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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On Aug 19, 8:19*am, Mike Schumann
wrote: On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 12:10 am, *wrote: BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in with and a separate one to leach with? -Paul You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g. I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up on that display (if the software supports that)). Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC log file. I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/ require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably implies. Darryl Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest????? Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside (even inside) of our small insular world??? -- Mike Schumann None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that the rules committee and contest community has already decided that anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/ being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any details on what these product features are? I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real- world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and products that solve these real world problems. Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the receiver side). BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the issues. --- Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are important vectors for introducing new technology and developing official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas. You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need products developed specifically for the glider community. And this again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate many of the things Flarm has already done. For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly reduce leeching concerns. Darryl |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike wrote: On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 12:10 am, wrote: BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in with and a separate one to leach with? -Paul You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g. I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up on that display (if the software supports that)). Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC log file. I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/ require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably implies. Darryl Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest????? Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside (even inside) of our small insular world??? -- Mike Schumann None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that the rules committee and contest community has already decided that anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/ being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any details on what these product features are? I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real- world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and products that solve these real world problems. Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the receiver side). BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the issues. --- Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are important vectors for introducing new technology and developing official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas. You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need products developed specifically for the glider community. And this again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate many of the things Flarm has already done. For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly reduce leeching concerns. Darryl The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up. The number one focus should be safety. Knowing the exact location of every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance. There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. If that gives someone an advantage, that is a good thing; it will encourage everyone else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment. Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the tricks the race leader is using to win. -- Mike Schumann |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On Aug 19, 9:38*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote: On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike wrote: On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 12:10 am, * *wrote: BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in with and a separate one to leach with? -Paul You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.. I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up on that display (if the software supports that)). Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC log file. I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/ require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably implies. Darryl Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest????? Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside (even inside) of our small insular world??? -- Mike Schumann None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that the rules committee and contest community has already decided that anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/ being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any details on what these product features are? I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real- world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and products that solve these real world problems. Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the receiver side). BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the issues. --- Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are important vectors for introducing new technology and developing official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas. You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need products developed specifically for the glider community. And this again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate many of the things Flarm has already done. For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly reduce leeching concerns. Darryl The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up. The number one focus should be safety. *Knowing the exact location of every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance. There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. *If that gives someone an advantage, that is a good thing; *it will encourage everyone else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment. Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the tricks the race leader is using to win. -- Mike Schumann Hi, Mike, the issue is not so much knowing where the other planes are, as much as knowing how well they're climbing. If you know someone has a great thermal somewhere in particular (especially at a considerable distance) you have an advantage over someone without that knowledge. The current method of visually seeing the climb of a competitor in a nearby thermal is part of the game (you can only roughly estimate his climb rate). Knowing the climb rate of thermals ahead to the nearest 0.1m/s is not sporting. Knowing that someone is on a collision course with you is safety, and that's what the so-called "stealth" mode still will warn you about. -- Matt |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On Aug 19, 6:38*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote: On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike wrote: On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 12:10 am, * *wrote: BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in with and a separate one to leach with? -Paul You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.. I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up on that display (if the software supports that)). Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC log file. I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/ require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably implies. Darryl Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest????? Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside (even inside) of our small insular world??? -- Mike Schumann None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that the rules committee and contest community has already decided that anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/ being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any details on what these product features are? I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real- world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and products that solve these real world problems. Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the receiver side). BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the issues. --- Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are important vectors for introducing new technology and developing official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas. You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need products developed specifically for the glider community. And this again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate many of the things Flarm has already done. For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly reduce leeching concerns. Darryl The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up. The number one focus should be safety. *Knowing the exact location of every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance. There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. *If that gives someone an advantage, that is a good thing; *it will encourage everyone else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment. Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the tricks the race leader is using to win. -- Mike Schumann I am not suggesting turning off Flarm. It has stealth mode specifically for contest. I am suggesting that if other technology does not have the equivalent then that may not be acceptable. That this might be an issue should not be a surprise to anybody who thinks about the contest environment. Now the contest folks may well decide that they actually are able to live with the leeching concerns some pilots have. There are lots of human factors here. What I hope the contest community focuses on is using something that works at reducing the risk of mid-air collisions, including in crowded contest environments. In those environments I am just not sure at all you want or need an accurate display of all traffic within some large volume. ADS-B potntial volumes start getting very large. But have you actually bothered to look at what Flarm stealth mode provides? Like it actually meets your 1-2 mile requirement (with other restrictions that make sense). Darryl |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On Aug 19, 6:19*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:19*am, Mike Schumann wrote: [snip] BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the issues. Well darn I did get myself well sidetracked by typing this too fast. I meant to say that I think actual interpretation of the USA contest rules are strictly ambiguous. e.g. allowing two-way communication products that report position but not being clear whether that means reporting position our of the glider or into the glider or both. And an ADS-B receiver to use ADS-B direct data from other aircraft is currently allowed since it is not a two-way communication device. Anyhow clear that the contest rules folks need to work on cleaning up the rues whatever the future intent is. [snip] Darryl |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On 8/19/2010 9:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 pm, Mike wrote: On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike wrote: On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 19, 12:10 am, wrote: BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in with and a separate one to leach with? -Paul You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g. I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up on that display (if the software supports that)). Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC log file. I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/ require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably implies. Darryl Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest????? Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside (even inside) of our small insular world??? -- Mike Schumann None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that the rules committee and contest community has already decided that anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/ being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any details on what these product features are? I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real- world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and products that solve these real world problems. Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the receiver side). BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the issues. --- Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are important vectors for introducing new technology and developing official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas. You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need products developed specifically for the glider community. And this again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate many of the things Flarm has already done. For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly reduce leeching concerns. Darryl The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up. The number one focus should be safety. Knowing the exact location of every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance. There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. If that gives someone an advantage, that is a good thing; it will encourage everyone else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment. Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the tricks the race leader is using to win. -- Mike Schumann I am not suggesting turning off Flarm. It has stealth mode specifically for contest. I am suggesting that if other technology does not have the equivalent then that may not be acceptable. That this might be an issue should not be a surprise to anybody who thinks about the contest environment. Now the contest folks may well decide that they actually are able to live with the leeching concerns some pilots have. There are lots of human factors here. What I hope the contest community focuses on is using something that works at reducing the risk of mid-air collisions, including in crowded contest environments. In those environments I am just not sure at all you want or need an accurate display of all traffic within some large volume. ADS-B potntial volumes start getting very large. But have you actually bothered to look at what Flarm stealth mode provides? Like it actually meets your 1-2 mile requirement (with other restrictions that make sense). Darryl Every sport has leeching. In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's bumper to reduce drag. There's no problem as long it's a level playing field and everyone has the same options. We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything needs to be customized for the soaring community. Anti-collision hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. Granted, we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms in systems that aren't designed to recognize that. That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms. Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat. As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening in 3D with the other gliders that are already there. Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of our legal system. -- Mike Schumann |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On Aug 20, 6:20*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:22*am, "noel.wade" wrote: I would like to see the rule permitting that! See the FAR Basic VFR Minimums:http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...4cfr91.155.htm "Clear of Clouds" is clearly spelled out. :-) This has been beaten to death before. Instrument flying in class G airscape is permitted with no flight plan if the plot is rated and the aircraft is properly equipped. VFR minima have no significance when flying IFR except that they stop a VFR pilot from entering cloud and colliding with a pilot legally flying on instruments. What prevents two such pilots legally flying on instruments from colliding in the cloud? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On 8/19/2010 8:13 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat. As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening in 3D with the other gliders that are already there. It sounds like you've never flown in a contest, and have no idea of what contest flying is like. True statement? My thinking, as someone who flew about 60 contests over 30 years, is much different than yours. I can't even imagine what you mean by assessing an "uncomfortable situation" that's 1-2 miles away, and I sure don't see how a 3 D picture of a 15 glider gaggle is going to improve my safety when I can already look outside and see what's going on as I approach it. I've never used Flarm, but it's been tested in many contests over several years, the pilots like it VERY much, and it's ridiculous to keep suggesting it can't do the job, and so we also need ADS-B. Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of our legal system. You are just guessing about all that, right? No legal expertise at all, right? No research into the liability of a company like Zaon, for example, right? Instead of being "surprised" by the Flarm developers lack of foresight, you should first discuss the situation with them. I've talked to Urs Rothacher a number of times, and he isn't a naive programmer glider geek. You would be a much better advocate for safety with some real facts, instead of guessing and making stuff up. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
What prevents two such pilots legally flying on instruments from colliding in the cloud? Nothing prevents it, which is why it is generally a bad idea to do so, even though it is legal to do so. Brian |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?
On Aug 19, 8:13*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote: [snip] Every sport has leeching. *In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's bumper to reduce drag. *There's no problem as long it's a level playing field and everyone has the same options. We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything needs to be customized for the soaring community. *Anti-collision hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. *Granted, we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms in systems that aren't designed to recognize that. That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms. Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat. * As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an imminent collision. *I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable situation. *If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening in 3D with the other gliders that are already there. Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft equipped with this kind of equipment. *It's surprising that this wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of our legal system. -- Mike Schumann Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology? All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think asking them what is worthwhile. And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve particular problems that a small community of users have are bad because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth? No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it is intended to do). Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done, the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the SSA believe this as well? Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trig TT21 transponder draws only 125 mA! | Steve Koerner | Soaring | 5 | March 15th 10 09:59 PM |
TRIG TT21 Transponders | Tim Mara[_2_] | Soaring | 12 | September 26th 09 02:01 AM |
Trig TT21 Transponder receives FAA TSO approval | Paul Remde | Soaring | 12 | September 19th 09 02:47 PM |
Trig TT21 in Experimental Aircraft | Paul Remde | Soaring | 5 | July 5th 09 03:15 AM |
Trig TT21 Transponder Thoughts? | jcarlyle | Soaring | 16 | June 23rd 09 04:38 PM |