ChiefPilot
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 44
You will never see a variety of different aircraft, both manned and not, with ADS-B/TIS. For that matter, you will not see birds either. I'm not really sure what your point is.
ADSB 472
- Thread starter jethound
- Start date
You will never see a variety of different aircraft, both manned and not, with ADS-B/TIS. For that matter, you will not see birds either. I'm not really sure what your point is.
CGameProgrammer
I love flying!
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 132
I was responding to Steve's comment about our eyeballs being used to keep us safe from drones. They do not and cannot.
swatson999
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,533
"Drones" can mean a lot of things. Are you talking about the hobbyist drones, like DJI products and other quadcopters? Are you talking about full-up military drones like a Predator or such?
Oh yes they do and can.
No one system is 100% infallible. Using multiple systems each augmenting the other's weakness is the absolute best approach to increased safety. Blindly thinking that one system will provide 100% safety is foolish at best. Of all the available systems, the mark I eyeballs are still the best available for actually avoiding crashing into another object.
Sorry, but that is not true, not even close to being true. There have been numerous studies, over many years, in many countries, demonstrating the inadequacy of see-and-avoid. Fact is, even if ADS-B calls out a conflict, or the Tracon calls out one, the percentage of visual confirmations is abysmal. I experience this daily with four Mk I eyeballs straining.
I suggest you google the subject so I don't have to, in order to provide the relevant Links.
Bob Bogash
RV-12
I suggest you google the subject so I don't have to, in order to provide the relevant Links.
Bob Bogash
RV-12
I agree 100%. Dynon's position in this makes them look like the dark side supplier Brand G.
I think Dynon's initial position was understandable, but technology has overtaken them and their strategy is fizzling before their eyes. Best they contemplate their navel and throw in the towel on this one.
The 470 was their going-in position, and it was noble. And it works. Priced reasonably at about $1200. But then we, the customer base, complained about not having the dual freq capability. So, they responded with the 472. Dual freq solutions began appearing in the marketplace at ever lower prices. One was uAvionix's PingBuddy. I posted here about it. Then came the PingBuddy 2. $149. Dynon must be reading this stuff, for lo and behold, the Ping Buddy seems to have been adopted as a quick and dirty solution to dual freq in, with their circuit board showing up in the 472 ("powered by uAvionix.") New price - $795. Smaller, Better, Cheaper.
Meanwhile, it seems everyone and his uncle began banging these ADS-B IN boxes together in their garage and new ones are appearing daily in the $150-200 price range, and some kit built ones for even less. ADS-B IN is becoming readily available, and on-the-cheap. Some are good and some are bad, but eventually, they'll be just like a bunch of other tech hardware, they'll become generic, cheap and reliable.
Have you noticed they are being embraced by much of the industry? ForeFlight has abandoned their long time pal Stratus and are advertising compatibility with these new cheap gadgets. FlyQ also. Why, both those vendors are actually selling the Cheapo's on their websites and promoting them in their mailings! Dynon - are you paying attention?
These new gadgets seem to do a respectable job feeding our tablets. Using my ipad has never been a satisfactory experience for me, altho I do use it a fair amount. But I don't want to be grabbing it for traffic alerts, trying to read it while trying to look for the conflict and fly my airplane too. I want it on my Skyview screen. My tablet apps can talk back and forth to Skyview via my Wi-Fi dongle. So why can't this feature as well, either via FF as the intermediary or direct?
The answer is - it could if Dynon wanted to make it possible - via accepting the protocols as described in these threads. But, they won't. Initially, they were protecting their market for their $1200 box, which became a $800 box. Understandable. But, in my view, this market is evaporating in front of their eyes as the ADS-B IN feeds are soon gonna be $100 gizmos.
Worse yet, they've not only expended the R&D bucks to develop first the 470, and then later the 472, but are now burning cash as they try to solve the problems in the 472. It seems to me this is now the Hold 'em or Fold 'em time and they would be smart to Fold 'em and cut their losses.
My solution: Continue to offer the 470, maybe at reduced price; Deep-six the 472; and offer protocol compatibility so that the new new cheap gizmos can talk to Skyview. Then any disconnects can be referred to the gizmo maker.
Me? I love these things, but I held off on the 470 because I could see a downward spiral coming in the prices. Guys were selling really cheap and really attractive kits. With upgrades coming every week. It was clear this was a feature in full development turmoil, and I figured I'd wait until it shook out. I didn't really want to run coax to the back of my ship, install a new antenna, yadda yadda. I'm still waiting, but I figure Dynon will see the light.
Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
Oh yes they do and can.
No one system is 100% infallible. Using multiple systems each augmenting the other's weakness is the absolute best approach to increased safety. Blindly thinking that one system will provide 100% safety is foolish at best. Of all the available systems, the mark I eyeballs are still the best available for actually avoiding crashing into another object.
And I suggest you read the ENTIRE post. I highlighted the relevant part for you so you don't have to work too hard.
Schorsch
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2015
- Messages
- 66
Mr. Bogash +1, and +2
RayInGA, my mistake in not communicating clearly: I meant to refer to the uAvionix ADSB-OUT products they sell for drones AND GA, which are under the FAA’s jurisdiction to keep us aviators and our passengers safe. If they can’t get ADSB-IN done right WITHOUT being responsible for the antenna wave propagation stuff, can we trust them to do everything right on the seemingly much more complex ADSB-OUT in a self-contained unit of GPS + antenna + xpndr with all the software? And how about uAvionix not stepping up and issuing a recall/replacement for their buggy hardware/software? NavWorx did almost the same and then just declared bankruptcy when the FAA caught them.
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Drone-Collisions-Worse-Than-Birds-FAA-Says-229984-1.html
RayInGA, my mistake in not communicating clearly: I meant to refer to the uAvionix ADSB-OUT products they sell for drones AND GA, which are under the FAA’s jurisdiction to keep us aviators and our passengers safe. If they can’t get ADSB-IN done right WITHOUT being responsible for the antenna wave propagation stuff, can we trust them to do everything right on the seemingly much more complex ADSB-OUT in a self-contained unit of GPS + antenna + xpndr with all the software? And how about uAvionix not stepping up and issuing a recall/replacement for their buggy hardware/software? NavWorx did almost the same and then just declared bankruptcy when the FAA caught them.
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Drone-Collisions-Worse-Than-Birds-FAA-Says-229984-1.html
I read all of your posting and noted the last sentence in particular. Snarkiness not necessary.
"Of all the available systems, the mark I eyeballs are still the best available for actually avoiding crashing into another object."
Sorry but Mark I eyeballs still are unreliable, despite your posting. And that goes for AIRPLANES. Your assertion that they are good for DRONE avoidance begs credibility. FAA writings on the subject merely confirm the obvious - unless it's a Predator sized UAV, your chances of seeing one in time to avoid collision are nil.
Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
"Of all the available systems, the mark I eyeballs are still the best available for actually avoiding crashing into another object."
Sorry but Mark I eyeballs still are unreliable, despite your posting. And that goes for AIRPLANES. Your assertion that they are good for DRONE avoidance begs credibility. FAA writings on the subject merely confirm the obvious - unless it's a Predator sized UAV, your chances of seeing one in time to avoid collision are nil.
Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
airguy
Active Member
Children, please.
ADSB is just another tool to use, or not, as you see fit. If you like it, use it. If not, then not.
ADSB is just another tool to use, or not, as you see fit. If you like it, use it. If not, then not.
A
alexe
Guest
Air guy, I would love to use it, but unfortunately the -472 does not work.
Dynon, could you please give us a CURRENT and COMPLETE update regarding the status of the fix?
Alex
Dynon, could you please give us a CURRENT and COMPLETE update regarding the status of the fix?
Alex
jakej
Well-Known Member
Guys, Dynon has said they have a solution & they are working on it & I'm sure they will advise asap - everyone wants to get it to market, but not before it's ready.
Many of us still use our eyes & have some reticence to trust 'gadgets' completely however they (gadgets) can also provide extra assistance when wanted/needed.
My real concern, in the short term, is being able to 'see' small drones & if I'm going to use a method for their detection I want it to be reliable & accurate without any false alarms, I'm prepared to wait
Many of us still use our eyes & have some reticence to trust 'gadgets' completely however they (gadgets) can also provide extra assistance when wanted/needed.
My real concern, in the short term, is being able to 'see' small drones & if I'm going to use a method for their detection I want it to be reliable & accurate without any false alarms, I'm prepared to wait
Agree with Jake. Chill and let Dynon get it done within the parameters they define, not you!
2.5 million drones in the US, projected to be 7 million by 2020. You will never see ADS-B on commercial drones due to cost and questionable need. Also the altitude limit is 400 ft, and not within 5 miles of an airport (US), so if you're flying at 400 ft, you invite drone collisions. I also don't want to see 500 drone icons on my display while I am flying. A drone, at least in the US, is a non-safety issue for GA.
2.5 million drones in the US, projected to be 7 million by 2020. You will never see ADS-B on commercial drones due to cost and questionable need. Also the altitude limit is 400 ft, and not within 5 miles of an airport (US), so if you're flying at 400 ft, you invite drone collisions. I also don't want to see 500 drone icons on my display while I am flying. A drone, at least in the US, is a non-safety issue for GA.
We think we're close. We actually have some updated hardware and software in the hands of a greater than normal set of testers right now. In the coming weeks, we're planning to do a wider pre-release with some of you that are interested in being the first in line to try out the new improvements before we fully return to production.
jakej
Well-Known Member
Law abiding citizens are people we don’t need to worry about, it’s those who don’t know or care about the ‘rules’ who concern me. This link https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/12/uk-ministers-consider-licensing-laser-pointers-in-bid-to-reduce-attacks shows what can happen with Lasers so I expect irresponsible use of drones is possible too.
Dynon, let's make a deal. If there end up more field issues with the improved hardware and software, will you please, finally, concede and implement GDL90 protocol over wired serial or better yet wifi, so that we can all move on with the industry standard? For goodness sake, even Foreflight has released a much cheaper, wifi enabled, and smaller version of the same thing using the same manufacturer's chipset. The Scout, at $200, does all the same things. It's clearly a money grab at this point.
This is a serious roadblock to my continued upgrade path with Dynon hardware.
swatson999
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,533
It doesn't "not work"...it just isn't a complete picture, and they're fixing it. I just flew 4 hours cross-country and saw plenty of traffic (most of which was called out by ATC for me). Even when ADS-B shows all the traffic it knows about from the system, you will still *never* be guaranteed to see ALL of the traffic via ADS-B.
As for drones...I seriously doubt that consumer drones will *ever* be transmitting ADS-B out. As noted, they are restricted to 400' AGL and away from airports.
CGameProgrammer
I love flying!
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 132
Traffic that is not squawking altitude do not show up at all and I've seen that even in my local area which is within a Mode C veil. I would guess that's the biggest source of invisible traffic.
Reply #153--Here at Reno Stead (RTS) we have drone testing several days a week when the wx allows. I have the Dynon ADS-B in and out and iFly with Ping Buddy and I see the small drones flying North of the of the field all the time. I believe they are transmitting with the Ping Buddy, not verified but I do see them on the Dynon and iFly. They don't have standard N numbers, but numbers starting with various letters. Dan from Reno