A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Help us with this petition for security on anti-collision systems



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #34  
Old May 29th 15, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Galloway[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Help us with this petition for security on anti-collision systems

At 13:15 29 May 2015, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:59:12 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn

wrote:
I'll buy the beer.=20
=20
Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the

f=
iner points of my mother language apparently. ;-)
=20
Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with

a
=
probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to
estim=
ate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and
the=
n maps these paths to estimate likely conflicts and warns if it finds

one.
=
I consider that warning a prediction - if nothing changes the two

aircraft
=
will likely collide. Sure, it's an estimate but I still consider that

more
=
of a prediction than just putting airplane-shaped dots on a display and
tel=
ling the pilot "you figure it out". I'd rather have a microprocessor and
an=
algorithm than burying my head in a traffic display. I'd call that
warning=
a prediction but maybe I'm being sloppy with the definitions.
=20
The point is - FLARM will give you a warning only for pretty real

threats=
.. A traffic advisory system can only annoy you with constant

warnings of
ai=
rcraft in the vicinity whether they are a threat or not or leave it to

you
=
to find threats.by staring at a display. You need to project a flight

path
=
with some precision to strike a balance between too may false

positives
and=
leaving too many possible threats suppressed until too late. Given

how we
=
fly I think FLARM does quite well. It's also why ADS-B will struggle to
ope=
rate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries

to
p=
laster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B

unit.
P=
owerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target

with
both=
FLARM and ADS-B Out.
=20
9B


The discussion in this thread raises a significant question as to how

much
=
"predictive" information is actually transmitted as part of the FLARM
proto=
col. I suspect that the differences in the information transmitted by
FLAR=
M and ADS-B are relatively minor.
I don't question the sophistication of FLARM's algorithms in filtering

out
=
collision threats that are real based on the trajectories of the aircraft
i=
n a soaring environment. Much of this processing must take place in

the
FL=
ARM's receiver, as the trajectories of both the receiving aircraft and

the
=
threat aircraft must be known to determine if there is a collision

threat.

My problem is with the assertion that a similar system can not be
implement=
ed using ADS-B. This is patently false. Numerous low cost iPhone

and/or
A=
ndroid apps already provide collision threat warnings today using low

cost
=
ADS-B receivers. These apps not only report collision warnings for

ADS-B
e=
quipped aircraft, but also for all transponder equipped aircraft that are
i=
dentified by TIS-B received from an ADS-B ground stations (Note:

You need
=
to be ADS-B OUT equipped to reliably receive TIS-B traffic).

It is unlikely that these existing apps are optimized like FLARM is to
reco=
gnize the unique flight profiles that are common with glider traffic.

We
w=
ill have to wait and see whether or not these companies will find it

worth
=
their while to invest in more sophisticated algorithms to specifically
targ=
et the glider market. However, there are glider specific apps (iGlide,
etc=
..) that are specifically aimed at the soaring market, which would have

a
st=
rong marketing advantage in including this kind of advanced ADS-B

based
cap=
ability.

In Europe, given the large installed FLARM base, this may be an

academic
di=
scussion. In the US, FLARM will never be widely deployed outside of

the
co=
mpetitive soaring community. Here, an economical ADS-B based

solution
that=
provided reliable warnings, not only for other gliders, but also all
other=
GA aircraft, would be a big hit.


The differences in the information transmitted by Flarm and ADS-B are
not minor. There is plenty of information included, or linked to, earlier

in this thread to explain what Flarm transmits and why.

John Galloway


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Collision Avoidance Systems for gliders noel56z Soaring 21 March 15th 07 01:45 AM
Collision Avoidance Systems jcarlyle Soaring 27 September 7th 06 03:38 AM
Collision Avoidance Systems [email protected] Products 0 May 21st 06 10:15 PM
Anti collision systems for gliders Simon Waddell Soaring 2 September 21st 04 08:52 AM
Anti-collision lights Grandpa B. Owning 4 August 8th 03 06:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.