk of a false sense of security. Not for me, not even as a back up aid.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
FL,
Then please just make sure you fly with Mode C selected, so I can use my TAS to tell me you're there at twenty miles range. Rather than wait for both of us to hope to spot each other at 4 or 5 miles, which is about the limit of human eyesight where light aircraft are concerned in most cases.
BTW, TAS gives me absolutely NO sense of security, just the opposite. Which is why I look out as much as anyone else when VFR. Controlled airspace gives me a slightly better feeling of security.
Then please just make sure you fly with Mode C selected, so I can use my TAS to tell me you're there at twenty miles range. Rather than wait for both of us to hope to spot each other at 4 or 5 miles, which is about the limit of human eyesight where light aircraft are concerned in most cases.
BTW, TAS gives me absolutely NO sense of security, just the opposite. Which is why I look out as much as anyone else when VFR. Controlled airspace gives me a slightly better feeling of security.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChrisN said: "Gpn, I don’t think you’re quite right about everybody needing it."
Unless it has an active element to it (e.g. it's own radar) then I don't see how it could work (typical example being Cessna flying with PCAS vs glider not equipped with anything). Happy to stand corrected on this. I do sense that PCAS/TCAS/ADS-B/FLARM means we're going to go down the 'Mode-S' thread again!
Unless it has an active element to it (e.g. it's own radar) then I don't see how it could work (typical example being Cessna flying with PCAS vs glider not equipped with anything). Happy to stand corrected on this. I do sense that PCAS/TCAS/ADS-B/FLARM means we're going to go down the 'Mode-S' thread again!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In VFR flight, nothing should distract from lookout. A device like this has added risk of a false sense of security. Not for me, not even as a back up aid.
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ItalianJon,
Long time no see, how are you?
To answer your question I've had the Zaon MRX. The past tense due to being in another part of the world now. It isn't snake oil. It works well. It provides minimal information (relative height and distance) so does not encourage an eyes in mentality. It is tiny and the batteries last a fair time.
They are passive receivers only - they eaves drop on transponder conversations between aircraft and ground stations. The distance is calculated based on power output assumptions. These assumptions are used to identify the host aircraft transponder and separate it from others. Occasionally the host's transponder may not be powerful enough and may be confused as another aircraft and generate spurious same height 0.1nm warnings as I had in IMC on approach to Exeter after being warned about near by corp jet. Was not happy with that, possibly bad placement by me. Despite that I think this unit is useful for IMC, but once you are in a radar environment I think you are best served by switching it off. If you are like me and reasonably diligent, I think there is less value in VMC and I rarely used it as such.
Hope that helps.
Long time no see, how are you?
To answer your question I've had the Zaon MRX. The past tense due to being in another part of the world now. It isn't snake oil. It works well. It provides minimal information (relative height and distance) so does not encourage an eyes in mentality. It is tiny and the batteries last a fair time.
They are passive receivers only - they eaves drop on transponder conversations between aircraft and ground stations. The distance is calculated based on power output assumptions. These assumptions are used to identify the host aircraft transponder and separate it from others. Occasionally the host's transponder may not be powerful enough and may be confused as another aircraft and generate spurious same height 0.1nm warnings as I had in IMC on approach to Exeter after being warned about near by corp jet. Was not happy with that, possibly bad placement by me. Despite that I think this unit is useful for IMC, but once you are in a radar environment I think you are best served by switching it off. If you are like me and reasonably diligent, I think there is less value in VMC and I rarely used it as such.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual the velcro fitted boxes with power from the cigar lighter are leading the way! The only problem being that it is yet another wire to trip over when you get out of the aircraft.
Such a pitty that the autoritys won't enable the TIS system that is avalable in the USA. The system works by data linking ground radar transponder returns via the mode S transponder to the map screen in the GPS.
If this was avalble them the take up of mode S transponders would be much higher because aircraft owners would see some return for fitting the mode S.
Such a pitty that the autoritys won't enable the TIS system that is avalable in the USA. The system works by data linking ground radar transponder returns via the mode S transponder to the map screen in the GPS.
If this was avalble them the take up of mode S transponders would be much higher because aircraft owners would see some return for fitting the mode S.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gpn, AIUI, a transponder squawks every time it is interrogated. A mode A or C does so every time a radar head anywhere in ground-air range sweeps it, which is most of the time, anywhere. A Zaon etc. “hears” that squawk every time, and assesses proximity by its signal strength or something.
A mode S only squawks when it is told to. The “S” means that ATC can select when they want it to or not. For GA aircraft with S outside CAS, that is much less frequent – say once per second instead of umpteen times per second (hence requiring less battery capacity for a particular flight length – one of the much-vaunted claims by the CAA to justify it for gliders etc.).
TCAS generates its own interrogations. See below, as others have posted in the past:
[quote] TCAS Function:
TCAS works its way through the Roll Call, sending Selective Interrogations to those aircraft. This gives it a picture of all Mode S aircraft in the vicinity. As aircraft move out of range, their announcement signal eventually gets weak enough to be ignored so they are dropped from the roll call.
It then does a Mode C "All call" sweep, to catch non mode S aircraft. Note, it only cares about altitude, so its sends Mode C interrogations only - However, . . . [snip] - non altitude encoding aircraft still reply to Mode C calls, just with an empty frame, so the existence and range to the target can still be derived.
Other Mode S / TCAS tricks for interference reduction.
Whisper / Shout.
TCAS sends its mode S interrogations at variable power levels. In a nutshell, it 'Whispers' at low power to the target, if no reply is received it transmits progressively more power, eventually 'Shouting'. Its uses a successful transmission as a benchmark for its next attempt, and progressively adjusts power to the minimum required to maintain contact.
TCAS interference Limiting Mode.
Lengthy topic, more pilot oriented, will post if anyone interested (Its already written for an email query I received, so no trouble).
-----------------------------------------
[snip] . . . just to clarify a couple of points.
At present TCAS and Mode S ground stations operate completely independently. A ground station would see TCAS squitter or air to air surveillance as interference and visa versa.
Mode S ground stations do not use the squitter data but transmit an All Call interrogation to find out who's out there which will also include its interrogator identity code. This then gets included in the transponder reply. All Mode S interrogations and replies are parity encoded so that the data is only used if it contains the expected aircraft address or interrogator code.
The way that Mode A/C systems reject interference is to interrogate a number of times and only believe the reply if it gets the same information more than once (There's also some clever decoders that correlate replies on amplitude and angle of arrival.)
At the moment the only link between TCAS and ground based Mode S is that the transponder will generate a message to the ground station that contains the RA information if one is generated. This is of limited use to co-ordinate actions, it wouldn't arrive in time, but could be used to clearly identify the aircraft concerned on the display. At present there's not many operational Mode S stations outside the US and even these don't use this feature. However, most of Europe will be updating to Mode S in the next couple of years.
Lots more proposed for Mode S in the future, see the Eurocontrol web-site for info on 'Enhanced Surveillance' and ADS-B using 1090 extended squitter.
---------------------------------------
As before, no doubt an expert will be along to correct me if any part of this is wrong.
Chris N.
PS – where I wrote squawk, that should probably be “squitter". And of course, neither TCAS nor Zaon etc. can detect a non-transponder-equipped flying device of any sort - glider, paraglider, LAA non-electric type, or whatever. Nor falling parachutists. Nor birds. Nor radiosonde balloons.
A mode S only squawks when it is told to. The “S” means that ATC can select when they want it to or not. For GA aircraft with S outside CAS, that is much less frequent – say once per second instead of umpteen times per second (hence requiring less battery capacity for a particular flight length – one of the much-vaunted claims by the CAA to justify it for gliders etc.).
TCAS generates its own interrogations. See below, as others have posted in the past:
[quote] TCAS Function:
TCAS works its way through the Roll Call, sending Selective Interrogations to those aircraft. This gives it a picture of all Mode S aircraft in the vicinity. As aircraft move out of range, their announcement signal eventually gets weak enough to be ignored so they are dropped from the roll call.
It then does a Mode C "All call" sweep, to catch non mode S aircraft. Note, it only cares about altitude, so its sends Mode C interrogations only - However, . . . [snip] - non altitude encoding aircraft still reply to Mode C calls, just with an empty frame, so the existence and range to the target can still be derived.
Other Mode S / TCAS tricks for interference reduction.
Whisper / Shout.
TCAS sends its mode S interrogations at variable power levels. In a nutshell, it 'Whispers' at low power to the target, if no reply is received it transmits progressively more power, eventually 'Shouting'. Its uses a successful transmission as a benchmark for its next attempt, and progressively adjusts power to the minimum required to maintain contact.
TCAS interference Limiting Mode.
Lengthy topic, more pilot oriented, will post if anyone interested (Its already written for an email query I received, so no trouble).
-----------------------------------------
[snip] . . . just to clarify a couple of points.
At present TCAS and Mode S ground stations operate completely independently. A ground station would see TCAS squitter or air to air surveillance as interference and visa versa.
Mode S ground stations do not use the squitter data but transmit an All Call interrogation to find out who's out there which will also include its interrogator identity code. This then gets included in the transponder reply. All Mode S interrogations and replies are parity encoded so that the data is only used if it contains the expected aircraft address or interrogator code.
The way that Mode A/C systems reject interference is to interrogate a number of times and only believe the reply if it gets the same information more than once (There's also some clever decoders that correlate replies on amplitude and angle of arrival.)
At the moment the only link between TCAS and ground based Mode S is that the transponder will generate a message to the ground station that contains the RA information if one is generated. This is of limited use to co-ordinate actions, it wouldn't arrive in time, but could be used to clearly identify the aircraft concerned on the display. At present there's not many operational Mode S stations outside the US and even these don't use this feature. However, most of Europe will be updating to Mode S in the next couple of years.
Lots more proposed for Mode S in the future, see the Eurocontrol web-site for info on 'Enhanced Surveillance' and ADS-B using 1090 extended squitter.
---------------------------------------
As before, no doubt an expert will be along to correct me if any part of this is wrong.
Chris N.
PS – where I wrote squawk, that should probably be “squitter". And of course, neither TCAS nor Zaon etc. can detect a non-transponder-equipped flying device of any sort - glider, paraglider, LAA non-electric type, or whatever. Nor falling parachutists. Nor birds. Nor radiosonde balloons.
Last edited by chrisN; 21st Jul 2008 at 13:31.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gpn01
Yes, the £10k and up "TCAS" systems are active interrogators. Your aircraft (if thus fitted) emits an omnidirectional burst every so often, triggering nearby transponders. Only Mode C or S transponders return a useful return though.
Actually "TCAS" is a wrong term as it implies the pilot gets an RA (resolution advisory) which is a voice telling him to climb or descend. The GA kit is not certified to do that. I think TCAD is a more correct name; you just get a screen showing other traffic, and warnings if somebody is getting dodgy. But the pilot decides what to do about it.
The cheapest Zaon box is IMHO crap because you get no azimuth info. If you fell asleep it might wake you up... The next one up (c. £1000) gives you rough azimuth info and should work well. I have flown with a couple of the latter; one kept picking up the aircraft itself, plus traffic, and the other one worked apparently well.
The problem is that it isn't easy to install it neatly - it really needs fixed wiring and a decent mounting surface, and the fixed wiring is a "grey area" in certification terms. I installed a Garmin 496 for its TAWS function (to get a "GPWS" functionality) and the resulting very neat wiring took the avionics man all day to do, and that was after I prewired a lot of cables with special connectors. In fact the 496 could have been mounted completely out of sight (with its on/off switch hot-wired or whatever) but I put it on the yoke and it forms a useful emergency backup GPS.
The whole issue of installing "portable" kit neatly, using what is inevitably fixed wiring and connectors, is a grey area (because the kit you are installing is not approved for a fixed installation, not coming with Approved Data) and needs a very friendly avionics shop and some technical knowledge, for fitting special inline connectors in the cables, so the "portable" kit can be removed for the Annual and then put back in. A lot of people have done it, but most wouldn't, and it needs to be done in a way which would enable you to get the Annual done at even the most anally retentive shop. Easier on the N-reg.
Yes, the £10k and up "TCAS" systems are active interrogators. Your aircraft (if thus fitted) emits an omnidirectional burst every so often, triggering nearby transponders. Only Mode C or S transponders return a useful return though.
Actually "TCAS" is a wrong term as it implies the pilot gets an RA (resolution advisory) which is a voice telling him to climb or descend. The GA kit is not certified to do that. I think TCAD is a more correct name; you just get a screen showing other traffic, and warnings if somebody is getting dodgy. But the pilot decides what to do about it.
The cheapest Zaon box is IMHO crap because you get no azimuth info. If you fell asleep it might wake you up... The next one up (c. £1000) gives you rough azimuth info and should work well. I have flown with a couple of the latter; one kept picking up the aircraft itself, plus traffic, and the other one worked apparently well.
The problem is that it isn't easy to install it neatly - it really needs fixed wiring and a decent mounting surface, and the fixed wiring is a "grey area" in certification terms. I installed a Garmin 496 for its TAWS function (to get a "GPWS" functionality) and the resulting very neat wiring took the avionics man all day to do, and that was after I prewired a lot of cables with special connectors. In fact the 496 could have been mounted completely out of sight (with its on/off switch hot-wired or whatever) but I put it on the yoke and it forms a useful emergency backup GPS.
The whole issue of installing "portable" kit neatly, using what is inevitably fixed wiring and connectors, is a grey area (because the kit you are installing is not approved for a fixed installation, not coming with Approved Data) and needs a very friendly avionics shop and some technical knowledge, for fitting special inline connectors in the cables, so the "portable" kit can be removed for the Annual and then put back in. A lot of people have done it, but most wouldn't, and it needs to be done in a way which would enable you to get the Annual done at even the most anally retentive shop. Easier on the N-reg.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for the various clarifications. My point was simply that devices of this nature do not pick up other aviation that isn't carrying some sort of transmitting device (glider, microlghts and hang-gliders spring to mind).
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually "TCAS" is a wrong term as it implies the pilot gets an RA (resolution advisory) which is a voice telling him to climb or descend.
TCAS 1 does not.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Do you know what it is? Yes
2) Do you have it? No
3) Would you buy/fit it? Have considered.
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
Not sure if this product is sufficently dependable. Would prefer azimuth info, but install problem with the larger unit.
Would like to have an affordable fix install TCAS, (maybe install the sensors with the wing-tip lights?) I'm convinced it's necessary, especially when low sun, coastal fog or industrial haze/ inversion. Eyes are not good enough. Anyone who believes their look-out is sufficent for fast jet conflict has never been there.
2) Do you have it? No
3) Would you buy/fit it? Have considered.
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
Not sure if this product is sufficently dependable. Would prefer azimuth info, but install problem with the larger unit.
Would like to have an affordable fix install TCAS, (maybe install the sensors with the wing-tip lights?) I'm convinced it's necessary, especially when low sun, coastal fog or industrial haze/ inversion. Eyes are not good enough. Anyone who believes their look-out is sufficent for fast jet conflict has never been there.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Do you know what it is?
YES
2) Do you have it?
NO
3) Would you buy/fit it?
NO
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
Because I am against portable stuff in the cockpit.
I am doing an exception only with the Garmin296 as a back up GPS / VFR advisory moving map and I use it only with its battery to avoid loose cables in the cockpit.
Also I believe these devices are not accurate enough.
For traffic awareness you need a device that shows you relative bearing and altitude with accuracy so you know where to look for instantly.
YES
2) Do you have it?
NO
3) Would you buy/fit it?
NO
4) If so, why, if not, why not.
Because I am against portable stuff in the cockpit.
I am doing an exception only with the Garmin296 as a back up GPS / VFR advisory moving map and I use it only with its battery to avoid loose cables in the cockpit.
Also I believe these devices are not accurate enough.
For traffic awareness you need a device that shows you relative bearing and altitude with accuracy so you know where to look for instantly.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really love my BF Goodrich TCAS.
I used it this morning, I like it very much.
Does it give me a false sense of security - absolutely not, it does enable me to locate traffic that my eyeball struggles to and makes me feel safer when in the soup.
It overlays on my G1000 MFD so there is no loss of situational awareness.
I still look outside, in fact it speeds up acquisition of traffic so much I have more time to scan the rest of the sky when VFR.
A safety plea - if you have a mode C transponder then please switch it to ALT, it lets those of us who have this great technology see eachother and also see those who don't have it.
SB
I used it this morning, I like it very much.
Does it give me a false sense of security - absolutely not, it does enable me to locate traffic that my eyeball struggles to and makes me feel safer when in the soup.
It overlays on my G1000 MFD so there is no loss of situational awareness.
I still look outside, in fact it speeds up acquisition of traffic so much I have more time to scan the rest of the sky when VFR.
A safety plea - if you have a mode C transponder then please switch it to ALT, it lets those of us who have this great technology see eachother and also see those who don't have it.
SB
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it give me a false sense of security - absolutely not, it does enable me to locate traffic that my eyeball struggles to and makes me feel safer when in the soup.
It overlays on my G1000 MFD so there is no loss of situational awareness.
I still look outside, in fact it speeds up acquisition of traffic so much I have more time to scan the rest of the sky when VFR.
It overlays on my G1000 MFD so there is no loss of situational awareness.
I still look outside, in fact it speeds up acquisition of traffic so much I have more time to scan the rest of the sky when VFR.
I was flying in the Bristol area and they identified a target (which I'd already seen) but not the 3 microlights in my 12 o'clock
Yes, advise those with transponders to use Mode C, if so equipped, but always bear in mind that the majority of very light aircraft are flying below 3000' and won't be transponding and may not even be radio-equipped. Either that or they may not be on your frequency.
Mk1 eyeball isn't perfect but, in reality, is your only equipment for a lot of flight modes...