Compare MRX with PF Portable

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, Andy wrote:


Why would anyone part with a ZAON MRX that does reliably detect mode C targets at own altitude?


Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare?

My PowerFlarm installation never shows any mode C targets, but I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

I have many hours of thermaling with other gliders at the same altitude and my PF never failed detecting them. Early on it will occasionally fail to detect mode C traffic further away at any altitude but this had been fixed. After flying with both my Zaon and PF for additional 30 hours or so there was no occasion where my Zaon detected traffic which my PF didn't except that the "afterglow" of the Zaon seem the be a little longer (traffic going out of range continue showing up on my Zaon for another 10 seconds or so).
BTW, I am not affiliated with Flarm or Butterfly but I did some beta testing for them.

Ramy

On Friday, August 9, 2013 4:39:08 AM UTC+2, jfitch wrote:

Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare?

Really? I believe they are more common than glider-to-glider, if the whole of glider operations is considered (outside contests, for example). Several towplane/glider collisions come to mind, the Cirrus that hit a towplane with a glider on tow in Colorado, and of course the Hawker bizjet that ran into the ASG-29 over the Sierras - all were cases of Mode C targets that may have been detected early enough to prevent collision with a working PCAS or PowerFlarm.

In many non-contest locations, the most common target that you will see on your PF will be a Mode-C; unlikely that the local 2-33 will have a PF!

Kirk
66

What do you people mean when you say, "a Mode C target"?

Mode C is simply the altitude report. Do you really mean "Mode A"? Aren't
you talking about every Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc., flying around? I would
wager that there are more Mode A/C targets out there than there are Mode S
(excluding airliners).

Admittedly I've only had my PCAS installed for a couple of months, but I've
never had a problem with it alerting on my own Mode S transponder and I can
verify that it's reading my transponder with a single button hit. True, it
has no azimuth report or visual display, but it's pretty simple to note
whether distance and/or altitude delta are increasing, decreasing, or not
changing. It *does* get annoying while thermalling with another
transponder-equipped glider, but I don't do that too often.


"jfitch" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, Andy wrote:


Why would anyone part with a ZAON MRX that does reliably detect mode C
targets at own altitude?


Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is
extremely rare?

My PowerFlarm installation never shows any mode C targets, but I'm not
losing a lot of sleep over it.

On Friday, August 9, 2013 2:36:16 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2013 4:39:08 AM UTC+2, jfitch wrote:



Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare?



Really? I believe they are more common than glider-to-glider, if the whole of glider operations is considered (outside contests, for example). Several towplane/glider collisions come to mind, the Cirrus that hit a towplane with a glider on tow in Colorado, and of course the Hawker bizjet that ran into the ASG-29 over the Sierras - all were cases of Mode C targets that may have been detected early enough to prevent collision with a working PCAS or PowerFlarm.



In many non-contest locations, the most common target that you will see on your PF will be a Mode-C; unlikely that the local 2-33 will have a PF!



Kirk

66

There appear to be 8 collisions between gliders and light airplanes in the NTSB database in the last 20 years. I think we counted 7 glider to glider mid airs in the same period (each of which of course involves 2 gliders). Mode C detection would not guarantee collision avoidance, as PowerFlarm glider detection (almost) does. As with glider-to-glider mid air collisions, you are far better served from the standpoint of safety with a little more spin/stall practice than with a PCAS device. You are about 100 times more likely to collide with terrain (and about 3 times more likely to strike a power line) than a light airplane.

And to repeat once more, I'm not arguing against them: I have both PowerFlarm and Mode S. What I am saying is that eliminating all mid air collisions will not make soaring statistically safer by any significant amount. If you eliminate the 15 or so mid air hits from the NTSB database, you will still find about 700 more ways to crash a glider. If you have a limited budget, spend it on some stall/spin training.

Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare? My PowerFlarm installation never shows any mode C targets, but I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

But if you had read the original post you would have known that I'm using my PF portable in a Piper PA28.

Also, I fly in a very high density training area (KDVT). My risk of hitting, or being hit by, another airplane is very much greater than the risk of being involved with a glider.

I also believe that anyone flying a glider in this area is at much higher risk of being involved in a collision with an airplane than with another glider. That is based on over 25 years experience flying gliders in the area and more near misses with airplanes than I care to remember.


Andy

On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:39:10 AM UTC-7, Andy wrote:
Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare? My PowerFlarm installation never shows any mode C targets, but I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.



But if you had read the original post you would have known that I'm using my PF portable in a Piper PA28.



Also, I fly in a very high density training area (KDVT). My risk of hitting, or being hit by, another airplane is very much greater than the risk of being involved with a glider.



I also believe that anyone flying a glider in this area is at much higher risk of being involved in a collision with an airplane than with another glider. That is based on over 25 years experience flying gliders in the area and more near misses with airplanes than I care to remember.





Andy

I did read your first post. However you then asked "Why would anyone part with a ZAON MRX that does reliably detect mode C targets at own altitude?" in a later post, referring to one being used in a glider. That is what I was replying to. Overall, throughout the USA, glider to airplane mid air collisions have been rare unless there are high numbers not reported to the NTSB which seems unlikely.

Had a number of aircraft fly near me today - a military KC135 (I think), a light twin, a Boeing 767 inbound for Tucson and a SWA 737. I saw all of them pass by me within a couple of miles and PowerFlarm never made a peep or displayed anything! This seems quite different form its performance on gliders.

Mike

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 7:15:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I have not actually used my chute except as a seat cushion. I wonder if it's actually a beta test version...

You cannot update a parachute with a USB stick.

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:40:32 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
Had a number of aircraft fly near me today - a military KC135 (I think), a light twin, a Boeing 767 inbound for Tucson and a SWA 737. I saw all of them pass by me within a couple of miles and PowerFlarm never made a peep or displayed anything! This seems quite different form its performance on gliders.



Mike

Mike, I flew today in a busy area and I would have to say the PCAS worked Okay, not as good as MRX but I got all warnings I needed to get. If only the thing could stop beeping on my own transponder I would be happy. It seems the display constantly shows me my own transponder with +/- (0 to 50 feet or so). I got used to that the only time it freaks me out is when it beeps twice.