Traffic with direction

Anyone know anything about this? http://www.zaonflight.com

Dave wrote:

Anyone know anything about this? http://www.zaonflight.com

Its a passive system with a sectored antenna...

Altitude is read from the other planes transponder, one manufacturer
reads out the squawk code, so you kneaux who it is. Some derive altitude
from your own transponder, this one doesn't because it has its own
altimeter...

I think they hit a home run with this.


Dave wrote:
Anyone know anything about this? http://www.zaonflight.com

Could be... Brochure doesn't say much,

I find the claim of range accuracy at 0.2 nm *on average* to be highly
suspect. I doubt very seriously they can hit that number. But I don't
find that to be a show stopper. The other numbers they give should be
doable, although bearing quadrant will have some significant error in
it.

Wonder how big a deal the antenna installation is. They don't say
anything about that, yet it will need at least one and preferably two
antennas installed outside. STC???

I saw this at Oshkosh last week and got to see it work. I'm not sure
about the range accuracy though. I think they said it is within 0.2 nm
only when the other aircraft is within 1 nm. They did show a demo
outside which we watched the Ford tri-motor fly over and the azimuth it
showed was dead on, as well as the range and altitude from my
perception.

It doesn't need an STC because it is portable. The antenna is built
into it. They said that it is designed to be used in most aircraft by
setting up the aircraft type in a menu drop-down. From what I could
tell they have parameters programmed in to account for the way the
antenna senses through different types of aircraft. The direction
indications where actually in 8 sections. When the aircraft passed
through the 45 degree it showed two arrows filled in, and one arrow
when the aircraft was directly 90 degrees.

I have their previous generation VRX, and I am excited about trying
this one out soon.

The antenna is built into it. They said that it is designed to be
used in most aircraft by setting up the aircraft type in a menu
drop-down. From what I could tell they have parameters programmed in
to account for the way the antenna senses through different types of
aircraft.

Hmmm... that sounds highly suspect. So they can "see" through solid
aluminum (even an aircraft coming up from beneath/behind you) and
perform the complex DOA calculations to take into effect the shifting
antenna pattern -- without knowing where on the glare shield you placed
the device? I would think moving the antenna even a couple of inches
would drastically change the perceived DOA.

But heck, as long as they are paying royalties for violating the laws
of physics, I won't complain if it works. I'm going to look forward to
some good lab reviews on this unit. [Now, if we could just figure out
how to convince half the planes at my home airport to turn ON their
transponders... G]

Having read many of the comments, I thought it would be in the best
interest to share my experience. About 2 years ago I bought one of the
first versions of SureCheck's VRX alert systems, and have used it
often. About 6 months ago I requested a software upgrade, which they
did, and as well they asked me if I would be interested in beta testing
their newer XRX, simply because I also have the Garmin TIS in my Arrow.
The box I received represented overall the final product, minus a few
cosmetic flaws I'm sure.

My first reaction was that I was amazed that it is considerably smaller
than the VRX. It is odd looking, but easily fit on the top of my
instrument panel. They requested that I fly a minimum of 5 flights,
and record any, and all discrepancies, as well as any situations where
traffic was seen, but not shown on the display. The one question I
had was regarding the ability to accurately determine direction within
my cockpit, which is mainly aluminum. Their response was to that was
that they spent over 6 figures in development, and 4 patents to get it
right. Interesting...

Out of the 7 flights I flew with it, it accurately showed others around
me. There where times where the XRX would show traffic, and TIS would
show nothing even though I was looking at the traffic. At one point I
remember seeing on TIS a Cessna 421 300 feet below me about my 9:00
position and descending, where the XRX showed them 800 feet below me to
the right. The XRX was correct, and the TIS were off considerably.
The aircraft I was looking at was about my 2:00 position and on final
for LGB. I attributed this to the delay that TIS has. The majority of
the time the XRX and TIS agreed fairly accurately within maybe 200 feet
of altitude. The azimuth it showed was very accurate in my opinion.
One key thing that may be a factor is that you must set your aircraft
into it to help it determine direction. I did not notice any blind
spots, even though they said you may see some outage below you, and
behind you. I watched several aircraft past off my side and behind me,
however it tracked them with no problem in my perspective. Most of the
time when an aircraft first appeared on the screen, there was a 1-3
second delay before the azimuth was shown. In talking to them, they
explained that this was due to the sampling of signals.

My overall opinion was very positive. Minus a couple issues regarding
backlighting and power connection, which they said, would be corrected
for production, I think the azimuth it shows helps to really put things
in perspective.

Interesting... thanks for the information. Yes, as you are aware, the
TIS delay can cause significant change in apparent direction when the
target is at close range. A moments reflection, however, will show
that (except for aircraft doing substantial maneuvering) this is not a
big problem.

My concern about shadowing of the antenna remains. Even the high
dollar SkyWatch with TWO externally mounted antennas has significant
shadowing problems. As for shadowing "behind and below you" - one
plane climbing or descending into the other in the traffic pattern is
probably the most common mid-air scenario.

Regardless, this sure looks promising - and at a price about 1/5th of
the competition.

I tend to agree with you, however from what I understand, Skywatch
requires a two way communcation, where passive systems only require a
one way path. This could make a significant difference in signal
reception.

As far as "shadowing" I am not an expert, however I do know that I get
adequate reception of cell phone coverage within my car, and it too has
areas of "shadowing"
In addition, there have been several instances where I have watched
traffic descending below me, within the shadow of my aircraft, however
my VRX tracked them without fail.

I think it comes down to inginuity and determination. These guys are
obviously determined to make it work, and in my opinion I think they
have. I spoke with them on a couple of occasions, discussing the
technology. I do know that between them and their investors, they
spent a lot of money patenteting and developing this device. One of
their main concerns was preventing their competitors from copying their
work, as this has apprently been a problem in the past. Either way, I
think they have a winner on their hands........Of course the overall
judgement is dependant upon people who use it.

Hi!

Just want to shoot in a short question here.
I just got a VRX, and so far flew with it on 4 flights.

Seemed reasonably correct most of the time, but when entering an area of
more traffic after flying a few hours in mountainous area, the unit picked
up traffic at -4800 feet in one instance, and - 4200 in another.
That would put traffic at 100-200 feet, or on the ground.

Also, while climbing out from an uncontrolled field, I got an alert saying
same altitude and between 0.4 and 1nm distance.
Never say anyone, and noone on the radio either.

I had the impression that the unit would not display traffic if no
transponder reply. However, I find the two "ground" targets very suspicious,
and the close prox one even more so.

Could it be an error, and if so, what would cause this?
Maybe my transponder signal reflected in the water and came back into the
VRX? Or would it always recognise my own transponder?

Thanks

Frode


"Rich" skrev i melding
ups.com...
I tend to agree with you, however from what I understand, Skywatch
requires a two way communcation, where passive systems only require a
one way path. This could make a significant difference in signal
reception.

As far as "shadowing" I am not an expert, however I do know that I get
adequate reception of cell phone coverage within my car, and it too has
areas of "shadowing"
In addition, there have been several instances where I have watched
traffic descending below me, within the shadow of my aircraft, however
my VRX tracked them without fail.

I think it comes down to inginuity and determination. These guys are
obviously determined to make it work, and in my opinion I think they
have. I spoke with them on a couple of occasions, discussing the
technology. I do know that between them and their investors, they
spent a lot of money patenteting and developing this device. One of
their main concerns was preventing their competitors from copying their
work, as this has apprently been a problem in the past. Either way, I
think they have a winner on their hands........Of course the overall
judgement is dependant upon people who use it.