Another midair in the pattern

wrote:
On Jan 18, 10:00 am, Tony V wrote:
here's something that I wrote for GBSC students a long time ago.http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB...ent/radio.html

Tony

Nice!

Thank you.


You mention that when we make "blind" transmissions that we don't
expect an answer........

This is my point about the problem with JJ's scenario...You can't go
asking questions on CTAF.

Generally true. IMHO, but if I'm in the pattern and somebody else
announces the pattern and I don't see them, I've been known to ask
questions on CTAF. :-)

Tony

When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. We
should get on to the real issues with radios.

The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. Further, even with directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in. So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
are.

So are radios useful? Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
Will FLARM be useful? Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
will not limit midairs while thermalling.

So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
traffic in a directed fashion. However when these are extended with some
notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
good. So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
a safety viewpoint.

The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere. Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
safety than radios ever will.

Paul Moggach

On Jan 18, 1:01*pm, Paul Moggach wrote:
When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. *We
should get on to the real issues with radios.

The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. *Further, even with directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. *Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in. *So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
are.

So are radios useful? *Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
*Will FLARM be useful? *Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
will not limit midairs while thermalling.

So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
traffic in a directed fashion. *However when these are extended with some
notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
good. *So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
a safety viewpoint.

The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere. *Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
safety than radios ever will.

Paul Moggach

Paul,

All good points.

They address JJ's concept that the Hawker collision could have been
somehow been prevented with a simple radio transmission.

So if we want to create an idiot proof world, based on government
regulation and advanced technology, we have a whole alphabet of stuff
available (or soon to be).

To add to your list, we have: Mode C, Mode S, PCAS, TIS, ADS-B.....

All viable solutions, to some degree..

Cookie

On 1/18/2011 1:01 PM, Paul Moggach wrote:
When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. We
should get on to the real issues with radios.

The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. Further, even with directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in. So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain.
The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
are.

So are radios useful? Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
Will FLARM be useful? Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
will not limit midairs while thermalling.

So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
traffic in a directed fashion. However when these are extended with some
notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
good. So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
a safety viewpoint.

The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere. Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
safety than radios ever will.

Paul Moggach


If we could get universal deployment of FLARM, ADS-B, or something
similar (as long as everyone was using a common platform), where
everyone could see everyone else's position, the need for radios would
be significantly diminished. However, they would still be very useful
in sequencing, and being able to notify people of unsafe conditions
(i.e. spoilers out), etc.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jan 18, 1:32*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 1/18/2011 1:01 PM, Paul Moggach wrote:



When we get away from the $200 argument, and the basic freedoms, etc. *We
should get on to the real issues with radios.

The facts are that they are pretty useless in preventing any accidents
when they are used in the blind calling mode. *Further, even with directed
communications in controlled settings, they are often ineffective. *Humans
have great filters for getting rid of audio input that they aren't
interested in. *So unless you can unleash some pyrotechnics when you are
transmitting, their ineffectiveness in preventing accidents will remain..
The reason that Transponders, TCAS and FLARM devices etc. exist is a
direct result of the admission of how ineffective audio communications
are.

So are radios useful? *Sure, but not particularly for accident prevention.
* Will FLARM be useful? *Probably, in congested traffic areas, but likely
will not limit midairs while thermalling.

So I've seen some good arguments for radios about dealing with general
traffic in a directed fashion. *However when these are extended with some
notion that they will measurably contribute to safety, the evidence is not
good. *So making radios mandatory equipment or not is irrelevant to me from
a safety viewpoint.

The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere. *Money aside, TCAS, and FLARM are much
better at getting your attention, and hold much more promise of affecting
safety than radios ever will.

Paul Moggach

If we could get universal deployment of FLARM, ADS-B, or something
similar (as long as everyone was using a common platform), where
everyone could see everyone else's position, the need for radios would
be significantly diminished. *However, they would still be very useful
in sequencing, and being able to notify people of unsafe conditions
(i.e. spoilers out), etc.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike,

You said the key word..."universal".....everybody has to be on the
same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!

Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
never the whole picture.....

We have to be sure to understand the advantages and limitations of our
equipment, otherwise it can lead to false sense of security....or
expecting more out of the technology than the technology is designed
to give, etc.

So...."see and be seen" and "see and avoid", even though far from
perfect, are the closest to universal we have. for now...especially in
E or G airspace.

Cookie

" wrote:
.....everybody has to be on the
same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!

Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
never the whole picture.....

If a device with 15 W to 40 W power consumption is viable in a glider then
broadband radar could in theory be used and everyone would not need to be
"on the same page." I'm thinking specifically of the current cost and
capabilities of marine broadband radar systems; for example:

http://deanelectronics.com/index.php...iewCat&catId=3
(E.g. Furuno 1623 16 NM Mono Radar, cost US$1375.95; 12V or 24V, 36 W)

(By comparison, the Lowrance BR24 marine radar uses ~17W. See:
http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Mar...oadband-Radar/
)

I am not sure, but I suspect the primary reason these systems aren't
available for aircraft is probably regulatory (the 2D field of view is a
technical limitation that I believe could be surmounted with some
engineering.) Certainly the costs seem comparable to ADS-B and even Power
Flarm systems being proposed. And radar doesn't depend on GPS or any other
external active systems.

On Jan 18, 7:41*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
" wrote:
.....everybody has to be on the
same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!

Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
never the whole picture.....

If a device with 15 W to 40 W power consumption is viable in a glider then
broadband radar could in theory be used and everyone would not need to be
"on the same page." I'm thinking specifically of the current cost and
capabilities of marine broadband radar systems; for example:

http://deanelectronics.com/index.php...iewCat&catId=3
(E.g. Furuno 1623 16 NM Mono Radar, cost US$1375.95; 12V or 24V, 36 W)

(By comparison, the Lowrance BR24 marine radar uses ~17W. See:http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Mar...oadband-Radar/
)

I am not sure, but I suspect the primary reason these systems aren't
available for aircraft is probably regulatory (the 2D field of view is a
technical limitation that I believe could be surmounted with some
engineering.) Certainly the costs seem comparable to ADS-B and even Power
Flarm systems being proposed. And radar doesn't depend on GPS or any other
external active systems.

Wow....interesting concept......

I must say I don't know a thing about boat radar......but that seems
like a too many watts to run from a 12 volt SLA battery, which is
commonly used in gliders now. I could see that by the time you
overcom the aircraft challanges, that the cost would be considerably
hihger than the boat units.

I always figured the "TIS" type systems on some planes these days was
to give the "effect" of having radar on board, without all the
complication and expense of an aircraft radar on board radar.

Beyond that, it seems that a transponders/ encoders might still be
required to be able to "see" the other aircraft. At least in the 3D
altitude sense.......

Would a boat type radar work at higher speeds? Would you be able to
process the information and figure out probable flight paths and
collision courses?

It seems to me that GPS works pretty well. I'd put my money on some
universal GPS based system. We're already pretty heavily wired up for
GPS anyway, for navigation, flight recording, and flight computer.

Cookie

On 1/18/2011 7:41 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
"twocoolgliders@juno. com wrote:
.....everybody has to be on the
same page...at the same time, all of the time....that's a tall order!

Not so today.....everybody has one or two pieces of the puzzle, but
never the whole picture.....

If a device with 15 W to 40 W power consumption is viable in a glider then
broadband radar could in theory be used and everyone would not need to be
"on the same page." I'm thinking specifically of the current cost and
capabilities of marine broadband radar systems; for example:

http://deanelectronics.com/index.php...iewCat&catId=3
(E.g. Furuno 1623 16 NM Mono Radar, cost US$1375.95; 12V or 24V, 36 W)

(By comparison, the Lowrance BR24 marine radar uses ~17W. See:
http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Mar...oadband-Radar/
)

I am not sure, but I suspect the primary reason these systems aren't
available for aircraft is probably regulatory (the 2D field of view is a
technical limitation that I believe could be surmounted with some
engineering.) Certainly the costs seem comparable to ADS-B and even Power
Flarm systems being proposed. And radar doesn't depend on GPS or any other
external active systems.

The problem with radar is that you don't get altitude. A FLARM / ADS-B
solution would be much more accurate and elegant, and if produced in
volume, without the artificial certification / aviation product
liability costs, potentially less expensive.

--
Mike Schumann

On 1/18/2011 10:01 AM, Paul Moggach wrote:
The real questions are what might be effective, and in what environment?
Radios are ineffective everywhere.

Maybe you are using the wrong radios. My radios have been effective for
over 30 years. They have alerted me to traffic I can not see as I
approach the airport area, alerted other pilots to my intention and need
to land very soon after I arrive, let me keep the towplane from starting
the tow when I'm going to need the runway, gotten me the intentions of
airplanes sitting just off the end of the runway, kept me from flying
under the skydiver airplane that's 10,000' above me just before the
jumpers exit, let me inform other pilots I've joined their thermal (and
vice versa), and that sequencing thing JJ mentioned.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Jan 18, 12:39*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
This is my point about the problem with JJ's *scenario...You can't go
asking questions on CTAF.

Cookie

Why not? I have been known to appoint myself the local flight ops
officer when several people are trying to land. You are number 3, Sven
Vctor, I'm on downwind and Bavo Charlie is on
final................there is a tow plane in the area, where are you
Blue Tow?
The 'proper use' of the radio is not about some imagined users code,
its about establishing and maintaining seperation among airport users,
some of who can't loiter or go around.
JJ

JJ,

I guess our arguement has degenerated into a tit for tat kind of small
detail thing...arguing for the sake of arguing now.

But to address you statements above.......

There *are* standard procedures for radio use. It's not "code" and
its not "imagined". It's real, and it uses plain english. There are
articles, books, circualrs, tapes, and CD's etc that explain radio
use, put out by EAA, FAA, AIM, SSA, etc.

Please find me one example, in any of these, which recommend the use
of those questions, like "Towplane where are you?" or, "any gliders
in my area?" (remember the old TV show, "Car 54 where are you ?"

Sorry JJ, it just doesn't work that way. If you re-read my previous
long winded reply, you will see that I give many examples of how
asking an open ended question on CTAF only adds to confusion at best.

In your towplane scenario above it works like this........

If the towplane is far away and out of the picture......the tow plane
pilot says nothing.........as the tow plane approaches the airport,
and landing pattern, he makes a call on CTAF, like......"Joe's
gliderport, towplane, 5 west, landing 07....."

The glider(s) in the area, or in the pattern should react
accordingly........announcing their position(s) as they go.

I don't think it is helpful for a guy on the ground to be trying to
act as a one man control tower.......


Cookie