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

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 5:22:47 AM UTC-7, pcool wrote:

Who is incompatible with who? You have the freedom to choose a device
manufacturer.

Well, there is one device that is installed in 25,000 gliders worldwide and one that is installed in...how many? 500? People can decide which is the tail and which is the dog when it comes to wagging. I think if I showed up in most European countries with an electrical device requiring 110 volts I would not get agreement that the entire continent is incompatible and needs to change to 110 volts.

The TAdvisor, and probably the OGN devices soon, are not worst than flarm to do this job.

That isn't even how they talk about themselves.

Here is what T-Advisor says about the themselves: "The functioning idea of the T-Advisor is not the one of an Anticollision or Collision Avoidance System, rather the one of the Traffic Advisor, an Early Warning System."

OGN's main purpose is tracking, not collision detection. Here is what they say about themselves: "The objective of the Open Glider Network is to create and maintain a unified tracking platform for gliders and other GA aircraft. Currently OGN focuses on tracking aircraft equipped with FLARM, FLARM-compatible devices or OGN tracker."

Hair-splitting and straw-manning are not a productive ways to advance the conversation.

9B

When you say "straw manning" you are talking about yourself, right?
Because In my previous post I have pointed you to a real predictive code,
and explained why there is no prediction but a simple projection in a flarm.


"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 5:22:47 AM UTC-7, pcool wrote:

Who is incompatible with who? You have the freedom to choose a device
manufacturer.

Well, there is one device that is installed in 25,000 gliders worldwide and
one that is installed in...how many? 500? People can decide which is the
tail and which is the dog when it comes to wagging. I think if I showed up
in most European countries with an electrical device requiring 110 volts I
would not get agreement that the entire continent is incompatible and needs
to change to 110 volts.

The TAdvisor, and probably the OGN devices soon, are not worst than flarm
to do this job.

That isn't even how they talk about themselves.

Here is what T-Advisor says about the themselves: "The functioning idea of
the T-Advisor is not the one of an Anticollision or Collision Avoidance
System, rather the one of the Traffic Advisor, an Early Warning System."

OGN's main purpose is tracking, not collision detection. Here is what they
say about themselves: "The objective of the Open Glider Network is to create
and maintain a unified tracking platform for gliders and other GA aircraft.
Currently OGN focuses on tracking aircraft equipped with FLARM,
FLARM-compatible devices or OGN tracker."

Hair-splitting and straw-manning are not a productive ways to advance the
conversation.

9B

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, pcool wrote:
When you say "straw manning" you are talking about yourself, right?

Are we in 4th grade?

I was referring mostly to Lucas' misinformed and obfuscating rant, but also to your inaccurate comments minimizing the difference between traffic advisory and path-dependent collision warning. It is quite a big difference.

9B

sorry andy. I wish we lived closely, to have a great discussion about this
with a beer.


"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, pcool wrote:
When you say "straw manning" you are talking about yourself, right?

Are we in 4th grade?

I was referring mostly to Lucas' misinformed and obfuscating rant, but also
to your inaccurate comments minimizing the difference between traffic
advisory and path-dependent collision warning. It is quite a big difference.

9B

I'll buy the beer.

Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the finer points of my mother language apparently. ;-)

Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with a probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to estimate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and then 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 telling 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.

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 aircraft 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 operate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries to plaster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B unit. PowerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target with both FLARM and ADS-B Out.

9B

Now I understand what you meant with prediction, not referring to the
position!
yes I agree on this definition, from this point of view.
I look at it exactly as you do.

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...

I'll buy the beer.

Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the
finer points of my mother language apparently. ;-)

Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with a
probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to
estimate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and
then 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 telling 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.

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
aircraft 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
operate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries to
plaster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B unit.
PowerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target with both
FLARM and ADS-B Out.

9B

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:59:12 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I'll buy the beer.

Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the finer points of my mother language apparently. ;-)

Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with a probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to estimate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and then 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 telling 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.

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 aircraft 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 operate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries to plaster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B unit. PowerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target with both FLARM and ADS-B Out.

9B

The discussion in this thread raises a significant question as to how much "predictive" information is actually transmitted as part of the FLARM protocol. I suspect that the differences in the information transmitted by FLARM 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 in a soaring environment. Much of this processing must take place in the FLARM'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 implemented using ADS-B. This is patently false. Numerous low cost iPhone and/or Android apps already provide collision threat warnings today using low cost ADS-B receivers. These apps not only report collision warnings for ADS-B equipped aircraft, but also for all transponder equipped aircraft that are identified 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 recognize the unique flight profiles that are common with glider traffic. We will have to wait and see whether or not these companies will find it worth their while to invest in more sophisticated algorithms to specifically target the glider market. However, there are glider specific apps (iGlide, etc..) that are specifically aimed at the soaring market, which would have a strong marketing advantage in including this kind of advanced ADS-B based capability.

In Europe, given the large installed FLARM base, this may be an academic discussion. In the US, FLARM will never be widely deployed outside of the competitive 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.

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

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:59:12 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I'll buy the beer.

Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the finer points of my mother language apparently. ;-)

Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with a probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to estimate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and then 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 telling 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.

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 aircraft 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 operate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries to plaster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B unit. PowerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target with both FLARM and ADS-B Out.

9B

The discussion in this thread raises a significant question as to how much "predictive" information is actually transmitted as part of the FLARM protocol. I suspect that the differences in the information transmitted by FLARM 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 in a soaring environment. Much of this processing must take place in the FLARM'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 implemented using ADS-B. This is patently false. Numerous low cost iPhone and/or Android apps already provide collision threat warnings today using low cost ADS-B receivers. These apps not only report collision warnings for ADS-B equipped aircraft, but also for all transponder equipped aircraft that are identified 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 recognize the unique flight profiles that are common with glider traffic. We will have to wait and see whether or not these companies will find it worth their while to invest in more sophisticated algorithms to specifically target the glider market. However, there are glider specific apps (iGlide, etc.) that are specifically aimed at the soaring market, which would have a strong marketing advantage in including this kind of advanced ADS-B based capability.

In Europe, given the large installed FLARM base, this may be an academic discussion. In the US, FLARM will never be widely deployed outside of the competitive 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.

Here we go again. Mike sharing his ignorance about powerflram with the world. Mike, each and every assumption and assertion you make is wrong. Maybe someone else will be willing to correct you on every wrong assumption, I wouldn't waste my time...