Which TCAS/PCAS??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which TCAS/PCAS??
The old saw: 
I'd really like to know which of any (or none) of the following options you'd consider for a single-engine piston display-linked traffic system which already has a Garmin 430W/Bendix King 150/Mode S/3-Axis AP/HSI:
1) The new Garmin GTS800
2) Avydine T600
3) Zeon XRX linked to the new Garmin Aera handheld 550 ( See this month's Flyer)
4) None of the above. So what else?
Can we accept, for the purposes of this post, that not having a traffic system is not an option.
Best
Slowflyer4491
I'd really like to know which of any (or none) of the following options you'd consider for a single-engine piston display-linked traffic system which already has a Garmin 430W/Bendix King 150/Mode S/3-Axis AP/HSI:
1) The new Garmin GTS800
2) Avydine T600
3) Zeon XRX linked to the new Garmin Aera handheld 550 ( See this month's Flyer)
4) None of the above. So what else?
Can we accept, for the purposes of this post, that not having a traffic system is not an option.
Best
Slowflyer4491
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have used the first three, and currently using Avydine TAS most of the time.
As you probably realise the first two operate in a very different way to Zeon; firstly they are active systems and secondly they have dual aerials. The way they process the information is also quite different.
Zeon warn in their manual that not all "transponding" aircraft will be seen - for example without an aerial underneath the aircraft in the circumstances they describe an aircraft may not be detected. Also Zeon relies on ground based (or other aerial based TS interogating transponders) so in theory if no one else is interogating other aircraft they will not be seen by Zeon. Since the vast majority of the UK is covered by radar I am not sure how much of a problem this is (albeit at low level it could be significant).
I have not used a Zeon linked to a moving map display so I cannot compare this with the first two. Without this feature there is obviously a huge difference between the systems in terms of your situational awareness of other aircraft. Displaying targets on a moving map gives an extraordinary improvement in where to look for traffic as does the ability to trend the height of the aircraft relative to you.
The first two systems are amazingly accurate. You are probably aware that theoretically they should not be used for "blind" traffic avoidance and the target should always be acquired visually. In reality with many 100 hours using TAS the aircraft has always been where indicated.
You will be aware that the first two systems are certified installations - in theory this should guarantee a certain integrity of the installation and the performance of the hardware.
Once you have flown with TAS it is difficult to fly without.
If money were no object I would opt for either of the first two options coupled to a large MFD.
As you probably realise the first two operate in a very different way to Zeon; firstly they are active systems and secondly they have dual aerials. The way they process the information is also quite different.
Zeon warn in their manual that not all "transponding" aircraft will be seen - for example without an aerial underneath the aircraft in the circumstances they describe an aircraft may not be detected. Also Zeon relies on ground based (or other aerial based TS interogating transponders) so in theory if no one else is interogating other aircraft they will not be seen by Zeon. Since the vast majority of the UK is covered by radar I am not sure how much of a problem this is (albeit at low level it could be significant).
I have not used a Zeon linked to a moving map display so I cannot compare this with the first two. Without this feature there is obviously a huge difference between the systems in terms of your situational awareness of other aircraft. Displaying targets on a moving map gives an extraordinary improvement in where to look for traffic as does the ability to trend the height of the aircraft relative to you.
The first two systems are amazingly accurate. You are probably aware that theoretically they should not be used for "blind" traffic avoidance and the target should always be acquired visually. In reality with many 100 hours using TAS the aircraft has always been where indicated.
You will be aware that the first two systems are certified installations - in theory this should guarantee a certain integrity of the installation and the performance of the hardware.
Once you have flown with TAS it is difficult to fly without.
If money were no object I would opt for either of the first two options coupled to a large MFD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's helpful. Thanks. Yes...I reckon that's probably right..and although most shops such as Harry Lees and IAE want to sell you the TAS 600 I like the idea of staying all-Garmin..also I really don't see the point of having a trafic system which you can't visualise on a screen..Allbest
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have added the obvious debate but you are probably aware that all of these sytems depend on other aircraft squawking, and squawking mode C or S if you expect to "see" their relative altitude.
Many aircraft do not have a transponder.
Gliders use an entirely different system (to the extent they use any electronic means of collision avoidance) - FLARM. FLARM will not be seen by any of the systems you mention and therefore if you wish to detect gliders using FLARM you would also need to buy this as well.
Many aircraft do not have a transponder.
Gliders use an entirely different system (to the extent they use any electronic means of collision avoidance) - FLARM. FLARM will not be seen by any of the systems you mention and therefore if you wish to detect gliders using FLARM you would also need to buy this as well.
