If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance
Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles away, and because there are several airways that lie within several miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of help to others. Zaon MRX - This was the one I bought. Pros - shows threat distance and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, as well as military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); uses internal power (but can use aircraft power); is the smallest system available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - does not show threat direction; doesn't output threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $499 Zaon XRX - This is the one I really liked. Pros - shows threat direction as well as distance and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, and also military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. Cons - needs aircraft power; fairly large and tall, and must be mounted on the glare shield. Supposedly Zaon will offer a panel mount version with remote antenna in the future. List price $1795 Proxalert R5 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance and height; shows squawk code of three threats (but threats combined if same squawk); alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Combines threats with same squawk code on same line showing closest threat distance, and flip-flops threat altitude; needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; fairly large and hangs over glare shield lip. I also was turned off by the web site, when I see poor English in sales literature I can't help but wonder if the engineering was also done carelessly. List price $795 Monroy ADT-300 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance and height (but only if you have an altitude encoding transponder); alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); second smallest available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Needs altitude encoding transponder to show threat height; needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; doesn't output threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $795 Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military aircraft. You might have different requirements, so do check out the manufacturer's sites for fuller specs and manuals: http://www.zaonflight.com/ http://www.monroyaero.com/ http://www.proxalert.com/ A good single reference page to many Collision Avoidance Systems is he http://www.avionix.com/collis.html There are also some (fairly old) threads on RAS on this subject; you might wish to search for them. Be careful up there! -John (I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the companies named in this message). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
John,
Hello, haven't heard from you in a while. I'm curious as to why your research didn't include one whole class of CAS - transponders, both Mode C and Mode S. I know that they are more expensive, but, knowing you, I imagine you have a better reason than that. Ed jcarlyle wrote: Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles away, and because there are several airways that lie within several miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of help to others. .. . . snip . . . Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military aircraft. .. . . snip . . . -John (I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the companies named in this message). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
Ed,
Hey, how's it going? Yes, I do have a good reason for not considering a transponder at this time - no space for it in my panel, and not enough useful load left to carry both it and the battery necessary to power it (and I'm not about to steal operating time from the battery that powers my radio, glide computer, GPS and iPAQ). -John flying_monkey wrote: John, Hello, haven't heard from you in a while. I'm curious as to why your research didn't include one whole class of CAS - transponders, both Mode C and Mode S. I know that they are more expensive, but, knowing you, I imagine you have a better reason than that. Ed |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
John,
Thankyou for a really useful contribution. Putting an alerting system in my glider gives ME useful information that I can act on. Installing a transponder alone gives me no such information, although it MIGHT give second-hand info via FAA alerts to other traffic, or MIGHT alert other traffic to my presence if they have and use a CAS. And $500 is reasonably affordable, whereas the total cost of an installed and legalized transponder is much less so. Part of the present confusion is the proliferation of different technical partial solutions to the problem - transponders [mode C or S], TCAS, ADS-B, FLARM etc etc etc. Without standardization on one system, none can reach their potential. Without wishing to decry any of these systems, each one adds complexity and to some extent increases heads-down cockpit workload [even if only to note your battery drainage from time to time]. Heads-out situation awareness is a desirable state to aim for and should take preference over the other interests of techies. Who would like to use existing technology to come up with one fit-and-forget unit that would act as a flight recorder, GPS-enabled ELT, mainly-passive alert and transmit-on-alert-only transponder ? But at the end of the day, even with very good warning of an impending collision, the limited maneuverability of both a glider and a high-speed aircraft means that you need to put an eyeball on the threat to have a hope of avoiding it. We drive highways every day in reasonable safety - but just think about doing that with your eyes closed and your trusted passenger telling you where the other traffic is. Ian At 13:30 30 August 2006, Jcarlyle wrote: Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles away, and because there are several airways that lie within several miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of help to others. Zaon MRX - This was the one I bought. Pros - shows threat distance and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, as well as military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); uses internal power (but can use aircraft power); is the smallest system available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - does not show threat direction; doesn't output threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $499 Zaon XRX - This is the one I really liked. Pros - shows threat direction as well as distance and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, and also military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. Cons - needs aircraft power; fairly large and tall, and must be mounted on the glare shield. Supposedly Zaon will offer a panel mount version with remote antenna in the future. List price $1795 Proxalert R5 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance and height; shows squawk code of three threats (but threats combined if same squawk); alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Combines threats with same squawk code on same line showing closest threat distance, and flip-flops threat altitude; needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; fairly large and hangs over glare shield lip. I also was turned off by the web site, when I see poor English in sales literature I can't help but wonder if the engineering was also done carelessly. List price $795 Monroy ADT-300 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance and height (but only if you have an altitude encoding transponder); alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); second smallest available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Needs altitude encoding transponder to show threat height; needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; doesn't output threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $795 Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military aircraft. You might have different requirements, so do check out the manufacturer's sites for fuller specs and manuals: http://www.zaonflight.com/ http://www.monroyaero.com/ http://www.proxalert.com/ A good single reference page to many Collision Avoidance Systems is he http://www.avionix.com/collis.html There are also some (fairly old) threads on RAS on this subject; you might wish to search for them. Be careful up there! -John (I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the companies named in this message). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
Ian,
Thanks for your reply - you raise some very good points that need to be emphasized. I especially love the analogy about driving with your eyes closed, dependent upon your passenger to tell you about where the traffic is - see and avoid is still the king! I personally like the idea of ADS-B, but not at today's prices, size and power requirements, and also the fact that it isn't mandated for all aircraft flying in the US. Thus I think the aural alert with the distance and height readouts on the Zaon MRX and most importantly keeping my eyes out of the cockpit are, at the moment, the best approach to try and stay safe. -John Ian Cant wrote: John, Thankyou for a really useful contribution. Putting an alerting system in my glider gives ME useful information that I can act on. Installing a transponder alone gives me no such information, although it MIGHT give second-hand info via FAA alerts to other traffic, or MIGHT alert other traffic to my presence if they have and use a CAS. And $500 is reasonably affordable, whereas the total cost of an installed and legalized transponder is much less so. Part of the present confusion is the proliferation of different technical partial solutions to the problem - transponders [mode C or S], TCAS, ADS-B, FLARM etc etc etc. Without standardization on one system, none can reach their potential. Without wishing to decry any of these systems, each one adds complexity and to some extent increases heads-down cockpit workload [even if only to note your battery drainage from time to time]. Heads-out situation awareness is a desirable state to aim for and should take preference over the other interests of techies. Who would like to use existing technology to come up with one fit-and-forget unit that would act as a flight recorder, GPS-enabled ELT, mainly-passive alert and transmit-on-alert-only transponder ? But at the end of the day, even with very good warning of an impending collision, the limited maneuverability of both a glider and a high-speed aircraft means that you need to put an eyeball on the threat to have a hope of avoiding it. We drive highways every day in reasonable safety - but just think about doing that with your eyes closed and your trusted passenger telling you where the other traffic is. Ian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
How would you communicate with the traffic on a collison course?
121.5 ? Just wondering if there is a way to alert the other traffic of the possible conflict. Ray |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
Nice summary of the PCAS models available. Airliners and some corporate jets have TCAS; they can "see" you without having to be told by ATC. Smaller motorized traffic likely do not have TCAS; they need to be in contact with ATC to know that your transponder-equipped glider is nearby. My choice was the Zaon MRX. Small, small, small. I run it on the rechargeable batteries recommend by Zaon (multiple flights per set of batteries). This model gives relative altitude, altitude trend, and distance. And its beep beep is cheap cheap. It does not give azmuth information, but it has forced me to improve on the good old-fashioned rubber-necking see-and-avoid procedure. One of the advantages of the MRX is that the alerts are audible; we already have too much heads-down technology in gliders to install more equipment that requires visual monitoring. When my MRX gives two beeps, I start looking everywhere (mine is set to beep twice for traffic within 1NM and 1,000 feet). When it advances to four beeps, I start looking everywhere with super motivation (mine is set to beep four times when traffic is less than 1NM horizontal and 700 feet vertical). Portablility is an added advantage of the MRX. When doing intoductory rides for our club, I take my MRX unit with me. The advantage of PCAS over the transponder is that you, the glider pilot, is alerted to all traffic with transponders. This includes Cessna 152s, corporate jets, commuters and large airliners. If all I had was a transponder, I would have to be in communication with ATC and under radar coverage to be available to be told about other traffic. Airliners with TCAS are able to see transponder-equipped gliders and react. But, small powered aircraft cannot electronically see those same gliders unless those small powered aircraft are communicating with ATC (in a radar environment). PCAS (portable collision avoidance system) gives me more peace of mind. Given the choice between only some of them being able to see me, or me being able to see most of them, is the main reason I chose the MRX over a transponder. Last week, I had a couple of "two beep" alerts. Both of these aircraft came up from behind and below. But I was able to spot them sooner that when I did not have the MRX. But when Santa Claus comes with money, I'll have both a PCAS and a transponder. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
Nice summary of the PCAS models available. Airliners and some corporate jets have TCAS; they can "see" you without having to be told by ATC. Smaller motorized traffic likely do not have TCAS; they need to be in contact with ATC to know that your transponder-equipped glider is nearby. My choice was the Zaon MRX. Small, small, small. I run it on the rechargeable batteries recommend by Zaon (multiple flights per set of batteries). This model gives relative altitude, altitude trend, and distance. And its beep beep is cheap cheap. It does not give azmuth information, but it has forced me to improve on the good old-fashioned rubber-necking see-and-avoid procedure. One of the advantages of the MRX is that the alerts are audible; we already have too much heads-down technology in gliders to install more equipment that requires visual monitoring. When my MRX gives two beeps, I start looking everywhere (mine is set to beep twice for traffic within 1NM and 1,000 feet). When it advances to four beeps, I start looking everywhere with super motivation (mine is set to beep four times when traffic is less than 1NM horizontal and 700 feet vertical). Portablility is an added advantage of the MRX. When doing intoductory rides for our club, I take my MRX unit with me. The advantage of PCAS over the transponder is that you, the glider pilot, is alerted to all traffic with transponders. This includes Cessna 152s, corporate jets, commuters and large airliners. If all I had was a transponder, I would have to be in communication with ATC and under radar coverage to be available to be told about other traffic. Airliners with TCAS are able to see transponder-equipped gliders and react. But, small powered aircraft cannot electronically see those same gliders unless those small powered aircraft are communicating with ATC (in a radar environment). PCAS (portable collision avoidance system) gives me more peace of mind. Given the choice between only some of them being able to see me, or me being able to see most of them, is the main reason I chose the MRX over a transponder. Last week, I had a couple of "two beep" alerts. Both of these aircraft came up from behind and below. But I was able to spot them sooner than when I did not have the MRX. But when Santa Claus comes with money, I'll have both a PCAS and a transponder. jcarlyle wrote: Last week, before the Minden midair, I reviewed Collision Avoidance Systems with the intent of putting one in my transponder-less ASW-19. I was interested in such a system because my glider club lies inside the Mode C veil of PHL, because an active military air base is 5 miles away, and because there are several airways that lie within several miles of us. Here's the result of my research; I hope it might be of help to others. Zaon MRX - This was the one I bought. Pros - shows threat distance and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, as well as military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); uses internal power (but can use aircraft power); is the smallest system available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - does not show threat direction; doesn't output threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $499 Zaon XRX - This is the one I really liked. Pros - shows threat direction as well as distance and height; receives civilian signals A, C, S and 3/A, and also military signals X, Y and 2; alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. Cons - needs aircraft power; fairly large and tall, and must be mounted on the glare shield. Supposedly Zaon will offer a panel mount version with remote antenna in the future. List price $1795 Proxalert R5 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance and height; shows squawk code of three threats (but threats combined if same squawk); alerts are visual and aural (high pitched beeps); outputs threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Combines threats with same squawk code on same line showing closest threat distance, and flip-flops threat altitude; needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; fairly large and hangs over glare shield lip. I also was turned off by the web site, when I see poor English in sales literature I can't help but wonder if the engineering was also done carelessly. List price $795 Monroy ADT-300 - I rejected this one. Pros - shows threat distance and height (but only if you have an altitude encoding transponder); alerts are visual and aural (synthesized voice); second smallest available; can be panel mounted with remote antenna. Cons - Needs altitude encoding transponder to show threat height; needs aircraft power; only receives civilian A, C and S signals; doesn't output threats via RS232 to PocketPC type devices. List price $795 Please note that this list is biased towards my own needs, in a quiet glider with no transponder, operating with civilian and military aircraft. You might have different requirements, so do check out the manufacturer's sites for fuller specs and manuals: http://www.zaonflight.com/ http://www.monroyaero.com/ http://www.proxalert.com/ A good single reference page to many Collision Avoidance Systems is he http://www.avionix.com/collis.html There are also some (fairly old) threads on RAS on this subject; you might wish to search for them. Be careful up there! -John (I have absolutely no connection or financial interest with any of the companies named in this message). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
Nice summary of the PCAS models available. Airliners and some corporate jets have TCAS; they can "see" you without having to be told by ATC. Smaller motorized traffic likely does not have TCAS; they need to be in contact with ATC to know that your transponder-equipped glider is nearby. My choice was the tiny Zaon MRX. I use the rechargeable batteries recommended. This model gives relative altitude, altitude trend, and distance. Its beep beep is cheap cheap. It does not give azimuth information, but it has forced me to improve my good old-fashioned rubber-necking see-and-avoid procedure. One of the advantages of the MRX is that the alerts are audible; we already have too much heads-down technology in gliders to install more equipment that requires visual monitoring. When my MRX gives two beeps, I start looking everywhere (mine is set to beep twice for traffic within 1NM and 1,000 feet). When it advances to four beeps, I start looking everywhere with super motivation (mine is set to beep four times when traffic is less than 1NM horizontal and 700 feet vertical). Portability is an added advantage of the MRX. When doing introductory rides for our club, I take my MRX unit with me. The advantage of PCAS over the transponder is that you, the glider pilot, is alerted to all traffic with transponders. This includes Cessna 152s, corporate jets, commuters and large airliners. If all I had was a transponder, I would have to be in communication with ATC and under radar coverage to be available to be told about other traffic. Airliners with TCAS are able to see and react to transponder-equipped gliders. But the smaller powered aircraft cannot electronically see those same gliders unless those small powered aircraft are communicating with ATC (in a radar environment). PCAS (portable collision avoidance system) gives me more peace of mind. Given the choice between only some of them being able to see me, or me being able to see most of them, is the main reason I chose the MRX over a transponder. Last week, I had a couple of "two beep" alerts. Both of these aircraft came up from behind and below. But I was able to spot them sooner than when I did not have the MRX. Making transponders cheaper for gliders would be possible if the FAA relaxed some of its technical specifications. Since Santa Claus didn't show up with money, I can't have both a PCAS and a transponder, yet. Raul Boerner DM LS6-B |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Collision Avoidance Systems
jb92563 wrote:
How would you communicate with the traffic on a collison course? 121.5 ? We're not on rails, jb -- if you have time to talk, you have time to fly. And limited reaction time for either crew is a major factor. There is no requirement to monitor 121.5, nor is it practical. Considering the poor radio discipline of many pilots, such a requirement would be worse than useless, even if there were money/panel space for two radios or just for an upgrade to a two-receiver-in-one box configuration. Just wondering if there is a way to alert the other traffic of the possible conflict. Affordable tech would certainly help if universally available. As it is, full-time transponder operation is not practical for all sailplanes. Though 121.5 may not be the answer, the radio can be a more useful tool than we currently make of it. Sailplanes generally have radios and could certainly use them more aggressively. Frequently alerting ATC to your current position and altitude by voice contact, when transponder or primary radar returns are not available to them, should become our standard mode of operating. It's not like we cover ground by huge leaps. Regular position updates may also serve the glider pilot well when he is forced to land out, or bail out. Nationally, it's not sailplane operations that are the problem. Are there statistics to indicate there is an increase in sailplane activity in recent years? In fact, we keep hearing concerns about the opposite trend. The main problems are lack of crew awareness in a see-and-avoid situation, speed differential, the minimal profile of the glider in some attitudes (applies to different degrees to all aircraft), and -- related to speed differential -- the inability of even a maneuverable craft to escape the threat when it has been identified. Answers: training/crew discipline, and reduction of the speed differential by extending the 250 KIAS speed restriction to FL 180. See-and-avoid is far more effective when people have their heads out of their...cockpits. And especially when their speed is appropriate. Two-fifty below ten is no longer enough of a restriction, considering the increase in the number of turbocharged light planes being sold, and greater use of the mid-level airspace. Raising the 250 KIAS speed limit to FL180 can easily reduce closing speeds by 50 kts or more at those altitudes, will not affect Turbo Props much if at all, and gives everybody a better chance to see and avoid in VMC, whether VFR or IFR. Where the terrain out west is higher than we flat-landers have to deal with, the "250 KIAS below FL180" restriction brings speeds into alignment with what they are elsewhere in the country on an AGL basis, giving low-speed operators out west the same protection we have in the east at the altitudes at which the westerners are forced to operate. Also, the existence of "G" airspace below 2000' AGL anywhere in the contiguous states is an archaic holdover that ought to be ended. The lack of radar coverage is a fact in most of the country at those levels anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue. Who ran into whom? Well, the jet crew took it on the nose, not in the tail. The NTSB report could reverse that scenario for FAA enforcement follow-up, especially considering right-of-way rules, but I'm not betting the farm on it. The FAA is a political animal, too often driven by the media-perceived problem, and the media, when not willfully ignorant, more interested in the business advantages of emotional impact from a sensational headline than in what is simply the truth. Objectivity is boring for the average customer, so does not sell. I hope AOPA will be front-and-center in this situation--shoulder to shoulder with SSA--as AOPA's ox will be the very next one gored if restrictions to glider ops are proposed and enacted. Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Collision Avoidance Systems | [email protected] | Products | 0 | May 21st 06 10:15 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |