@Steve6443 wrote:-
I will say exactly the opposite. I’ve yet to see an aircraft on SafeSky that I hadn’t had on ADS-B or Flarm – but that’s because I typically fly higher, where there is no GSM network connectivity…..
I think most would agree that when flying at over 3000ft AGL Safesky is possibly not as good as ADS-B or Flarm. But below below 3000ft it picks up traffic that ADS-B or Flarm does not.
In certain areas like around here where Safesky antennas have been installed the 3000ft commonly extends to 5000ft AGL.
This is until Safesky puts into operation its satellite service which I understand is underway.
I don’t think anyone is saying that pilots should ditch ADS-B or Flarm or Power Flarm or mode C and mode S in favour of Safesky. But as Aart has written it serves the UL community well just as Flarm serves the gliding community (at least round here).
I consider it an great addition to the Mark 1 eyeball around uncontrolled grass fields but I also have a mode S transponder in the UL.
gallois wrote:
I think most would agree that when flying at over 3000ft AGL Safesky is possibly not as good as ADS-B or Flarm. But below below 3000ft it picks up traffic that ADS-B or Flarm does not.
I would question the validity of this statement. How many people use (eg) SafeSky? Of those, how many have an aircraft with (eg) a mode S transponder?
The only people my aircraft won’t be able to see would be those SOLELY using SafeSky; those pilots using Mode S (or even Mode C) will still be picked up by my system – albeit without position, but with altitude difference. You could make the claim:
“ah, but below 3000feet, those with Mode S /SafeSky are visible to you including location / altitude if you used SafeSky”
- which is potentially better than just having an indication that somewhere out there is an aircraft, a bit higher or lower or possibly at the same altitude….
This is, in my eyes, a fallacy. What concerns me is, again, that Safe Sky gives no indications of latency in the system – thus where the SafeSky app says the aircraft is in one location, because of latency it is actually somewhere else, at a different altitude; worse, you will never know this – until it’s too late.
The only way to resolve this would be to have displayed a time stamp showing you the latency of YOUR connection to the server – but even then, this won’t necessarily help you sufficiently because you could be on one network which has excellent latency to the server yet someone else could be on another network where coverage is patchy and their latency to the server is higher – or, in the vicinity of a border, has NO connectivity.
That raises another question: What happens when that aircraft is out of range of its network – say crossing a border – and is scanning for the next one? What does Safe Sky do? Delete all data immediately? Or keep indicating its last position, or perhaps it extrapolates the position going forward? At what point are you aware that SafeSky is no longer working, when are you advised that it is functional again?
Going back to Mode S – all I need to do – to avoid a MAC – is to ensure I’m at a different altitude to any possible conflicts. There is no latency – except the duration between sweeps of the radar system which interrogates the conflicting traffic…
I can’t answer your question about latency but in this area I would estimate that some 70% at least of pilots are now using Safesky. I will go onto say that some 80% + of aircraft including ULs have mode S.
Whilst most of the gliders and glider tugs have Flarm.
In the next month or so we will.be installing a Safesky antenna. There are already several at other airfields within 50nm of LFFK. The cost is around €650.
From my limited experience with Safesky so far I have seen all the aircraft that ATS have told me are nearby plus I have seen gliders and other aircraft exactly where Safesky showed them as being.
I am not a representative of Safesky and have been made aware of it by the FFA, FFPLUM and the RSA who have all recommended that French pilots give it a try and perhaps report back. So far I am very happy to use it. Maybe if something came up that would do the job better, I might try it. But I won’t be spending lots of money on something without knowing it’s going to add to what I already have.
That’s something I share with the majority of my compatriots.
gallois wrote:
But I won’t be spending lots of money on something without knowing it’s going to add to what I already have.
Just remains for me to ask: How much is your life worth?
I have been surprise by how we can get traffic around Mont blanc with Safesky – being around FL100. The 5G antenna of Chamonix is giving us some network and I could see some traffic, as well as many gliders around the alps during our leg back to Cannes (~7000ft but height varies from 1000 to 3000ft). It’s important to notice that position is not very accurate, and forces to have an eye out, but That is a good thing.
I was amazed by the professionalism of the heli pilot who was throwing parachutes over Sallanches, having safesky connected and making very concise message on mountain area about the drop zone to avoid.
My problem resides around Cannes and Saint-trop area where too few pilots uses it.
greg_mp wrote:
It’s important to notice that position is not very accurate
Which underscores my belief that latency is an issue….
Steve6443 wrote:
Just remains for me to ask: How much is your life worth?
If that´s a judgment scale, then why don´t we bring out the scale that measures flying Single Engine Pistons to begin with, and ask that same Q again?
So I have been flying for 40years with a few thousand hours as an observer (a role rather than the job) in helicopters, several thousand hours PIC on twins with nearly 1000hours on SEPs all with Mark one eyeball plus over 1000 hours on the twins was IFR and now around 50hrs ULM. So, like many others I add Safesky for added traffic awareness and because I don’t wish to spend a lot of money on some technology that would IMO do very little to aid my traffic awareness, I get asked “how much I value my life?” How bizarre. If I didn’t accept some risk I would not be flying a UL. 🙂
In 2023 59% of accidents in France were down to badly managed landings, 13% were controlled flight into terrain, 9% loss of control in flight, 7% bad take off, 5% engine failure. There was one airframe rupture and 1 in flight collision.
I think there are better ways of spending my money to make my flying safer.
gallois wrote:
So I have been flying for 40years with a few thousand hours as an observer (a role rather than the job) in helicopters, several thousand hours PIC on twins with nearly 1000hours on SEPs all with Mark one eyeball plus over 1000 hours on the twins was IFR and now around 50hrs ULM. So, like many others I add Safesky for added traffic awareness and because I don’t wish to spend a lot of money on some technology that would IMO do very little to aid my traffic awareness, I get asked “how much I value my life?” How bizarre. If I didn’t accept some risk I would not be flying a UL. 🙂
In 2023 59% of accidents in France were down to badly managed landings, 13% were controlled flight into terrain, 9% loss of control in flight, 7% bad take off, 5% engine failure. There was one airframe rupture and 1 in flight collision.
I think there are better ways of spending my money to make my flying safer.
Don´t be so cynical. Are you going to argue with facts and fact based experience? How dare you? 
I´ll add to that, with caution of being deemed unintellectual and biased, and say that I´ve flown for about 29 years (NOT 40 years!) and with about 7000 hours on airplanes with fully certified TCAS systems, some 1500h on other flying gear, and about 50 hours on my SEP with ADS-B in + Flarm in (Sky Echo) and SafeSky. I am very impressed with SafeSky for my type of SEP flying, primarily low level VFR flying (>3000 AGL) inside Class C and D controlled airspace (VFR only traffic information) and outside in uncontrolled airspace, especially into and departing uncontrolled airfields. Total no brainer. Latency or not.
I think there are two types of people on this form: SafeSky and not. :)
Those with a good internet in the air and good coverage are happy with SafeSky and don’t want to consider the situation when they’ve lost the internet connection. The others (like me) have got access to the likes of PAW, which does pretty much the same with ground-based station, plus:
- ADS-B out direct from equipped aircraft and
- PAW direct from equipped aircraft.
If you compare just the network-based traffic vs. network traffic + direct from aircraft, I think the latter wins.
Some are not happy to spend £24 per year on PilotAware, I know…
