I think there’s a section of GA pilots that just enjoying being awkward about anything for some reason. Same kind of people that use parent and child spaces while I’m struggling to get my 6 week old out because they “didn’t have them in their day” and “why should we have to comply”. I think there is probably a massive opportunity to conceptually tackle airspace design/access/infringements/MAC etc with EC technologies but I doubt we will ever exploit it sadly.
One way to deal with traffic in close proximity is to fly where there is little or no traffic 
If there are lots of gliders about, flying above the cloud tops will do it nicely. They can’t get there (well, not in the typical S. UK conditions, with no mountains around).
The problem, of course, is that mostly one cannot get a transit through the relevant airspace… it is usually Class A.
My mission was to fly experimental RNP approaches into Sywell. They follow a track and an altitude, so that way was closed to me. After two attempts, and starting a third, we gave up and went away.
Call it awkward if you want, but flying a 70 year old aeroplane with no electrical system it’s just a complete non-starter.
As regards the other aeroplane, I will wait until there is one clear and obvious ‘solution’. I put it in quotes because the ‘problem’ is not yet clear to me. It was safe (apparently) to fly around without such things 10 years ago, so why not now? It isn’t like GA volume has increased. I’m not going to spend money filling my cockpit with boxes and wires until the solution is obvious and the wrinkles have been ironed out.
Bearing-less targets are not a concept that fill me with joy. With the little box insisting that something is quite close but could be anywhere, how much time does one spend searching for it before giving up and accepting it will never be seen?
The MkI eyeball is completely useless for spotting random traffic in the open FIR, but in the circuit (where the risk is greatest) it works fairly well.
“70 year old aeroplane with no electrical system it’s just a complete non-starter.”
You mean those WW2 gliders, yes I saw a T21 and SG38 with FLARM…
Graham wrote:
Call it awkward if you want, but flying a 70 year old aeroplane with no electrical system it’s just a complete non-starter.
Why? Are there not units with rechargeable batteries now? That was certainly the plan.
Graham wrote:
I will wait until there is one clear and obvious ‘solution’.
There are not that many technologies, and several solutions cover them all. I have TCAS + ADS-B in my aeroplanes, and that covers most things but sadly not FLARM, and I was playing with PilotAware yesterday, which showed almost everything, though FLARM is rather short range if you are travelling at 160kts.
For the throwaway prices these things are, I would get yourself, at a minimum, ADS-B out. Then, at least people will see you. You will probably want to combine it with ADS-B in, once you see the benefits. £200 to potentially several lives, including those of your family? Surely that’s worth it, even as an interim measure?
Gliders use Flarm because the other gliders do and they have a high risk of colliding with each other when they deliberately congregate in the same area.
The logic doesn’t really apply to a non-glider which is generally not trying to congregate near other aircraft.
Timothy, I am yet to be convinced that the risk of a mid-air is as high as some suggest.
People are naturally terrified of them, because of the terrifying and (usually) fatal consequences. I think that fear is starting to get a greater hold than what the data tells us. Doubtless augmented by the fact that it means there is product to be sold and money to be made.
Your greatest risk is in the vicinity of an airfield, and until absolutely everything (every last Cub, Tiger Moth, Luton Minor, paraglider, drone) is guaranteed to show on your EC kit then you still need to be looking outside when in the vicinity of an airfield.
£200 is not throwaway to everyone. Although I might choose to buy a Pilot Aware tomorrow, not much of the stuff that buzzes around in circles at Enstone is going to show up on it. Thus I am unconvinced of the value.
Graham wrote:
I am yet to be convinced that the risk of a mid-air is as high as some suggest.
Let’s hope that’s not your last word on the subject 
Graham wrote:
flying a 70 year old aeroplane with no electrical system it’s just a complete non-starter.
Not really. You can get portable devices which do everything (ADS-B, Flarm, Mode C) which are totally independent with rechargable batteries. A device like this will also radiate your position at least for other Flarm users.
where it starts to get difficult is about transponders which imho are today something every airplane should have, no matter how old it is. I also suppose that ADS-B out will be the eventual way to go for all of this.
As for the risk… particularly below CAS and within range of a large number of uncontrolled airfields, I would judge it to be quite high. I know of several incidents which in two cases caused collisions where proper equipment would certainly have raised awareness. Every time there is a report by a TSB about this, they issue safety recommendations involving electronic collision avoidance. One day I am sure it will become law and in this case one that makes sense.
