Portable Collision Avoidance Systems

[mattd_C152]

Folks

Does anybody have any experience of the Zaon Collision avoidance systems? if so how good are they? do they become a pain when flying in the circuit or do they pick up that aircraft that is cutting into the circuit? i know they rely on the transponder squawking mode chalie and i know theres no substitute for the old MK1 eyeball, but nobody is infallible. I'd be looking to use one as a stand alone piece of kit.

[Rod1]

Get hold of a copy of the Summer 09 edition of flyer. There is an article that covers this in some detail, including a flight test of the Zaon. The short answer is quite good.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

Well worth using the search function as this one has been done to death.

[XX621]

Yes it has been done to death, but here's three brief pointers from my use.

1. Recently had to send mine MRX unit back as it developed a fault (plastic bit fell off) -got it back within 10days and they had upgraded and replaced the case for the newer design . Excellent customer service, I liaised with only person who took personal ownership of the process.
2. It's a real eye opener (no pun intended) how much traffic is out there not transponding, I frequently visually identify Cessnas/Pipers within the range of the unit and no report on the unit at all.
3. It can be a distraction, you have to be manage the attention you give it, and be very clear on how to interpret the information.

Hope helps

[englishal]

I have the XRX interfaced to the G496 and it works very well.

[Ryan5252]

" Recently had to send mine MRX unit back as it developed a fault (plastic bit fell off"

I hear the plastic bit is critical to the whole operation of the unit!

[MichaelJP59]

I've had the MRX a couple of weeks now and I like it even though non-transponding traffic doesn't show, if nothing else it reminds you that you're not the only one in the sky even if you can't see anyone! As you say though, build quality is suspect, I had to get a new aerial and retaining nut after the first one just wouldn't stay on.

Also just got to read Rod's article - interesting stuff, Rod, and the combined unit mentioned including ADS-B and FLARM would be great in the panel.

[SNS3Guppy]

The XRX is subject to a lot of potential errors, and it's very easy to get wrapped up in gimmicks in the cockpit that distract from the more important task of flying the airplane (and looking for traffic). That said, I've had at least four recent near mid-air's of which I was alerted using a Zaon PCAS. Each occurred at night in areas with poor control and an unusual method of control, and in each case I would have had no way of knowing about the traffic, save for that unit.

I've also had hundreds of false warnings, "ghost" images, etc. Given the circumstances, I'm very certain the near midairs (which were same altitude, less than a tenth of a mile) were genuine warnings. In two of those encounters I saw the other aircraft in the dark...one as it's wing passed under mine.

My assessment is that it's better than nothing. I'm more familiar with TCAS equipment, and the PCAS doesn't come remotely close to the quality and capability of TCAS...but it doesn't come close to the cost, and is a whole lot easier to install, too. Realistically, few (if any) are going to install TCAS in their light single engine airplane...but PCAS offer an option.

An important difference with PCAS is that it's not active; it's passive. Whereas TCAS interrogates other aircraft's transponders, PCAS does not. If you're not in an area where other aircraft are being interrogated by either ATC radar or TCAS units, then you won't see them on PCAS.

[Fuji Abound]

If you're not in an area where other aircraft are being interrogated by either ATC radar or TCAS units, then you won't see them on PCAS.

Not much of a problem this side of the Pond.

I've also had hundreds of false warnings, "ghost" images, etc.

You were probably using one of the earlier units. I have run mine alongside TAS and over around 10 hours I did have a single false warning.

[englishal]

The XRX is subject to a lot of potential errors

Mine seems very accurate and displays the traffic on the 496 very accurately.

Perhaps it is how you have it mounted?

[Rod1]

“very easy to get wrapped up in gimmicks in the cockpit”

Provided you are using the unit in VFR, and use the audio to get you to look out the front before you look at the unit (as per the recommended use), this should not be a problem.

Rod1

[IO540]

One must not take these baits.

This "head down in the cockpit playing with the knobs" has been done to death.

If the ZAON directional unit could be mounted out of sight, I'd go for it too. Presumably it needs to have a direct view around, not obstructed by metal.

I looked into getting the full Ryan/Avidyne 600 system installed, a few times (£10-15k) but could not bring myself to have the plane taken apart over several weeks, with the relocation of most of the existing antennae and rewiring etc. Right now everything is working perfectly and I don't want to mess with it

[Heliplane]

In short, it's not a bad unit - I'd even venture to say it's pretty good. The distances shown are slightly suspect but the general direction of traffic and altitude has been pretty accurate. We bought one between 4 of us for our group aircraft so it was not a serious financial outlay. I'm not sure whether I would have spent £1k on one alone though.

It has shown traffic that I have not picked up with my eyes but it has also not picked up traffic that I have otherwise seen (perhaps these aircraft were not transponder equipped).

Personally, and some may disagree, I think the best traffic avoidance measures are, in this order:

1) The pilot (keeping a good lookout, flying at proper altitudes - although nobody seems to do this in the UK - alternatively flying at strange altitudes such as 3,700 as opposed to 3,500 or 4,000). Fly to the right of roads, tracks, etc. Keep your lights on.

2) Radar services - no reason not to always request at least a traffic service. I usually get this service provided it is not a Sunday.

3) Devices like the Zaon.

[Fuji Abound]

1) The pilot (keeping a good lookout, flying at proper altitudes - although nobody seems to do this in the UK - alternatively flying at strange altitudes such as 3,700 as opposed to 3,500 or 4,000). Fly to the right of roads, tracks, etc. Keep your lights on.

and some may disagree

I am one of those some.

Flying at odd altitudes has been done to death. Nearly everyone does and you are probably better not flying at odd altitudes.

Most pilots dont keep line features on their left. In fact if you fly regularly along the coast you will find regardless of what direction they are going they fly just off the coast for the views. I am not even convinced how many people know the "rule" or, if they do, are aware they are flying along a line feature.

See and avoid doesnt work when you need it most - you will see all the ones that just miss you but you will not see the one that is going to hit you.

In my view anyone who believes in see and avoid should go fly with someone who has TAS - it is an eye opening experience (excuse the pun ). You will never again believe you can totally rely on see and avoid.

Your other ideas are sound!

If the ZAON directional unit could be mounted out of sight, I'd go for it too. Presumably it needs to have a direct view around, not obstructed by metal.

You can - they do an external aerial and a panel mount kit - although as you know you will never get approval for the panel mount. With the external aerial I dont see the problem mounting the unit somewhere convenient but of course it does need to be vaguely in your line of sight even if the audio function is linked to your headset.

Personally I would never fly without either TAS or PCAS after a couple of bad experiences. Given PCAS is relatively so cheap I think people are nuts not to use technology like this when it is available particularly as it only takes one mid air to almost certainly kill you.

All that said I know the risk is very small so I equally understand those who dont use these units and I recognise my bias arises from a couple of incidents too close for my own comfort.

[SNS3Guppy]

Not much of a problem this side of the Pond.

I'm on the same side of the pond as you...just a little farther downrange.

In my view anyone who believes in see and avoid should go fly with someone who has TAS

I have no idea what TAS is..traffic alert systems, perhaps...but I generally use TCAS II...and I'm the missionary of see and avoid. Moreover, it's not just a good idea. It's the law.

Provided you are using the unit in VFR,...

It's very VFR presently, operating under VFR...but night, dark, few references, and a LOT of traffic, much of which isn't reporting, much of which can't. Simply being VFR means very little...because a VFR night here is still hard instrument conditions.

You were probably using one of the earlier units.

I was not.

I have run mine alongside TAS and over around 10 hours I did have a single false warning.

I have run them for several hundred hours in a variety of different aircraft and different units...not earlier ones...and have had hundreds of false warnings.

[englishal]

I'd be happier if we could fly at proper semi-circular altitudes in the UK, and everyone stuck to it. Unfortunately airspace prohibits this in certain areas and where it doesn't we have this silly quadrantal rule.

This "head down in the cockpit playing with the knobs"

So you saw the video of the porn star and the helicopter pilot over San diego too

[Fuji Abound]

I'm on the same side of the pond as you...just a little farther downrange.

I was going by your profile.

and a LOT of traffic

downrange of the UK at night VFR - I doubt that very much.

I have run them for several hundred hours in a variety of different aircraft and different units...not earlier ones...and have had hundreds of false warnings.

If that is so why would you persevere with an obvioulsy faulty unit that clearly is purely a distraction. If I were you I would send it back and have it replaced under warranty or check to see if there were issues caused by the aircrafts you are operating - you have read the manual that came with it, have you?

[Rod1]

You get any PCAS system to give faulty alerts and advisory’s by simply arranging for iffy power. If you use the small unit and rechargeable you get about 4 hours, and then it will give you lots of spurious results. Hardly a fault it the unit though.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

You get any PCAS system to give faulty alerts and advisory’s by simply arranging for iffy power.

Why would you do that?

If you use the small unit and rechargeable you get about 4 hours, and then it will give you lots of spurious results.

Presumably after ignoring the low battery warning.

Hardly a fault it the unit though.

True. Maybe that is SNS3Guppy's problem - low batteries or iffy power - anything is possible I suppose if you try hard enough.

[SNS3Guppy]

If that is so why would you persevere with an obvioulsy faulty unit that clearly is purely a distraction. If I were you I would send it back and have it replaced under warranty or check to see if there were issues caused by the aircrafts you are operating - you have read the manual that came with it, have you?

I don't get to choose what's put in the aircraft. I get assigned, I fly it. It's that simple. And yes, I've read the manual. It's on this computer, in fact.

downrange of the UK at night VFR - I doubt that very much.

What you believe or doubt is very much irrelevant.

It's also very much night VFR here, no matter what the conditions. We're somewhat southeast of you.

True. Maybe that is SNS3Guppy's problem - low batteries or iffy power - anything is possible I suppose if you try hard enough.

I certainly don't try to make the unit fail, and it's hardwired into the aircraft power. Batteries are not an issue.

The PCAS is better than nothing, but just barely...and where it may lead one to distraction, it may be worse than nothing in some cases.

I was going by your profile.

I'm international. Always have been.