EASA iConspicuity Survey | EASA Community

John Franklin • 12 April 2023

in community General Aviation

2 likes

In General Aviation, flying is predominantly based on visual flight rules (VFR) where the principle of "see and be seen" or "see and avoid" applies. This still leads to high-risk situations and in some cases even mid-air collisions.

There are already various electronic collision warning systems and app available for General Aviation. The challenge is that they don’t provide 100% protection against collisions and only a small proportion of aircraft are equipped with such a system.

Work is underway to develop a uniform electronic collision warning system that can be used by all General Aviation airspace users. As part of EASA’s project of interoperability of electronic conspicuity systems, a survey has been set-up by Droniq to help collect information on how pilots across the GA Community use collision warning systems today. It will also help us to learn more about what pilots want (require) in such a system for the future.

We would be very pleased if you would participate in our survey at this link here. It will help us to find the most practical solutions for all airspace users.

Comments (13)

Fabrice SEGURA • 2 years ago

This looks like a good idea, but is a terrible one.
First, do not repeat the mistake made by the glider community to develop the FLARM, that was not compatible with the rest of the flying things, so their system don't warn about planes, only equipped gliders.
second : the system already exists, it's called TCAS, and uses XPDR signals. The better version is ADSB
third : I regularly fly in one of the most busy airspaces of Europe : LFPN, and I already used a TCAS in this environment, on a plane that was equipped. It was completely irrelevant for dense VFR operations (rang all the time) and I eventually switched it off as it was more a distraction
In this airspace, security was greatly enhanced when they added an airspace and a controller (Chevreuse Info, 119;3) to help pilots manage their separation.

R. van Twisk • 2 years ago

Adding more controllers is not possible given it's cost. Even Dutch Mill has a notam out due to lack of personal and some parts in NL are not well received. It also does not look like that TCAS is a solution for GA, given it's price.
In regards for the gliders, they created OGN and it worked for them, it also seems to work in some situations given it's popularity. But unfortunately it's OGN only and not FLarm, why not Flarm? Well, FLAM seem to have it's data protected by TEA and it's not a open protocol, also Flarm you have to pay a monthly/yearly fee, something not well received within the generic public. Even if you want to receive Flarm in skydemon, every club member needs to pay a 35eur/usd yearly fee to receive it.
We need open protocols within the GA community, ADS-L will hopefully be a good fit to go back to only two systems?

Christophe Mutricy • 2 years ago

But TCAS doesn't meet the requirement of some airspace users. Can you imagine the number of TA for 2 gliders thermalling together. (and then we'll speak about cost)

Marcel Gisel • 2 years ago

I do hope that Europe will not invent any new ADSB Variant?!? Already 8.33kHz was a big mistake instead of a robust VHF-Dataradio with 4 Channels/25kHz (Comment as a former Chair Man of AEEC Air-to-Ground Communications, including ADS)!
The other thing is, that all bigger and new Aircraft are already equipped with systems, since General Aviation includes also Large Aeroplanes (Business Aviation).
It would be beneficial to define General Aviation once and for all times also by EASA (ref. ICAO).
The survey is rather for Small Aeroplanes, Sports Aeroplanes etc.

Hartmut Beil • 2 years ago

I see "high-risk situations" mainly around VFR airports where pilots are not giving position reports. In those areas I rather look out of the window and not down to a screen. It would help much more to get out a clear regulation on pilot communication in these areas than forcing another expensive technology on pilots.

R. van Twisk • 2 years ago

The idea is that you do not have to look down, but it will tell you about traffic. Just like if you fly with two persons he will tell you when he/she see's traffic :)

Hartmut Beil • 2 years ago

R. van Twisk But in that area around an airport I have rather announce the other pilot where they are. After all to verify a correct position of the traffic I would have to look down. Not what I have in mind.

R. van Twisk • 2 years ago

Hartmut Beil That would be ideal of course... There are however two issues with that:
1) There is always that pilot that does not announce just because, or they do a high speed approach on long final just shoot underneath you (with announcement) and you are like whaaaaaaaat.
2) I know at least one airport where you can only approach over one reporting point and it's there very buzy and where it's a bit more tricky for new pilots at the field to understand how the circuit is exactly layed . From the map it just looks easer than it really is..

Left or right, people are not perfect and make mistakes. So A backup is always helpfull. When I fly with my wife (also pilot) she also helps out looking out for traffic, and that helps.. I might sometimes miss myself..

Hartmut Beil • 2 years ago

R. van Twisk Sure People make mistakes, but if you are used to communicate around airfields, and announce your observed position, then the other pilots may be able to correct you , help you or even compensate for your error. A anonym system on a monitor in my airplane does not allow for that. Plus in our area we have many pilots that rather do not turn on any transponder, because of the fear of high fines when violating airspace or altitude rules. Hence no system will see these.

Boudewijn Deuss • 2 years ago

Before we are worried if EASA would go for yet another system (and additional equipment), it would be helpful if EASA would explain if the intent is really to develop a new system. There seems to be a contradiction between developing a uniform warning system and "interoperability" in the statement. "Work is underway to develop a uniform electronic collision warning system that can be used by all General Aviation airspace users. As part of EASA’s project of interoperability of electronic conspicuity systems". Please explain EASA.

Vladimir FOLTIN • 2 years ago

Thank you Boudewijn, for pointing out this possible ambiguity. I would like to clarify that to my knowledge there is no intention that this project will come up with a recommendation to develop a completely new device/system. It should rather recommend the best course of actions how to make the existing systems already chosen by the pilots interoperable among each other (using ADS-L?), while still being compatible with U-space - ref.SERA.6005(c).
One ambition is also to reflect as best as possible on individual pilots' needs in terms of what traffic information they NEED to receive and what traffic information they may WANT to receive. One clue could be SERA.3210 Right-of-way ...
The project outcomes should also recommend the best direction for a future technical developments in this area.
Therefore the participation of pilots in the survey is very important. Please note the survey closure date is very soon on 7-May 2023!

Axel-Stéphane Smorgrav • 2 years ago

Whatever electronic conspicuity system is chosen for light aircraft, it needs to be compatible/inter-operable with general aviation at large, and even commercial aviation, and needs to fullfil the U-Space conspicuity mandate.

In my view it should not rely on the public cellular network, should not rely on proprietary technology, and the transmitter should not be portable or rely on an internal antennae that may be masked.

UAT seems like the obvious choice, especially now that we have established that TACAN is no longer used by the US military. UAT/TIS-B should also make it possible to re-broadcast FLARM targets as well as secondary radar targets (non-ADS-B), and can bring FIS into the cockpit. This really sounds like a win-win situation.

R. van Twisk • 2 years ago

If you mandate the "not portability", then you will rule out adoption in most clubs, all hanglider/paraglider activity and drones.
The whole idea, as I understand it, is that there will be a system that will have a high adoption rate and at the same time cost effective no drone operator or paraglider well spend 6000euro on a system, needs to be sub- 1000euro systems, specially for drones..

There are plenty of portable systems that work well, even handheld and with antenna (partially) masked. Mobile phones are a good example but there are many more systems that work fine portable.

Agreed on other items.... Europe really does not want flight safety :(

Please log in or sign up to comment.