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

Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps for cell phones?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 3rd 18, 12:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default Why no

I'm still amazed, after so many years, of the Flarm-mafia mentality. Who made them the bad guys? They invented collision avoidance technology, licenced it and sold to end-users. Then someone stole their code and hacked the protocol public, illegally. Suddenly they were criminals because they tried to protect their investment. I mean for f*cks sake, what planet do you live on?
  #12  
Old May 3rd 18, 01:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default Why no

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:13:24 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
I'm still amazed, after so many years, of the Flarm-mafia mentality. Who made them the bad guys? They invented collision avoidance technology, licenced it and sold to end-users. Then someone stole their code and hacked the protocol public, illegally. Suddenly they were criminals because they tried to protect their investment. I mean for f*cks sake, what planet do you live on?


There is a difference between intellectual theft and competition. You seem to be assuming any anti collision app will use algorithms stolen from Flarm. Of course that would be wrong. Nothing wrong with writing new code that puts Flarm out of business. Remember to responsibly dispose of your Flarm unit in a proper electronics recycling bin.
  #13  
Old May 3rd 18, 03:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
WB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 236
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

Some good discussion, although some responders apparently did not really read my original post. As I said in the original post, I am aware that cell phones don't talk directly to each other (goTenna and similar notwithstanding). I am aware that cell phones systems aren't meant to work with phones at altitude although they seem to do well enough to track our gliders in contests. I am aware that cell coverage is highly discontinuous. I did say that I would not expect such a system to do what Flarm does, hence my "outside of racing gaggles" remark". That's why I originally titled my post "situational awareness" with "collision avoidance" in parentheses.

We have a bad habit of letting better be the enemy of good enough. Flarm is wonderful thing. I have a big 'ol gold PowerFlarm with too many antennas installed in my glider. I like it and I use it every flight. Unfortunately, in the US PowerFlarm is quite expensive and still requires a lot fussing with to get it to work properly. Cost and hassle have limited it's adoption. If we had a $15 app on cell phones that just told us where to look for traffic, and everyone had it, the gain in safety would be well beyond what we currently get from Flarm (gaggles excepted).

I see the purpose of such an app as letting everyone in the air know where to look for traffic. Not really a collision avoidance app, but really a situational awareness aid. So cheap and easy that everyone from skydivers to big iron drivers would have it. It's not so much to keep us from running our gliders into each other, it's to make us visible so that we can use the 100% installed base of Mark I Human Eyeballs and Human Brains to do the collision avoidance part.

WB
  #14  
Old May 3rd 18, 03:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:35:35 AM UTC-4, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
^ In most jurisdictions its illegal to use cellphones when airborne.

- and yet many glider pilots use IGCdroid. I am still not sure whether that is technically legal. In the USA, in my case.
  #15  
Old May 3rd 18, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Why no

The ADS-B in my C-180 provides collision warning.Â* Shortly after the
installation I was flying a GPS arc to an ILS (practice approach) when I
got an aural warning:Â* "Traffic 3 o'clock high, 1 mile!"Â* I had been
monitoring the traffic on my tablet, ATC had been reporting each of us
to the other, and I knew I was below the traffic.Â* Since we were both
VFR, no vectors were issued.

My system is a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS and GTX-345 ADS-B In/Out
transponder.Â* Not really suitable for a glider, but great for a light plane.

Can anyone say if a Trig TT22 with TN70 will provide collision warnings?

I understand the differences in gliding and powered flight and while
collision warnings are really terrific, if I had to choose only one, I'd
go for situational awareness.Â* I can easily avoid the more distant
traffic and, if a thermal is too crowded, I'll just go somewhere else.Â*
And, no, I don't do contest flying.

On 5/3/2018 3:14 AM, Chris Rowland wrote:
There are a number of other systems that provide peer to peer
communication, PilotAware, ADSB in/out and others. They provide
situational awareness but not collision warning.


--
Dan, 5J
  #16  
Old May 3rd 18, 07:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Why no

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
The ADS-B in my C-180 provides collision warning.Â* Shortly after the
installation I was flying a GPS arc to an ILS (practice approach) when I
got an aural warning:Â* "Traffic 3 o'clock high, 1 mile!"Â* I had been
monitoring the traffic on my tablet, ATC had been reporting each of us
to the other, and I knew I was below the traffic.Â* Since we were both
VFR, no vectors were issued.

My system is a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS and GTX-345 ADS-B In/Out
transponder.Â* Not really suitable for a glider, but great for a light plane.

Can anyone say if a Trig TT22 with TN70 will provide collision warnings?


The TT22 and TN70 gives you ADS-B Out only, unlike your GTX-345 that does ADS-B Out/In (1090ES Out and 1090ES In and UAT In). Glider pilots would normally get ADS-B In via a PowerFLARM (1090ES In only) or if they have room for a separate display then in some cases a Stratus or Stratux receiver (and if you do that get a dual link receiver).



  #17  
Old May 3rd 18, 09:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

I believe the FCC rule (in the US) is to NOT make/receive calls from a cellphone in the air. Major reason is potential swamping of multiple cell towers from a single phone, thus maybe blocking other calls.
Data through the same system uses quite a bit less bandwidth.

At least, that is my understanding.
  #18  
Old May 3rd 18, 09:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:04:35 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
I believe the FCC rule (in the US) is to NOT make/receive calls from a cellphone in the air. Major reason is potential swamping of multiple cell towers from a single phone, thus maybe blocking other calls.
Data through the same system uses quite a bit less bandwidth.

At least, that is my understanding.


Are you saying voice calls not OK, data OK from the air? How about text messages (also low bandwidth)? Of course, SOME data uses ARE high bandwidth (watch Netflix?), but I agree that the packets sent out by IGCdroid are low-bandwidth. The FCC rule may not differentiate those though.
  #19  
Old May 3rd 18, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:04:35 AM UTC+10, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
I believe the FCC rule (in the US) is to NOT make/receive calls from a cellphone in the air. Major reason is potential swamping of multiple cell towers from a single phone, thus maybe blocking other calls.
Data through the same system uses quite a bit less bandwidth.

At least, that is my understanding.


I know most of the conversation is US centric, but for context, here is a statement from the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (Cell phone industry body): http://www.amta.org.au/pages/Mobile.Phones.and.Aircraft
http://www.amta.org.au/files/AMTA-Po...rence-2013.pdf

The summary is in Australia there is no government regulation on cell phone use and it is up to the pilot/carriers to decide what policy they want to set. The cell phone companies industry body seems to have no concerns about issues with the cell phone system (GSM). The referenced PDF quotes research done in countries outside the US showing that there is no substantiated proof that phonescan interfere with aircraft systems.
  #20  
Old May 4th 18, 12:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike Schumann[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Why no

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:06:17 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
The ADS-B in my C-180 provides collision warning.Â* Shortly after the
installation I was flying a GPS arc to an ILS (practice approach) when I
got an aural warning:Â* "Traffic 3 o'clock high, 1 mile!"Â* I had been
monitoring the traffic on my tablet, ATC had been reporting each of us
to the other, and I knew I was below the traffic.Â* Since we were both
VFR, no vectors were issued.

My system is a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS and GTX-345 ADS-B In/Out
transponder.Â* Not really suitable for a glider, but great for a light plane.

Can anyone say if a Trig TT22 with TN70 will provide collision warnings?


The TT22 and TN70 gives you ADS-B Out only, unlike your GTX-345 that does ADS-B Out/In (1090ES Out and 1090ES In and UAT In). Glider pilots would normally get ADS-B In via a PowerFLARM (1090ES In only) or if they have room for a separate display then in some cases a Stratus or Stratux receiver (and if you do that get a dual link receiver).


Powerflarm is not a good ADS-B IN solution. It does not see UAT equipped aircraft, nor does it support ADS-R or TIS-B, which makes UAT and conventional transponder equipped aircraft visible to ADS-B IN equipped AC (as long as those aircraft are also ADS-B OUT equipped).

An ADS-B receiver (SCOUT, Stratus, etc.) coupled with an application like Foreflight or FltPlan Go on a smartphone or tablet provides an economical ADS-B collision warning system for those pilots who have an ADS-B out equipped glider.
 




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
Traffic Awareness and Collision Avoidance Talks at the SSA Convention Darryl Ramm Soaring 8 February 28th 18 12:49 AM
3rd Party Flarm data for Situational awareness Alex Kemp Soaring 6 March 12th 13 09:20 PM
GET FREE CELL PHONES and CAMERA PHONES! ssgg Home Built 0 February 13th 06 03:34 AM
Fun with Wx on Cell Phones B4RT Rotorcraft 0 October 9th 05 02:45 PM
Cell phones with GPS Roger Halstead Piloting 0 December 24th 03 04:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.