| Author | Message | ||
     LOUIE LACY New member Username: Llacy Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-1999 |
After going into ATL yesterday with a TCAS unit in a Kingair 200 I have found I really miss knowing about traffic Has anyone tried the traffic detectors on the market such as Monroy, Surecheck etc. Do they work and how well??? Lou | ||
| Matthew Byrne New member Username: Mbyrne Post Number: 9 Registered: 07-2003 |
they suck, put simply, i had one, it even detected my airplane. I sold mine on ebay, it was completely useless. If you want something check out this guy in Texas, http://www.collisionavoidance.org/. He has some stuff for experimental guys that makes the transponders work right, but they also listen to other transponders and hook up to a gps and a computer so you can see what direction and altitude and speed the other guys are moving. He was in my town (Milwaukee, WI) last summer and gave me a demo. Best damn stuff I have seen in a long time. Basically it is affordable TCAS Matt | ||
| Phil & Margie Hodge New member Username: N410mp Post Number: 18 Registered: 01-2000 |
I second Matt's opinion. My Monroy was very good at detecting: me; other airplanes; it even told me about the Marina I flew over at 1500' AGL. What it didn't help with was bearing, and it's range estimates were pretty poor. I know Keith Peshak (CollisionAvoidance.org) and am glad and not surprised to hear that his equipment actually works. One of the many advantages of experimental is we're allowed to try this stuff. Phil | ||
| ThunderFlash New member Username: Thunderflash Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2005 |
What about newer technologies, such as ADS-B? http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/012605.html | ||
| ThunderFlash New member Username: Thunderflash Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2005 |
What about newer technologies, such as ADS-B? http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/012605.html http://www.garmin.com/aviation/adsb.html | ||
| LOUIE LACY New member Username: Llacy Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-1999 |
I have been using the Surecheck Traffic scope for about 1 year and it works fine. If you see one airplane that you would not have seen then it makes it worthwhile. I don't have a problem with picking up my own transponder. I think they will just get better with the price coming down. | ||
| Phil & Margie Hodge New member Username: N410mp Post Number: 35 Registered: 01-2000 |
Be very careful jumping on the ADS-B bandwagon. It will likely do all the things they say it will. It will also do a few more. Garmin's site describing ADS-B states that every ADS-B equipped aircraft will automatically broadcast position plus "... other information such as ... its flight number ...". Two problems with broadcasting flight number. First, it wastes bandwidth, thus reducing capacity of the system. Minor, perhaps, but real. Second, and definitely not minor, is who will be listening to "flight number" and what they intend to do with the information. Can everyone say "user fees", now automated such that they really could work? What about enforcement actions? It doesn't take much imagination to get some really scary ideas here. The reason stated (publically, anyway) by RTCA for including flight number is it makes it possible for the computer to project future position, thus better predicting and avoiding collisions. No, it makes it easier for the programmer, not possible. I know, I wrote a program to do just that without using any identifying information. It's possible without ID. | ||
| ThunderFlash New member Username: Thunderflash Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2005 |
Actually, if you have listened to the hub-bub, they are talking about getting rid of the fight number. But the flight number makes sense to me, it makes it quicky possible for ATC and the pilot ror positive identify a specific aircraft, in one of those sticky situations, immediately. The systems basically bring much of the info ATC folks have into your cockpit, giving the pilot a second set of eyes on the situation, and we all know of the routine screw-ups by ATC. Two eyes on a situation are much better than one. I know the folks in Bethel Alaska, under something called Capstone really rave about the system, and it has actually increased safety for them. Good articles on the setup, though things have evolved significantly from the articles: http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0010.html http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid =999&ModuleId=1284&Tabid=256 Safety impact paper: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/2004%20UAA%20Summary.pdf IMHO, fears over enforcement actions, where you have screwed up, thats a very good thing. We have seen the number of pilots flying drunk on the increase.... Air-to-air use of ADS-B is expected to (1) permit safely reducing aircraft separation standards, (2) improve low-visibility approaches, and (3) enhance see-and-avoid and (4) enroute operations. On the ground, ADS-B could (5) improve navigation on taxiways, (6) enhance controller management of surface traffic, and (7) minimize runway incursion and (8) landing and traffic conflicts. There have been plenty of incidences of CFIT, controlled flight into terrain, and the numbers get pretty high, when you look at it from a national perspective. Systems like that MX-20 MFD really help reduce the CFIT, as it is immediately obvious to the pilot where it is safe to fly and where it isn't. There was a story in one of those Capstone reports about a pilot that had just enough power to get through the pass, and from a clear day, in less than 15 minutes, he was in white out conditions, in the pass. That system probably saved his life, even though the system was not designed or certified for that purpose. There was another fella in one of the reports that had went down, and with the precise accuracy of the GPS, it allowed rescuers to zero in, right on the spot, and dispatch the team, where, otherwise search parties would have had to been organized, and the pilot would have been an ice cube by the time they found him. Pretty awesome stuff, imho. |