![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 28, 8:47 am, Andy wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:32 am, Andreas Maurer wrote: On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Brian wrote: I hadn't really considered how the projected flight path system works before. But after thinking about it for a bit it has a lot of potentional. How much the Flarm actually uses I do not know. Flarm uses ONLY projected flight paths to calculate a collision probability. Even without that I can see that gliders could get very close but have potential flight paths that would make colliding impossible and as a result would not create a collision alarm. This is exactly how Flarm works. Flarm doesn't care about distances - as long as Flarm doesn't detect a potential collision cource, you can fly very close to each other without getting a warning - even if you are circling. Andreas I think that's the secret for how you make it useful in thermals - if the system knows you are circling it can do a better job predicting your curved flight path and potential threats along that path. I presume that if you assume the full maneuvering envelope of each glider you'd generate a lot of warnings, so it would make sense to assume something more limited that strikes a balance between false positive warnings and missing potential maneuvers that could create a threat with little advanced notice. Think of a glider pulling up into a thermal as a good example. I assume that Flarm does all this based on the following explanation where an expanding projected flight path envelope is depicted: http://www.gliderpilot.org/Flarm-WhatDoesItDo As to ADS-B - without some algorithm for projecting flight paths the only warning you can realistically generate is a proximity warning. Even warning only for declining separation distance is a crude form of relative path prediction, just not a very useful one - particularly for glider operations with multiple targets and circling flight. 9B Just to give a flavor ADS-B data-out systems as mandated for 2020 in the USA for power aircraft (basically where a transponder is required today) will put out the following data Aircraft ICAO ID (can be made anonymous for a UAT on VFR flight) Aircraft callsign/flight number (not required for VFR flight) Time of applicability GPS Lattitude GPS Longitude GPS altitude Airborne/on-surface status Northbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS) Eastbound ground velocity component while airborne (from GPS) Heading while on the surface Ground speed while on the surface Pressure altitude Vertical rate (may be pressure or GPS based) GPS uncertainty/integrity (which needs information form a fancy TSO- C145 class WAAS GPS) Ident (equivalent to transponder ident/SPI) Distress/Emergency status ADS-B data-in/display capability TCAS equipage/status This is a simplified list and there is various other status/validity data as well. There is also the concept in ADS-B messages of an estimated position, and even estimated velocity. But AFAIK this is not intended for fancy manoeuvrings predictions - it is more intended to allow different parts of the ADS-B infrastructure to project position or velocity updated to a single time of applicability. There is space for future expansion and as an example there is long-term work underway to look at an ADS-B based replacement for TCAS that could well utilize extra data transmission than that above, but think well post 2020 for this to actually happen. My brain hurts enough thinking about ADS-B as is. --- BTW my suspicion is given that the FAA currently requires a STC for any installation for ADS-B data out that it is currently not possible to install any ADS-B data-out system in the USA in any certified aircraft (including gliders) that only meets a subset of the 2020 mandate requirements (ie. does not include all the stuff above). Which I expect the FAA would also require fully TSO-C154c/DO-282B (UAT) TSO- C166b/DO-260B (1090ES) and with the corresponding TSO-C145 level GPS. Experimental aircraft are another question since an STC cannot apply to them. This STC restriction hopefully is short-term as its is going to have a chilling effect on ADS-B data-out adoption in general aviation and gliders. Besides some more complex issues you can start to see even simple installation concerns that are probably causing this current STC requirement, such as squat switch/or other on-ground detection, needs to have a single squawk code and ident button across any installed transponder(s) and ADS-B data-out devices, ability to transmit a distress/emergency code, ability to turn off the ADS-B transmissions if requested, etc. Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flarm in the US | Steve Freeman | Soaring | 163 | August 15th 10 12:12 AM |
Reflections on good and evil | [email protected] | Piloting | 6 | April 18th 06 08:48 PM |
FLARM | Robert Hart | Soaring | 50 | March 16th 06 11:20 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
B29 - "Necessary Evil" | Matt Tauber | Military Aviation | 30 | August 28th 03 10:35 AM |