Garfly

True, though I was meaning cartoons of this kind ... ;- )

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-general-assembly-calls-russia-make-reparations-ukraine-2022-11-14/

Actually, just about everybody nowadays. A single tap on your EFB/tablet, shows your NM/degrees FROM a list of every airfield within cooee. As well as any other type of aeronautical waypoint (editable for taste).

Same town, same farm, same plane and pilot, 6 months ago! ;- )

Having had a few days to gather facts and make a video, Juan Browne now offers this preliminary report:

Yeah, in some ways, the circuit is the most useful place for it. Obviously, your eyes will be 95% outside and on a swivel, but if it's well set up and used, a traffic screen needn't be more distracting than your ASI, say, or your downwind checks. Sure, less than half the VFR fleet is currently on-board but that's changing fast. Anyway, by the time you're near the airport, you might have sussed out which of your chatty circuit mates are true icons and which not. At least all commercial machines in the mix should light up. Might save the travelling public, at least. I've breathed quite a few sighs of relief near airports, catching possible conflicts on the fish-finder. For sure, my best efforts at converting circuit-chat to geo-locations are never as good as the wee pics on the iPad (and never as negligible a distraction).

For what it's worth, that 2016 FAA Advisory Circular has recently been replaced by AC 90-48E. If you wade through the whole belaboured document, you're likely to find its main message quite contradictory. It insists both that a pilot's visual scan remains the main game and that a pilot's visual scan is totally inadequate to the job of avoiding midairs. For example: 7.1 ... The NTSB released Safety Alert SA-058 on midair collision prevention technology, which states, in part, “The ‘see-and-avoid’ concept has long been the foundation of midair collision prevention. However, the inherent limitations of this concept, including human limitations, environmental conditions, aircraft blind spots, and operational distractions, leave even the most diligent pilot vulnerable to the threat of a midair collision with an unseen aircraft.” Then it goes on to push the need for ADSB ... before returning to its original theme. (I get the feeling that this is because regulators, in general, abhor the idea letting - or even appearing to let - pilots off the hook - any hook, especially in advance.) In any case, even CASA's equivalent circular, AC 91-14 v.1, takes a bit of a swipe at some of the FAA's visual scanning recommendations: 7.1.2 The current version of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AC 90-48 details a scanning technique that involves eye movements in sectors of 10 degrees of one-second duration per sector. However, scanning a 180-degree horizontal and 30-degree vertical sector would take a minimum of 54 seconds. US military research found that it takes a pilot 12.5 seconds to avoid a collision after target detection. Therefore, it can be deduced that considerable time gaps exist where traffic may not be detected during a normal scan period. Such a structured and disciplined scan technique may also be difficult to achieve. LOL FAA AC 90-48E.pdf advisory-circular-91-14-pilots-responsibility-collision-avoidance.pdf

Yeah, I'd have thought that in a fast jet formation your eyes need to be on your lead. Maybe the mistake was having two acts on stage at the same time. I'd have thought that the fighter guy had a right to expect clear air below during the show.

This young chap does a pretty good job of gathering what's knowable at this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3fZx8yntw

In his RV, maybe, but in his Thruster? nah, he'd barely have moved (other than to 6 o'clock ;- )

Which is probably why Juan Browne declined to show it.

Juan Browne's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7OZf0NnHLU

Yeah, I believe you are both very familiar with all of that; just at cross purposes. Something I've discovered recently is that if you run AvTraffic along with OzRwys (a published feature) you can have all available ADSB targets (plus FLARM et al) show up on the OzRwys display. 'Real' ADSB targets also display (fed by an SE2, or similar). Of course, you tend to get shadow a/c icons due to variable latency, but you get that anyway if you run OzRwys traffic with your ADSB-IN traffic. Plus, you can get an audible traffic alert (from AvTraffic) as long as you hook up your iPad audio to your intercom. I've never bothered with all that in the air but it's a good way to be able to see-it-all in one place (minus Mode C transponders, unfortunately) while you're sitting on the ground (wishing you were up there. ;- )

How about "Traffic! Traffic! See iPad for details." ;- )

I guess murmurations would blow the mathematical mind. LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVko9jyAkQg

Yeah, at $169 p.a, VFR Premium is about $1 a week more than the base version but I reckon it's worth it for Smart Brief and the Pilot's Touring Guide and being able to run it on 4 devices, quite apart from ADSB hardware integration. I haven't compared it feature for feature to the opposition but, tbh, once you know a platform well there's a bit of resistance to starting over again to save a buck. ;- ) https://www.ozrunways.com/au/products/plans-and-pricing/

Wow ... fascinating stuff, Glen. Do you know the people at Tailwind Software who do AvTraffic? https://avtraffic.com/# Their app has an audible alert feature which must be based on some kind of risk algorithm. But what you're on about seems at another level.

Do you think? I just took it as a part of their pricing policy. Otherwise, they each seem to do the same things, more or less. CLICK FOR FULL REZ:

T88, I think Mark is referring to KG's earlier post, pointing out that you need to buy OzRWYs Premium in order to have ADSB devices (like SE2) work properly with it. He's saying that AvPlan does that trick even on the base model. In any case, I reckon either package represents incredible value for money in the overall scheme of things.

BTW, I don't think this is a great model of cinematic coherence either; it's based on one of his chatty PowerPoint presentations. If we're "present in the room" we probably expect less in the way of clarity, coherence and concision than if we're reading a book, say, or watching a proper film. This is basically a spin analysis video with a few accident details and motherhood statements thrown in to pull it together and justify the generalised title. We don't even find out till the end that the accident guy got into a spin because he was practising stalls (solo) to sharpen his stick and rudder skills. What say you, PenName? ;- )

BTW, both those ATSB final reports, the Mangalore midair (02/20, AO-2020-012) and the Ballina near miss (12/20, AO-2020-062) came out around the same time, earlier this year. So I'm guessing there would have been some cross-fertilisation, which leads me to read between these lines (from the Mangalore report, quoted earlier): "The continuous positional information that ADS‑B provides can highlight a developing situation many minutes before it becomes hazardous – a significant improvement on both point‑in‑time radio traffic advice and ‘see‑and‑avoid’. The ATSB also notes that ADS‑B receivers, suitable for use on aircraft operating under both the instrument or visual flight rules, are currently available within Australia at low cost and can be used in aircraft without any additional regulatory approval or expense." https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-012 I reckon what they're hinting at here is that a $1K EC device (with its continuous positional information) might be a darn sight more useful in Airprox avoidance, OCTA, than a full blown $100K TCAS set up (which, for various reasons, failed to avert the close call at Ballina).

I agree. I bought my SkyEcho2 in mid 2020, as soon as they were on sale. Before that I had a small 'Ping' ADSB-IN gadget. So I'm definitely more of a believer than a dreamer in the EC device department. ;- ) But, when it comes to public policy, the reason the government might (in fact, does) choose to subsidise GA ADSB uptake is that 'our sport', whilst a user-pays activity, has the rare capability of bringing down an airliner. And then there'd be hell to pay. In fact, it came to within a bee's dick of just that in Nov. 2020 near Ballina. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-062 Anyway, the feds have at their disposal, both carrot and stick levers and, right now, they're giving the former a bit of a pull. My suggestion earlier in this thread was just that their plan might have worked better if the carrot had been a wee bit bigger, and a bit sooner, but, in any case, I'm not holding my breath for that, and I'm not hanging out for a subsidy. This piece in Australian Flying a year ago puts it in a nutshell: "The results of CASA's VFR equipment survey has provided the regulator with a view of GA that they never previously had ... But one thing that has raised some eyebrows is the lack of ADS-B use in VFR aircraft. CASA mandated the system for IFR, but has consistently maintained an encouragement policy only for visual flight, culminating in the development of a non-TSO standard for VFR, known as conspicuity devices. But the data shows that around 57% of GA aircraft and a whopping 83% of sport aircraft have declined the invitation to fit any type of ADS-B. ... what it means is that there are a lot of aircraft getting around that the ADS-B system is blind to, which dilutes the efficiency of the technology. It is hard to believe that, after seeing these figures, the word "mandate" has not been uttered between the walls of Aviation House. https://www.australianflying.com.au/the-last-minute-hitch/the-last-minute-hitch-1-october-2021

Sounds like an interesting app. Definitely worth a look. But you'd want to have a good look at all the features of the local EFBs first, with their NAIPS integration, their automatic updates of all charts and databases etc. and even their tight integration of the uAvionix ADSB devices, before you decided on what is and isn't a necessary feature for your own operation.