Not really, unless you’re flying something expensive with TCAS.
ADS-B can be picked up by all typical iPad accessories nowadays.
It was a question of preventing that kind of near misses, or near hits 
??
In Norway, except in more desolate places, such things are prevented simply by transponder and ATC (information). Won’t help you much at ENOP for instance, but all along the TMAs at the coast, there is nothing ADSB would do better. At ENOP and 3-4 other places with high density GA, it you would be much better of with FLARM in any case. Remember, gliders have right of way.
LeSving wrote:
Not necessarily. Curved paths makes a very different view.
But they don’t get that close: you would spot them and act unlike a constant dot on your screen which gives you 3 seconds to spot & avoid before it fills up your whole vision field from a single dot…
I saw one where gliding both of us head-to-head with 10m or wingspan offset, me flying downwind and him a slight offset upwind, a big cross-section just appeared out of nowhere top left of the canopy then over the wing, I did not have the time to process or react it was just a lucky miss
I have seen a few instances of this for real. Usually the target is spotted far too late to act.
That’s why I think the TAS605 installation I have was really worth the money. But still many fly non-txp. But far fewer do that above say 3000ft (in the UK, at least), so I don’t normally fly below that.
With curved paths it will of course look a bit different, but the same principle applies.
Not necessarily. Curved paths makes a very different view.
Fake or not, it is a good illustration as this point is really valid
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s exactly what you would expect on a collision course
At the end of the video, the pilot seems to be holding the yoke to bank left, but the pfd still shows the aircraft levelled…
I would say this is fake also, but it is very well done!
Near miss.. or near hit, it reminds me of George Carlin: „…boom, look, they nearly missed“.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Not exactly as the FOV doesn’t show the entire window. If they only discovered it later on the footage it would be a great coincidence, that they actually had the FOV in a way where the aircraft actually started on top of the FOV and did not fly into the FOV from the top or started somewhere in the middle of the FoV
I don’t follow the reasoning.
An aircraft on a straight collision course has the exact same bearing throughout, both in elevation and azimuth. If it is a near miss, then you would expect the aircraft to be essentially stationary in the FOV until it gets close at which point it would start move to the side or up/down. Which is exactly what the clip shows.
I don’t know if it is a fake or not, but your observation (3) is not an argument for that. If anything it is an argument against it being fake.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s exactly what you would expect on a collision course. (As Peter noted in the first
Not exactly as the FOV doesn’t show the entire window. If they only discovered it later on the footage it would be a great coincidence, that they actually had the FOV in a way where the aircraft actually started on top of the FOV and did not fly into the FOV from the top or started somewhere in the middle of the FoV
Malibuflyer wrote:
3. Field of view is perfect: The plane moves through the entire picture w/o moving the camera
That’s exactly what you would expect on a collision course. (As Peter noted in the first post.)
