Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

collision avoidance
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: collision avoidance

After two near  misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three

months, I would like  to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.

I currently have the MRX  and it provides distance and relative altitude

separation. Bearing it lacks.  The XRX is supposed to provide all. On

both misses, I believe the MRX got my  attention (although I don't

specifically recall) and I spotted traffic  between 11:45 and 12:15 at

1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and  >100<200 below me. In one instance I

jammed the stick forward and  lifted the tool box in the rear from the

floor. On both occasions I was  monitoring CHD tower and no advisories

were issued. From what I could tell  both of the other aircraft were

missed approachs or departures from CHD. When  traveling through or

above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from  CHD tower" and

reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently  flying the

Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st  quarter.



Ryan TCAD is out (too  expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is becoming  obsolete).

    [quote][b]

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: collision avoidance

David McNeill wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		           After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three

 months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.

 I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude

 separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On

 both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't

 specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at

 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I

 jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the

 floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories

 were issued.

 	
 Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their controlled airspace.

  	  Quote: 	
		      >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were

 missed approachs or departures from CHD.

 	
 Which means that maybe they were talking to center and not under tower control either??  Just a thought.  You did what you should have done .... see and avoid.  I shudder to think of all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their attention from outside  ......  to inside ..... and thereby missing an opportunity to see and avoid.  I, too, have had some way too close calls ...... even though almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.

 Linn

 do not archive

 [quote]    When traveling through or

 above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and

 reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the

 Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.

   

   Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is becoming obsolete).

    	  Quote: 	
		  

	
 [b]

AirMike

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 514
Location: Nevada

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: Collision avoidance

I have the XRX that I used in my 182 till I sold it last year to build the new RV10. So far I am impressed with the unit and probably more important - the company.  The unit is not an excuse for heads down VFR flying. View it as a tool in your tool box of avionics



I find that the delay is significant on the unit, but being aware of that gives you a lot of what you need to know anyway. The Xaon people are very nice. My unit is going back to them this week for a FREE software/firmware upgrade so that it will link to my GPS496 unit and display on the display of the GPS496. Can you get a better deal than that for TCAS for less than $2K.



Jason (the president of Xaon) is aways at OSH and is very approachable.

Last year he told me that he would trade my XRX in at full value when they come out with their hard wired installation. He might even do the same on an MRX to XRX upgrade.

_________________
See you OSH '18
Q/B - sold.

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

After some discussion I am of the opinion that my problem  is with CHD tower. One time I was in their class D and the other I was above  their class D. The other aircraft were near the top of their class D after  departure from CHD or a practice approach to CHD. There is another problem  there also where I had a different class D to the East going up another 1000  feet and class B to the West that was at of below the HD class D upwards to  10000. Essentially FAA has created a VFR funnel for North to South traffic  there. Since there was little or no COM traffic on CHD tower frequency, one  would think that they could at least provide advisories to the aircraft leaving  their airport. They have a radar slave unit  there.

   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn  Walters

Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:16 PM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: collision  avoidance

David McNeill wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		        After two    near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three

months, I    would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.

I currently    have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude

separation.    Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On

both misses, I    believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't

specifically recall) and    I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at

1/4 mile and eithor <100    above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I

jammed the stick    forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the

floor. On both    occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories

were    issued.

Playing Devils Advocate here ..... you  were outside of their controlled airspace.

  	  Quote: 	
		     >From what    I could tell both of the other aircraft were

missed approachs or departures    from CHD.

Which means that maybe they were  talking to center and not under tower control either??  Just a  thought.  You did what you should have done ..... see and avoid.  I  shudder to think of all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their  attention from outside  ......  to inside ...... and thereby missing  an opportunity to see and avoid.  I, too, have had some way too close calls  ..... even though almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.

Linn

do  not archive

 [quote]   When    traveling through or

above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything    from CHD tower" and

reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am    currently flying the

Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies    in 1st quarter.

Ryan TCAD is out    (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is becoming    obsolete).

 	  Quote: 	

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

[b]

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

I've experienced similar episodes most everywhere I've flown,

including FFZ and IWA airspace. Other than listening to their traffic

and keeping head on a swivel, there isn't a lot you can do. IMHO, an

in-cockpit device is useless unless you have a second pilot to watch

it. Especially in a high traffic area.  Right now you have 1000ft

between the top of D and bottom of B airspace. If CHD has its way,

that will get reduced to 500 ft before too long. With the PHX Class B

redesign any in cockpit view has to be on map/gps for staying out of

the B airspace, not looking at some fishfinder.



On Dec 16, 2007 12:15 PM, linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

  David McNeill wrote:

 After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three

  months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.

  I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude

  separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On

  both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't

  specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at

  1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I

  jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the

  floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories

  were issued. Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their

 controlled airspace.

  >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were

  missed approachs or departures from CHD. Which means that maybe they were

 talking to center and not under tower control either??  Just a thought.  You

 did what you should have done ..... see and avoid.  I shudder to think of

 all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their attention from

 outside  ......  to inside ...... and thereby missing an opportunity to see

 and avoid.  I, too, have had some way too close calls ...... even though

 almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.

  Linn

  do not archive



  When traveling through or

  above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and

  reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the

  Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.



  Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S

 is becoming obsolete).

darnpilot(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

I plan to use my G496 as a display for the XRX.  It feed its data to the 496 as a pseudo TIS signal.  Pretty neat.  I will use the XRX as a receiver only and mount it out of the way and out of sight.  I am going to wait until SNF to see if something better is available, if not, this is what I am going to do by May '08.  Has any one else done anything similar?

    

   Jeff

 

 

 --

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

Not really. You can go west below 4000 ft and stay out of CHD

airspace, or you can go south through Willie airspace at 3500.

Remember that CHD and Willie both operate on two tower freqs, which

may or may not be operated by the same person, so they can be busy on

one side while you hear little or nothing on the other. While

advisories are nice, in Class D airspace I certainly don't expect them

for anything other than sequencing to the runway or conflicts between

arriving and departing traffic. As was mentioned, almost always a

missed approach will be back on approach freq and tower won't be

paying any attention to them.  Not saying you are wrong, but a VFR

tower doesn't supply more than runway separation and anything extra is

gravy.



On Dec 16, 2007 1:20 PM, David McNeill <dlm46007(at)cox.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 After some discussion I am of the opinion that my problem is with CHD tower.

 One time I was in their class D and the other I was above their class D. The

 other aircraft were near the top of their class D after departure from CHD

 or a practice approach to CHD. There is another problem there also where I

 had a different class D to the East going up another 1000 feet and class B

 to the West that was at of below the HD class D upwards to 10000.

 Essentially FAA has created a VFR funnel for North to South traffic there.

 Since there was little or no COM traffic on CHD tower frequency, one would

 think that they could at least provide advisories to the aircraft leaving

 their airport. They have a radar slave unit  there.



  ________________________________

  From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters

 Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:16 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: collision avoidance

 David McNeill wrote:

 After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three

 months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.

 I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude

 separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On

 both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't

 specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at

 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I

 jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the

 floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories

 were issued.Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their

 controlled airspace.

 >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were

 missed approachs or departures from CHD.Which means that maybe they were

 talking to center and not under tower control either??  Just a thought.  You

 did what you should have done ..... see and avoid.  I shudder to think of

 all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their attention from

 outside  ......  to inside ...... and thereby missing an opportunity to see

 and avoid.  I, too, have had some way too close calls ...... even though

 almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.

 Linn

 do not archive

 When traveling through or

 above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and

 reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the

 Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.



 Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is

 becoming obsolete).

 href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

I once was able to visit the guys handling the BED tower (Hanscom field), a

very busy GA airport near Logan, outside of Boston.  This was where I

learned how to fly and before the new tower was built.  My instructor

insisted that all his students spend an hour in the tower during busy times.

What a lesson!  They had what looked like a very crude radar feed from

Logan, but mostly depended on the accuracy of radio reports and their eyes

to see what was happening, helped by some binoculars.  They were plenty busy

tring to keep the incoming jets, Mooney's, Bonanza's, twins of all types,

the occassional commuter turbo prop, all from playing havoc with each other

and all the while avoiding the many student driven Katana's putting around

at 80 knots.  It didn't happen the day I got to visit the tower, but it

wasn't unusual for them to "forget" an extended downwind plane when things

got hairy.  I had two close calls coming into the pattern at BED, especially

one where an unfamiliar (to the area) pilot came across the field almost at

pattern altitude, scaring the tower personnel so much that they totally

forgot about me as they tried to get that a&& under control.  Anyway, I

agree with the other posts.  You cannot expect some of the tower personnel

to be doing much more than keeping folks separated, especially at busy

arrival or training times.  PIC responsibility is paramont at these times.  



John J

  40328



--

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: collision avoidance

In a message dated 12/16/2007 1:30:04 PM Central Standard Time,  pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Playing    Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their controlled    airspace.

	


 

 Class D is advisory for traffic not control as in Class Alpha  or Bravo....

  

 P



See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

  [quote][b]

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

And on one of the occasions he said he was above the class D...hence in class E.



On Dec 17, 2007 6:54 AM,  <GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 In a message dated 12/16/2007 1:30:04 PM Central Standard Time,

 pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net writes:

 Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their controlled

 airspace.

 Class D is advisory for traffic not control as in Class Alpha or Bravo....



 P

 ________________________________

 See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

cjay

Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 53

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: collision avoidance

This is a scenario where you would be hard pressed to beat ADS-B for traffic awareness.  You are outside of radar control or controllers are too busy to notice;  ADS-B would give you a clear picture of traffic (altitude, bearing, and direction) without ATC help.



Unfortunately, most people don't understand it, and no one is using it yet.  Not cheap enough yet either, the GDL-90 is about $7K and you need an EFIS/MFD  that displays it.



Also, ground station coverage is only on the east coast right now.



cjay

 

 	  apilot2(at)gmail.com wrote: 	
		  And on one of the occasions he said he was above the class D...hence in class E.



On Dec 17, 2007 6:54 AM,  <GRANSCOTT> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 In a message dated 12/16/2007 1:30:04 PM Central Standard Time,

 pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net writes:

 Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their controlled

 airspace.

 Class D is advisory for traffic not control as in Class Alpha or Bravo....



 P

 ________________________________

 See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

The ADS-B transmitters were turned on in Salem, Oregon last Monday and

are working in several eastern seaboard states from Florida through

Washington, DC.



Someone needs to break the stranglehold on Oregon based Garmin so that

"Supply and Demand" makes this a more common of a collision avoidance

system than $7K.  The EFIS solution is being solved one RV-10 at a time.

Till then, some are using ZAON patched to their GPS screen.



John



--

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: Collision avoidance

Speaking of the Zaon to the 496.....  Anyone tried this yet?  Is the

resultant inset readable?  I am seriously considering doing this, but only

if I don't have to spend too much heads down time trying to read a tiny

inset screen.  Any experiences?  



John J

  40328



--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

The methodology from the FED and the FAA is to transfer the

infrastructure cost from an aging, (expensive to maintain) radar based

IFR ATC system to one where the main cost is the components that are

funded by the direct user in the aircraft in the ATC system.  RSVM  and

Mode S were two such maneuvers.



Awaiting Sen Lott's replacement to give direction to FAA funding after

the first of the new year.  Then 12 months before everything goes Topsy

with the new 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue habitant.  Would love to see a $3K

box as an alternative to the GDL-90.  You all built rack mounts for

those, Right?



John



--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: Collision avoidance

Query Bruce Radke on his Zaon.



John C



--

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: Collision avoidance

I bought the XRX; it arrives tomorrow. I did learn that , for me, it will be

a standalone unit. To use and see on the GRT screen a serial port IN/OUT is

required. It must be operating at 56KB. On my Sport EFISs, I don't have one

to spare. I will advise the group after a couple of weeks of flying. The MRX

and XRX will sit together on the glare shield of the Glastar. Only the XRX

will sit atop the 10 panel. If they ever provide traffic to the Cheltons I

may have traffic on them. 



--

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

will solve the rack mount when the need arises. My 30 years in the computer

business (prior to retirement) always showed that a smaller, less expensive

, more capable solution was due out next year. And it was (except when

involving the Feds or FAA). But waiting for that meant I go without now.

Perhaps the XRX only solves 90% of the possible traffic problem (transponder

equipped and operating), my eyeballs and ATC radar (operating IFR) will have

to do the remainder. After that we depend on the probability of two aircraft

not operating in the same ocean of air at the same location and same time. 



--

wcurtis(at)nerv10.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

Since there is nothing proprietary about ADS-B, how does "Oregon based Garmin" have a "stranglehold?"



William

http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

-- Dr. Suess 



------

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: collision avoidance

Lack of viable competition creates a stranglehold for most competitors

and hence the customer.  More suppliers, constant demand - better

pricing.  The GDL-90 is made in Salem, Oregon.



John



--

wcurtis(at)nerv10.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: collision avoidance

Ah, got it.  But I think it is the fault of the competition (Bendix/King, Chelton, L3, Aviddyne, et al).  



I guess I'm trying to figure out what is preventing the competition from coming out with their own product and giving Garmin a run for their money.  I don't see the experimental EFIS makers entering this market because as with Transponders and GPS, ADS-B devices will probably have to be TSO'd, even for experimentals.  Garmin used GPS to spearhead their way to avionics dominance, and nothing I see should prevent one of the other vendors from using ADS-B to do the same.  I don't see this a the fault of Garmin, I see it as the fault of the so-called competition.



William

http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

-- Dr. Suess 



------

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum