Yeager wrote:
As I said, I have found SafeSky to be better than nothing, and I am happy with the low entry price (free!)
To be that is key. Until PilotAware came along, “nothing” was what most of us had access to in terms of traffic data.
The alternative (and still is if you want perfect data) a very expensive, certified traffic awareness system, like Peter fitted to his TB20. Well into 5 figures. For those of us renting, that’s going to be a hard sell to the owner.
But for very little money you can get some traffic.
I use a PilotAware to which I added an iGrid (wifi) dongle to it which allows it to connect to a hotspot on my phone, and I use SafeSky directly into EasyVFR (No need for the SafeSky app).
So what I end up with is
PilotAware traffic from it’s own antenna which gives me ADSB (precise location) + Pilot Aware (precise location) + Mode A, C & S (directionless warnings with a very rough estimate of distance based on strength)
PilotAware traffic across the phone network which gives me a range of data such as Mode A, C &S, ADSB, PilotAware & Flarm but with a potential time delay
SkySafe traffic across the phone network which gives me a range of data such as Mode A, C & S, ADSB, PilotAware & Flarm but with a potential time delay.
PilotAware combines the duplications of the two networks it’s using before sending the data to EasyVFR, and EasyVFR combines the duplications between PilotAware and SafeSky.
It does not pick up everything. It’s far from perfect. There are dropouts on the mobile connection. I can’t rely on it. But it does usefully help me see some traffic. The skies in Ireland are relatively quiet which can lead to a slacking in lookout. The reminder that traffic is nearby can be a real perk up moment and helps reinvigorate my lookout.
Regarding the time delay, it’s not the factor that you might think it is. Reason being is that you will pick up the traffic generally before it gets too close. So you’re looking for it while it’s relative position is fairly stationary. And in many cases, it’s the perk to the lookout that helps the most! It also helps when ATC point out traffic, as it gives a more precise (and updating) position than ATC can give.
My system cost me about €100-120. (Original classic Pilot Aware which you built yourself, plus an iGrid dongle), plus an annual sub of about €25.
It’s not perfect, but the alternative for me is no traffic info, so it’s far better than the alternative to me.
Not quite; in the UK they turn off transponders, in the belief that the CAA is not monitoring the other signals, which currently is probably correct. The CAA could easily do so, with just one receiver on a hill in the UK, and then check radar data and bust people using that, without ever mentioning where the original lead came from. I once got busted because I phoned ATC to apologise; they said there was no bust reported, but my phone call triggered a check of radar recordings and I got sent to gasco.
But due to the market fragmentation, none of this stuff really does the job.
Peter wrote:
Based on posts by some Italian pilots, that should not surprise youIt went radio-silent many years ago, due to the airspace, and due to other factors which are similar to Spain.
I understand why they do this, and it’s a real shame. Same situation in the UK it seems.
I don’t recall a single target picked up in northern Italy between Aosta and Venice at 1500-2500 ft.
Based on posts by some Italian pilots, that should not surprise you 
It went radio-silent many years ago, due to the airspace, and due to other factors which are similar to Spain.
On the main topic, if somebody produced a box which neatly integrates all this, it would sell well. But it would undermine the business models of most of these. Also some of the data streams are undocumented, IIRC. If the data could also be displayed on panel mount (PFD) products, much better still but that’s legally impossible. So we carry on with plenty of “velcro”.
I have ADS-B out with my Trig, and just used SafeSky for the first time. I have my SE2 going through the Safesky, then to SD. It picked up a lot of targets in CH that I didn’t have with just ADSB in and FLARM. Seems like a no-brainer to use it, putting aside that of course there could be bugs in either SafeSky or SD or the SE2 that just ignore targets.
Strangely, I don’t recall a single target picked up in northern Italy between Aosta and Venice at 1500-2500 ft.
Next for me is a FLARM fusion to get FLARM out, and some antenna diversity.
@Steve, I’m a pilot, not a tech geek. I use available tools available, certified at work, and a mix (certified or uncertified) in private. As I said, I have found SafeSky to be better than nothing, and I am happy with the low entry price (free!) that the tool provides for low flying or school planes without the investment in ADS-B out etc. Personally I primarily use the SafeSky tool in vicinity of airports and therefore close (enough) to the ground, where reception is good. I never solely rely on any onboard traffic equipment while flying under VFR. I don’t really use SafeSky much at higher altitudes or outside traffic congested areas, where I have less concern about traffic.
It’s not good having any conspicuous traffic, and probably an inherent fault of any software/application relying and land based cellular networks.
I have Sky Echo installed and PowerFlarm subscription in SkyDemon. This provides direct input opportunity.
Getting ADS-B out transmitted by mode S transponder is the next target.
I find myself agreeing with Peter in that any bit of kit that uses a data link with ground stations is going to be unreliable due to range and terrain issues.
The only way to assure signal reliability is to carry the traffic kit on the aircraft and have external antennas. The external antenna issue was addressed on another forum who flying by a guy flying a wooden Robin ( an aircraft that is unlikely to shield the signal ) who’s pilot aware system was vastly improved, he demonstrated this by downloading from the system the signal radiation before and after the fitting the external antennas.
I am forced to the conclusion that it is the Antenna system that has the greatest effect on the performance of traffic devices. I don’t have any before and after data for my Air Avionics AT1 system as I fitted it with external antennas from day one.
The AT1 seems to show traffic appearing and disappearing, having had visual contact with some of these contacts I can only assume that these aircraft are carrying the traffic device internally and the antenna is being masked by the airframe as the aircraft turns.
aart wrote:
Found this on the latency of safesky
Which sort of confirms my understanding of the limitations of the system; if you’re wanting traffic information, it’s better to have it first hand from (eg) Flarm, ADSB in / out etc rather than going through multiple third parties – the mobile phone provider, internet, safesky server, back again via internet and mobile phone provider….. however it’s cheap but remember, you get what you pay for…..
Hi Yeager, I see you refuse to answer my question with regards latency – is this because you know but don’t want to answer or is it because you don’t understand the impact poor latency can have? My concern is that the system doesn’t seem to advise you of any latency – or at least it didn’t appear to when I tested it; so to clarify this, let’s assume two aircraft are heading towards each other at 120Knots true, closing speed is 240knots or 4 nautical miles (7,5km) per minute. Let’s introduce a latency of 10 seconds into the system. The indicated position of each aircraft would be more than 1km than where they are claimed to be.
For me, a system which can have that sort of error is unacceptable, doubly so if the system cannot even tell you of the latency it is experiencing. It will only be beneficial if you quickly spot the traffic and even then, there’s no guarantee that the traffic you spot is one with SafeSky. The idea is great BUT – and that’s a big but – the system should be advising of any latency, which I didn’t see when I trialed it.
If it doesn’t do this, it should be easily enough to implement by simply looking at the time stamp of the packet arriving at the server and sending the response such that the individual unit can see the overall time required to send and receive a response which would then be displayed in terms of red, yellow or green latency.
Traffic information is good but erroneous reporting of traffic from a position in the past is unhelpful, I’m afraid – just my 2c….
