![]() |
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/29/2010 12:51 AM, Andy wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:19 pm, wrote: Also, to clarify, ADS-B does no path estimation of its own. That function either would have to be added into an ADS-B unit by the OEM, similar to the way Flarm does today - unlikely to be done in a glider- specific way IMO - OR, it would have to be done by a separate external device, perhaps a navigation computer/software like Oudie, WinPilot, SN-10. For it to be effective manufacturers would all have to agree to use the same algorithm, which also seems unlikely, unless they all adopt the Flarm algorithm. That seems somewhat unlikely too, since I don't think Flarm would want to start splintering how their algorithms get used by splitting out the Flarm link technology from the collision algorithm (which would have to be modified to accommodate the differences in how path estimations get generated - with unpredictable results). PLUS the external device OEM's would have to adapt to using ADS-B inputs - another standards issue. No matter how hard I try, it seems highly improbable that you will be able to stitch together a satisfactory collision avoidance system for gliders using ADS-B technology developed for general aviation. You'd have to be satisfied with the simple functionality offered by ADS-B - which would be fine if you generally come into conflict with GA and airliners more often than other gliders, but there are a bunch of us for whom the opposite is true. Then the problem becomes some gliders using Flarm and others using ADS-B, you lose some of the Flarm benefits of path estimation for the non-Flarm gliders. 9B 9B You are probably correct that no one is going to beat FLARM in an optimized collision avoidance solution for high density glider environments. That's obviously their focus and they are good at it. However, most recreational, non-contest pilots, primarily need a system that will reliably alert them to other aircraft in their general vicinity. If I enter a thermal and know that there are 3 other aircraft in the area, and I only see two, I'm going to abort and go elsewhere. A contest pilot obviously wants more data. What is interesting about the Parowan situation is that this was not a gaggle of gliders. It was two gliders who apparently did not have a proper appreciation that they were near each other. A simple graphical display that showed their relative positions, with a very simple collision avoidance algorithm, or some form of auditory announcement could have prevented this accident. That's not to say that the FLARM simulation was not impressive. -- Mike Schumann |
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 |