I currently own a Sky Echo. While I am reasonably satisfied with the reception of ADSB and Flarm aircraft, the position of the Sky Echo in the cockpit has a significant impact on reception performance.
Does the Aero Tracker offer better reception? The clearly visible antenna on the Aero Tracker compared to the Sky Echo might suggest so.
I understand that the Aero Tracker has a SIM card and that traffic comes online or via ADSB completely from the device. This, of course, makes the approach different from that of the Sky Echo. However, with Safe Sky software and Sky Echo hardware, I already have a similar setup.
I would be grateful for any thoughts, explanations or experiences!
And finally: How about a discount for existing Sky Echo owners? I understand both device come from the same manufacturer.
Thank you for your message and for sharing your experience. Your current setup using Sky Echo together with the SafeSky app is already a solid one.
The key difference with the Aero-Tracker lies in its “all-in-one” design, plus several enhanced features:
-
Expanded air-to-air capabilities: it supports not only ADS-B but also the new EASA ADS-L standard, OGN-Tracker, and FANET, which broadens the range of detected aircraft.
-
Transmitting capabilities: unlike the Sky Echo, the Aero-Tracker also acts as a transmitter via ADS-L, OGN-Tracker, and FANET, increasing your visibility to others.
-
Integrated with SafeSky’s 30+ traffic sources, the Aero-Tracker adds substantial situational awareness, especially in the lower airspace where untracked traffic like paramotors, paragliders, trikes, and ultra-lights are most common.
-
Built-in multi-network SIM: the included SIM works across all major telecom providers, similar to roaming. This ensures better LTE coverage regardless of your telecom provider and improves network-based traffic reception.
-
No configuration required: The Aero-Tracker works straight out of the box and automatically pairs with your SafeSky app, minimising setup time and simplifying device management. When used with apps like SkyDemon or Air Navigation Pro, it connects via Bluetooth—so there’s no need to switch Wi-Fi networks during flight, helping you maintain continuous internet access, especially on Android devices where switching to Wi-Fi can interrupt LTE connectivity.
-
Future-proof: As SafeSky evolves, the Aero-Tracker is actively updated to support new protocols and features
-
10 hours of battery life: and compared to the SkyEcho2, the Aero-Tracker can be charged in flight using the USB-C port.
In short, while your current configuration offers good coverage, the Aero-Tracker combines everything into a single, smart, and seamless device with both broader reception and transmission capabilities.
Fly Safe,
Tristan
Just a quick note regarding your question: “I understand both devices come from the same manufacturer.”
It’s a common confusion: the SkyEcho2 is made by uAvionix, whereas the Aero-Tracker is developed by Avionix (without the “u”) 
Tristan
Hello FlyingManni,
I have an SE2 and now a Aero Tracker.
I have been testing my Aero Tracker for the past few months and am very happy with it.
I would say that ADS-B air-2-air reception capabilities are better than the SE2, but it is difficult to be specific. When doing ground based testing with my Aero Tracker I can easily receive ADS-B transmissions from GA aircraft at least 15 NM away. With CAT (more powerful transponders) then distances increase to around 50 NM or more.
Of course, the positioning of the Aero Tracker will be as important as the positioning of your SE2.
With my aircraft I am fortunate in being able to mount both devices in good positions forward of me and with good views forward and upwards.
I have seen on the Avionix website that you can purchase an antenna that folds 90 degrees so allowing the Aero Tracker to be mounted horizontally rather than vertically, should space constraints be an issue. That may help with your mounting problem.
Also, as previously mentioned, the Aero Tracker also benefits from the LTE data connection capability which allows additional traffic (MLAT and FLARM etc.) to be amalgamated with direct air-2-air reception so providing for a much better overall EC receive capability.
Hope this helps..
Tony