On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:13 pm, Mike
wrote:
[snip]
Every sport has leeching. In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
bumper to reduce drag. There's no problem as long it's a level playing
field and everyone has the same options.

We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
needs to be customized for the soaring community. Anti-collision
hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. Granted,
we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.

That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.

Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.

Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.

--
Mike Schumann

Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?

All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
asking them what is worthwhile.

And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?

No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
is intended to do).

Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
SSA believe this as well?


Darryl

I am speaking only for myself, a non-contest flying glider pilot and
commercial airline passenger.

Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM). The issue is
that see and avoid is not a reliable way to avoid collisions between
airplanes.

The problem is not just contests. Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.
A major irony and tragedy was the mid-air that killed Chris
O’Callaghan, who was an enthusiastic participant in this demonstration
project.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. That is a
legitimate goal.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. I do have a legal background.