Zaon XRX PCAS issues

[Rod1]

“That it costs a lot to the average private pilot doesn't change the fact that it's a drop in the bucket compared to a real TCAS. the Xaon PCAS is a gimmick which has some limited use, but may serve more to misdirect and put heads down in the cockpit than it does to actually locate traffic. “

To try to bring so balance to this;

PCAS stands for Portable Collision Avoidance System. There are a number on the market from a number of manufacturers.

The Xaon units are designed for VFR use. Used correctly you do not put your head down in the cockpit. In this case, at night and under pressure the unit was way out of its design parameters and was probably a liability.

In the real world of VFR flight I find a correctly set up and installed unit to be a considerable assist to VFR lookout, which is all it is designed to be. The owner of flyer magazine has the same unit as you and has found it very good indeed, performing beter than the manufacturer say it should.

Rod1
(I spend a lot of time trying to raise the profile of collision avoidance as it costs about 5 lives a year in the UK, but I have no financial interest in any way)

[Fuji Abound]

In these aircraft, nearly every aircraft system was modified, and the exterior of the aircraft had numerous other antennas, attachments, hardpoints, fuel tanks, and equipment above and below the aircraft, attached to wings

The units were installed in an aircraft for which they were never intended and in circumstances for which they were not designed.

That it costs a lot to the average private pilot doesn't change the fact that it's a drop in the bucket compared to a real TCAS. the Xaon PCAS is a gimmick which has some limited use, but may serve more to misdirect and put heads down in the cockpit than it does to actually locate traffic.

Nonesense. It is just wrong to suggest it "puts head down" unless it is badly installed, wrongly used or misunderstood. I realy believe you are guilty of all three.

I dont mind anyone giving something a bad press if they can support their reasons but you cant. You fly the aircraft, deal with the tasks of doing so, scan the sky around the aircraft and if and when you receive an audible alarm scan even more carefully. If the alarm combined with the more careful scan enables you to identify a target you might have otherwise missed all well and good, if it doesnt, no harm has been done.

Honestly it is not rocket science. Heads go down for all sorts of other reasons and people's scans are poor. So the unit beeps, your head comes up or your scan becomes a little more intense. You spot the traffic and the unit has done its job. You dont spot the traffic, but the unit has reminded you of the importance of keeping a scan going - so it has done its job. As the last poster says it is not rocket science.

[SNS3Guppy]

The units were installed in an aircraft for which they were never intended and in circumstances for which they were not designed.

Really? Mounted on the glareshield looking for traffic wasn't the intent? You mean the advertising and literature is all wrong?

The use of that equipment was precisely the intent of it's design. It's just not very good equipment.

Again, perhaps you just feel badly that you've spent money on something that's not very good; perhaps you're simply emotionally invested in a bad product and somehow feel it reflects on your identity. Who knows?

This doesn't change the fact that it's not a very good product.

You fly the aircraft, deal with the tasks of doing so, scan the sky around the aircraft and if and when you receive an audible alarm scan even more carefully.

With multiple false alarms, one then scans the sky in the wrong place, one's attention misdirected to where the traffic is not...or in the case of missed traffic, there's no alarm and one's attention isn't enhanced one iota. Never the less, one may be deceived into believing otherwise, by those who issue good reports on bad equipment.

[Fuji Abound]

Really? Mounted on the glareshield looking for traffic wasn't the intent? You mean the advertising and literature is all wrong?

no I mean aircraft with:

nearly every aircraft system was modified, and the exterior of the aircraft had numerous other antennas, attachments, hardpoints, fuel tanks, and equipment above and below the aircraft, attached to wings, etc.

I am sure their is a forum for discussion of high tec. quasi military aircraft but it is not here. I am afraid we are happy to fly the typical GA stuff and I for one are just not interested in your ongoing attempts to impress.

With multiple false alarms, one then scans the sky in the wrong place

Which once again demonstrates you dont understand the equipment or how a visual scan should work.

I give up - this is just complete nonesense. I can only hope that I have said enough for anyone else reading this thread to appreciate it is nonesense and make up there own minds.

[SNS3Guppy]

I am sure their is a forum for discussion of high tec. quasi military aircraft but it is not here. I am afraid we are happy to fly the typical GA stuff and I for one are just not interested in your ongoing attempts to impress.

You see where assumption gets you?

These were piston powered civil aircraft. The systems on board were properly installed by professional avionics technicians, and maintained by the same. These would be "typical GA stuff," in fact, and the Xaon units on board were performing the same mission that any "typical GA stuff" is expected to perform. Looking for other traffic in low, slow general aviation type equipment. Go figure.

I have no need to impress you or anyone else, and have never had any intention of so doing. Were you to see the equipment in question, no doubt you would be highly underwhelmed, which is rather the idea.

Which once again demonstrates you dont understand the equipment or how a visual scan should work.

Really?

A visual scan involves dividing the sky into sectors and searching them methodically, and constantly. A visual scan involves ensuring that one's eyes are focused out of empty field myopia, that one is actually seeing where one looks, and searching near and far, high and low, one cockpit sector at a time with a continuous search.

When one's attention is needlessly diverted to a part of the sky where there is no traffic, one's scan is interrupted, and one may miss actual traffic while searching out and focusing on a phantom.

I give up - this is just complete nonesense.

Quite. You should have done that long ago, than drag out your emotional attachment to faulty equipment. Perhaps doing so might save someone else the wasted money on the Xaon unit in favor of more flight training and safety instruction; undoubtably a better investment.

[gregpdx]

PA-28 experience update?

I'm curious how the experienced worked out for the original poster, since I am also in a PA-28 with the split windscreen and have had some limited success so far with a newly installed XRX model device. I'm seeing some of the ghosting and sector flip-flopping behavior for some (legitimate and observed) targets, and wonder if there are any useful suggestions.

One thing I will do is to clean the transponder antenna thoroughly and perhaps try it with two different transponders. I can also try running it off battery power rather than airplane power temporarily to see if line noise might the the culprit.

Any suggestions or Cherokee tuning experience would be welcome.