![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike,
The FLARM concept has been painfully obvious, from a technology point of view, since the introduction of low-cost GPS. In fact, it could even have been partially implemented with LORAN, but those receivers were expensive and were never widely deployed. Unfortunately, FLARM-type collision avoidance is only going to work if it's deployed to virtually all aircraft, which would require the authorities to insist on it. This won't happen: ADS-B is the chosen approach. It seems to me that TIS-B is most likely what will first begin to provide us with the functionality we need - and actually get deployed. TIS-B (Traffic Information Service - Broadcast) is a portion of ADS-B, essentially a broadcast of the radar returns seen by ATC. At the moment it has limited coverage in the US but you can receive it - however you need to spend about $15,000 on avionics including a Mode S transponder plus a display unit designed for bigger panels than we have. Still, no doubt it will soon occur to some entrepreneur that a TIS-B receiver without all the Mode S baggage, designed for display on a PDA might well find a market (lots of Cezzna drivers think $15k is a lot of money too). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Mike, The FLARM concept has been painfully obvious, from a technology point of view, since the introduction of low-cost GPS. In fact, it could even have been partially implemented with LORAN, but those receivers were expensive and were never widely deployed. Unfortunately, FLARM-type collision avoidance is only going to work if it's deployed to virtually all aircraft, which would require the authorities to insist on it. This won't happen: ADS-B is the chosen approach. Sort of important to this approach is "is it worth it?" and "does the solution cause more death than the problem?" Kind of like parachutes. If the added weight increases the marginal stall speed to the point it causes .001% more fatal accidents, but only saves .0092% more pilots in breakups, then it was a bad idea. Of course it's extremely unlikely anyone can prove the extra 15 pounds was the cause of fatality, right? How many added fatalities will there be because the pilot is distracted by the bleepy noise, even though the aircraft would have missed by six inches if neither pilot was aware? How many will die because of the distraction itself? This is just too hard to calculate. Huge numbers (hours of flight)multiplied by tiny estimated numbers (risk of midair) makes for a tough comparison. Now instead of risk use cost in $$$$s to implement, and the true cost vs. benefit is very difficult to estimate correctly... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |
Anti collision lights mods for Arrow 1968?? | Frode Berg | Piloting | 3 | May 20th 04 05:42 AM |
Anti collision light mod for Piper Arrow 1968 model? | Frode Berg | Owning | 4 | May 20th 04 05:16 AM |
New anti collision system for aircrafts, helicopters and gliders | Thierry | Owning | 10 | February 14th 04 08:36 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |