Control Vision's patent

Thomas Borchert writes:

Nope, and I don't think they use airdata, either. Also, their cones are
aruond airfields, not the aircraft. And they do take field elevation
into account. See
http://docs.controlvision.com/pages/cones_of_safety.php

Oooooohhh...now I get it. I was thinking more in terms of "here are all
of the places you can glide *now*" not "wait until you're over here to
lose an engine." It would be more of a realtime extension to the
"nearest" button functionality.

O.k., so my idea really isn't affected by their patent. I still hate
software patents.

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, I take issue with this.
Around each airport there is a region of airspace from which
an airplane can safely glide to a landing. We refer to this
space as the Cone of Safety.
My wife likes to point out that there was a time when landing at an
airport was the exception - certainly not a requirement for a safe
landing.

--kyler

Kyler,

BTW, I take issue with this.
Around each airport there is a region of airspace from which
an airplane can safely glide to a landing. We refer to this
space as the Cone of Safety.
My wife likes to point out that there was a time when landing at an
airport was the exception - certainly not a requirement for a safe
landing.


I agree. Might generate the wrong mindset. OTOH, when you look at their
screenshots, you have this nice effect of being at 8000 in the
northeastand all the cones nicele overlap to make the whole flight path
within reach of a field.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)