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.
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
I, too, noticed the photo of a user’s Aero Tracker mounted horizontally with 90 degree angled antenna. But all literature on the product mentions mounting it vertically, implying that its GPS antenna is under the top face (from which the antenna is mounted). So for proper GPS reception is the antenna multiband, or on the other hand one should not mount the Aero Tracker flat after all since its GPS antenna would then be orthogonal to the sky ?
I asked someone at Avionix about this. It is okay to mount the Tracker horizontally as long as the antenna is point up (or down) to ensure optimum receive/transmit performance..
So it must be that the antenna is indeed multiband - including GNSS, which is unusual. But I cannot see the antenna with folding connection on the Avionix web site, as mentioned by tnowak.
Confusingly Avioinix’s openAir Multitrack receiver also seems to feature a multiband antenna supplied as standard: “A multiband antenna receiving on 868,1090 MHz and GNSS together with 15m antenna cable, mounting accessories and a power adapter are included.” That is not entirely clear as the receiver itself has separate GNSS input port. Maybe the multiband antenna in that case has 2 ports and the cable is actually a pair ?
It would be nice if Avionix could clarify this Aero Tracker antenna issue more formally e.g. in the datasheet etc.
Yes, Avioix have confirmed that the multi-band antenna supplied with both the openAir Multitrack receiver and the Aero Tracker does include the GNSS, so as tnowak writes, the only imortant thing is to have the antenna axis vertical; the body may thus be at any convenient pitch, direction.
But I am still struggling to see where the version of this antenna with folding connection lies lurking in the Avionix web shop …
tnowak:
That is exactly what I had assumed in the first place. I suspect you are right over the LTE antenna being inside. But there are inconsistencies in information here re the GNSS one.
For the GNSS antenna to be inside, the 75 x 25 mm outside case dimensions would suggest a tight fit, although not impossible. Also Avionix state that it’s OK to have the case upright or horizontal, as long as the antenna is pointing up or down. Surely GNSS reception is optimum one way and not the other ?
Also the Avionix chat facility specifically informs me that the Aero Tracker antenna is multi-band including GNSS; perhaps something is lost in translation and it means that the product’s antenna system [sic] is multiband ?
Avionix have also informed me today that the Tracker now ships with both straight and folding antennas.
Tristan separately confirmed that the GPS antenna is indeed inside, at the bottom of the unit when it sits upright, as displayed in most photos. I have now done many hours of simple experiemnts comparing satellite counts with two other GPS receivers and concluded - a little to my surprise - that from the point of view of GPS reception, upright or horizontal Aero Tracker positioning delivers essentially the same performance.
The SkyEcho 2 is a “certified” device so it can transmit ADS-B Out signals. Note that the data format is not the same as ADS-B Out from a Mode S ES transponder.
The Aero Tracker does not transmit ADS-B Out. It only receives ADS-B signals.
The Aero Tracker transmits and receives ADS-L signals
Thanks I was trying to challenge Tristans statement in the first post
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.
If SE2 transmits and receives ADS-B then the “new ADS-L standard” supported by Aerotracker doesn’t give an advantage, on it’s own, over SE2.
If you want to have an ADS-B Out capability and you don’t have a certified transponder capable, then the SE2 is a cost effective means of transmitting ADS-B out data.
For signal reception, the Tracker is far superior to the SE2 as it is capable of receiving aircraft position data from multiple sources. A mix of Air - Air reception (ADS-B, FLARM and ADS-L) and data received via the LTE mobile connection (MLAT, OGN, MLAT and multiple other protocols).
The ADS-L transmit capability of the Tracker is a new standard that EASA is adopting. Unfortunately, the UK CAA seems to be choosing a different standard…
