Traffic Information

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

GO for it. If you have ever flown a plane equipped with Skywatch or TCAD, you will be astonished how many planes are so close to you. Could save your life.

Timm Preusser N747TG

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

What was the price?

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

A few weeks ago there was a discussion about traffic and weather uplinks coming available in the fall, and about an FAA program called “CAPSTONE.”

Does anyone have current info on this? Assuming this technology is forthcoming in the fall, does it make sense to spend $21.5k now on Skywatch?

Any help would be appreciated.

Jeff

Bernard: Did you get information from Cirrus as to which units the Skywatch will display on? Garmin has a “weather/traffic” screen on the 430 which is intended to display data from the Stormscope as well as the Skywatch system. At least as to the Stormscope, Cirrus has not enabled or connected the Stormscope to the proper Garmin 430 inputs such that the Stormscope displays on the Arnav only. Will the Skywatch or Skywatch/Stormscope data display on the 430? If so, you could use the #1 430 for primary nav and the #2 for either Skywatch or Stormscope data, descent profile, fuel planning, winds aloft, or “what if” calculations.

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

It’s true. Skywatch may save your life. Then again, it may not. I’d like to take a different view with the hope of stimulating some discussion on what I think is an important issue, namely the love affair Americans in general and pilots in particular have with high tech solutions to both real and perceived problems.

To begin with there is no doubt that Skywatch works as advertised. A potential problem though is that it only shows you aircraft that are transponder equipped and have the transponder turned on. If you look at the statistical risk of a midair what you will find is that the risk is qitue low. The highest risk (especially if you eliminate formation flying)however is in the vicinity of the traffic patterns of uncontrolled airports - precisely where you are most likely to find aircraft without an operating transponder. If you put in the system and rely on it to the point that you neglect the old fashioned heads up scan you actually may be at higher risk. Furthermore if you get a traffic alert in the pattern and fixate on looking for that threat you may ignore others that may not be shown on the system.
Another potential problem (this is pure speculation) is that if you are close to but higher than another aircraft that aircraft’s trasnponder antenna (always located on the belly) may be in a “blind spot”. (if you think this is unlikely check this forum’s posts on the SR20 transponder problems). Again, this could conceivably render an “intruder” invisible to the high tech system and provide you with a false sense of security.

I should note that the Skywatch actively interrogates to find other aircraft. That is clearly superior to passive systems (like the less expensive Ryan units) that rely on ATC radar to interrogate the transponder and then read the reply. At low altitudes (again, read near airport traffic patterns) there may not be any radar coverage and therefore the aircraft would be invisible to a passive system.
Does this mean that the Skywatch is not worth having? Of course not. Does it mean that its limitations need to be fully appreciated and taken into account to maximize saftey? Absolutely.

Is it worth $21,000. That’s a decision only you can make.

Jerrold Seckler SR22#63

GO for it. If you have ever flown a plane equipped with Skywatch or TCAD, you will be astonished how many planes are so close to you. Could save your life.

Timm Preusser N747TG

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

I completely agree with Timm. I’ve flown over 50 hours in a Bonanza with the Goodrich system. It’s incredible how much traffic that Center does NOT call… If you fly in very busy airspace this is a must.

We’re going for the factory install in our SR22.

Chris SR22 #95 747SJ

GO for it. If you have ever flown a plane equipped with Skywatch or TCAD, you will be astonished how many planes are so close to you. Could save your life.

Timm Preusser N747TG

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

Jerrold,

This is simply a quick note to let you know how helpful your post was in re understanding the limitations of the Skywatch system.

Many thanks for your thoughts.

Pete

It’s true. Skywatch may save your life. Then again, it may not. I’d like to take a different view with the hope of stimulating some discussion on what I think is an important issue, namely the love affair Americans in general and pilots in particular have with high tech solutions to both real and perceived problems.

To begin with there is no doubt that Skywatch works as advertised. A potential problem though is that it only shows you aircraft that are transponder equipped and have the transponder turned on. If you look at the statistical risk of a midair what you will find is that the risk is qitue low. The highest risk (especially if you eliminate formation flying)however is in the vicinity of the traffic patterns of uncontrolled airports - precisely where you are most likely to find aircraft without an operating transponder. If you put in the system and rely on it to the point that you neglect the old fashioned heads up scan you actually may be at higher risk. Furthermore if you get a traffic alert in the pattern and fixate on looking for that threat you may ignore others that may not be shown on the system.
Another potential problem (this is pure speculation) is that if you are close to but higher than another aircraft that aircraft’s trasnponder antenna (always located on the belly) may be in a “blind spot”. (if you think this is unlikely check this forum’s posts on the SR20 transponder problems). Again, this could conceivably render an “intruder” invisible to the high tech system and provide you with a false sense of security.

I should note that the Skywatch actively interrogates to find other aircraft. That is clearly superior to passive systems (like the less expensive Ryan units) that rely on ATC radar to interrogate the transponder and then read the reply. At low altitudes (again, read near airport traffic patterns) there may not be any radar coverage and therefore the aircraft would be invisible to a passive system.
Does this mean that the Skywatch is not worth having? Of course not. Does it mean that its limitations need to be fully appreciated and taken into account to maximize saftey? Absolutely.

Is it worth $21,000. That’s a decision only you can make.

Jerrold Seckler SR22#63

GO for it. If you have ever flown a plane equipped with Skywatch or TCAD, you will be astonished how many planes are so close to you. Could save your life.

Timm Preusser N747TG

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

If you put in the system and rely on it to the point that you neglect the old fashioned heads up scan you actually may be at higher risk.

I have to disagree with you on this point (it’s the same argument people use against having a parachute on board) - but see below.

Another potential problem (this is pure speculation) is that if you are close to but higher than another aircraft that aircraft’s trasnponder antenna (always located on the belly) may be in a “blind spot”.

Glad you qualified that as speculation! Something like Skywatch is only interested in transponder returns from nearby aircraft. The signal strength from a plane 2 miles away is massively greater (square law) than one 40 miles away, so even with the shielding that occurs depending on relative altitude and orientation, I would think it most unlikely that this will be a limitation.

Passive systems (which Skywatch is NOT) rely on signal strength to estimate the distance of the transponder, so they would definitely give a falsely greater range for a plane whose transponder antenna was shielded by the fuselage from your receiver, however even there if you think about the geometery, an aircraft whose antenna was shielded from you would most likely be much lower than your altitude and therefore not a threat.

Is it worth $21,000. That’s a decision only you can make.

On this we can agree. Your points about relative risk of en-route vs. terminal operations also apply. I would personally ask “what else could I spend that money on that would have a greater impact on safety?”.

Is it worth $21,000. That’s a decision only you can make.

On this we can agree. Your points about relative risk of en-route vs. terminal operations also apply. I would personally ask “what else could I spend that money on that would have a greater impact on safety?”.

I recall reading an article (Aviation Safety? IFR?) that made the same point. Basically, spend your money on collision avoidance if you’ve already bought a stormscope and weather uplink and a second alternator and…and…

If you put in the system and rely on it to the point that you neglect the old fashioned heads up scan you actually may be at higher risk.

I have to disagree with you on this point (it’s the same argument people use against having a parachute on board) - but see below.

I don’t think it’s the same argument at all. My point is only that we need to consider technologic solutions along with their limitations. I’m all for collision avoidance. It’s only when someone equips his/her aircraft with an anticollision device and thinks that’s all there is to it that I get concerned. If one relies on it to stay safe without carefully considering its limitations then one may indeed be less safe.

The parachute analogy works only if a pilot is so cavalier that he thinks he can do anything (like fly into a thunderstorm) since if there is a problem the parachute can safely lower him to earth. That sort of pilot is clearly a less safe pilot than one who looks at the parachute with the idea he will do everything possible to avoid a situation where it has to be used. The fact that there may be pilots who rely on the availability of the parachute certainly is not an indictment of the parachute concept. Neither is the terminal area limitation of Skywatch an indictment of the collision avoidance device. It simply needs to be considered as a tool, not a panacea. ALL high tech solutions need to be considered that way or they can bite.

J. Seckler

Another potential problem (this is pure speculation) is that if you are close to but higher than another aircraft that aircraft’s trasnponder antenna (always located on the belly) may be in a “blind spot”.

Glad you qualified that as speculation! Something like Skywatch is only interested in transponder returns from nearby aircraft. The signal strength from a plane 2 miles away is massively greater (square law) than one 40 miles away, so even with the shielding that occurs depending on relative altitude and orientation, I would think it most unlikely that this will be a limitation.

Passive systems (which Skywatch is NOT) rely on signal strength to estimate the distance of the transponder, so they would definitely give a falsely greater range for a plane whose transponder antenna was shielded by the fuselage from your receiver, however even there if you think about the geometery, an aircraft whose antenna was shielded from you would most likely be much lower than your altitude and therefore not a threat.

Is it worth $21,000. That’s a decision only you can make.

On this we can agree. Your points about relative risk of en-route vs. terminal operations also apply. I would personally ask “what else could I spend that money on that would have a greater impact on safety?”.

What was the price?

$21,500.

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?

A few weeks ago there was a discussion about traffic and weather uplinks coming available in the fall, and about an FAA program called “CAPSTONE.”

Does anyone have current info on this? Assuming this technology is forthcoming in the fall, does it make sense to spend $21.5k now on Skywatch?

Any help would be appreciated.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

At the AOPA Fly-In I spoke with one of AOPA’s technical people about that very question.

His advice was to wait until the fall – I guess the FAA is supposed to make some decision in the fall timeframe to come up with a timetable for rolling out ADS-B. Then, we can look at the timetable, add an appropriate “fudge factor” since nothing is done on time, and decide whether it’s worth the money for a Skywatch like device in the meantime.

My own personal opinion is that it will take quite a while before anything like Capstone becomes widespread. Why? Well, there are actually two “stages” as I understand it:

  • the second (latter) stage is the one that’s gotten most press. In this concept, every plane will have a GPS receiver and will broadcast its position to all nearby planes, so that the position of every plane in the area could be displayed on an MFD-like device. This will take a LONG time since they can’t (and shouldn’t) mandate overnight that everybody install GPS and this type of transmitter in every plane.

  • the first stage is one I hadn’t really heard too much about. I guess the FAA (maybe in conjunction with a private company?) will broadcast traffic information, taken from TRACON and ARTCC radar. So, not every plane will have to be equipped with extra equipment. But those who can receive these transmissions can see essentially what ATC would see, in terms of traffic.

Because even this first step would presumably require adding equipment and interfacing to the radar/computers at each ARTCC and TRACON, I just don’t see it as happening in the immediate future. But that’s just a guess on my part, maybe the equipment is already there and being used for something else already - I dunno.

Seems like one advantage of getting radar information from the FAA is that it could conceivably include primary returns, so that we could still get information from people with broken transponders or people who forgot to turn them on. (Although, again, I don’t know if they’re actually planning to transmit info about primary targets, just that it seems theoretically possible).

On the other hand, you would get no information about traffic that’s below FAA radar coverage.

With Skywatch (active system), you would get traffic information about all nearby traffic with operable transponders, whether or not you’re in FAA radar coverage…

I will try to find the guy’s business card that I talked to, and write him to get more info on the specific decision that is supposed to be made this fall.

Steve

Bernard: Did you get information from Cirrus as to which units the Skywatch will display on? Garmin has a “weather/traffic” screen on the 430 which is intended to display data from the Stormscope as well as the Skywatch system. At least as to the Stormscope, Cirrus has not enabled or connected the Stormscope to the proper Garmin 430 inputs such that the Stormscope displays on the Arnav only. Will the Skywatch or Skywatch/Stormscope data display on the 430?

I just got off the phone with Ian Bentley and he told me that the Skywatch data will display on both Garmin 430’s. Apparently a pop up screen can appear when traffic is within “your airspace”. Nothing was mentioned in our conversation concerning the stormscope. He has flown with skywatch and speaks highly of it. I guess I need another $21500.00!!!

As a side note the antenna will mount on the top along with the stormscope antenna.

If so, you could use the #1 430 for primary nav and the #2 for either Skywatch or Stormscope data, descent profile, fuel planning, winds aloft, or “what if” calculations.

I have been asked by Cirrus, if I would want the Goodrich Skywatch system installed on my plane at the factory. Other than a lot of money, what is everyones opinion?