EASA iConspicuity Survey

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.