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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I have been playing with a pair of Garmin Rinhos. They are a combination GPS
and Family Radio Transceiver. They have the ability, at about $150 per unit, to track other units and plot their positions. The presentation of the relative positions is not good enough to use for collision avoidance in my opinion, but the esentials are all there at a low price. Bill Snead 6W |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martin wrote:
Whatever happened to teaching good look out and airmanship? Nothing. It's still taught and practiced as effectively, efficiently and thoroughly as it ever was - and has been for many years. And it's just as ineffective as it ever was. Are you one of those who see it as simply a problem of laziness and complacency? You're probably right but they're both endemic in human nature and won't change now. For jobs as important as this, monitoring systems designed with built-in tendencies to distraction and complacency - and with multiple duties just to top it off - are simply inadequate and always will be. All forms of training in lookout are doomed to fail because of basic human limitations. Not just optical limitations. Humans are simply bad at continuous alertness and monitoring for a very low probability threat over a long period. That's why we no longer have engineer's panels in the flight decks of large aeroplanes. There's as much or more to monitor than there always was - we've just accepted that humans don't do it well and found other solutions. Gliders have the highest rate of midairs of all forms of hard wing aviation. I'm happy with the collision threat and the things I do to minimise it and I'll go on flying gliders. If you're not happy, Dave, you need to accept that it won't be improved without electronic assistance. Isn't 50 or more years enough? Graeme Cant |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
At 05:12 30 April 2004, Graeme Cant wrote:
'Gliders have the highest rate of midairs of all forms of hard wing aviation.' Why is that? Are glider pilots in general less capable of keeping a good lookout? In my experience no, they are not. It is because we put ourselves in a position where we are more likely to come into contact with other gliders. As a matter of course we accept the need to fly close to one another whereas the rest of the GA community and commercial sector try to stay as far apart as possible. The military do deliberately fly close to one another, is this not the reason why military aircraft have more mid-airs with each other than airliners have with each other? I have to agree that gadgets are not the answer to the problem, good lookout and situational awareness is, and the good sense to bug out if you loose that. Just assume for one minute that a device could do all that has been proposed, predict a collision with another thermalling glider. The alarm goes off and the pilot takes immediate avoiding action, that is what the device is for, and immediately puts himself in the path of another glider in the thermal who did not figure in the prediction. The cure could be worse than the disease, such a device has the potential of causing the very event it seeks to prevent. Remember you are never alone in a thermal for long, if the lift is good others will want to share it, you only have to look up at the sky a few minutes before the gate opens at a comp when there is only one good thermal to see what I mean. Can you imagine the carnage if they all start to react to collision alarms? At least at the moment they are all doing more or less the same thing. The answer is, good lookout, good situational awareness and the ability to put safety first, press on itius second. Don't expect the other guy to get out of your way, get out of his, and if that means he has an advantage, sobeit, at least you continue to fly on intact. DAJ Whatever happened to teaching good look out and airmanship? Nothing. It's still taught and practiced as effectively, efficiently and thoroughly as it ever was - and has been for many years. And it's just as ineffective as it ever was. Are you one of those who see it as simply a problem of laziness and complacency? You're probably right but they're both endemic in human nature and won't change now. For jobs as important as this, monitoring systems designed with built-in tendencies to distraction and complacency - and with multiple duties just to top it off - are simply inadequate and always will be. All forms of training in lookout are doomed to fail because of basic human limitations. Not just optical limitations. Humans are simply bad at continuous alertness and monitoring for a very low probability threat over a long period. That's why we no longer have engineer's panels in the flight decks of large aeroplanes. There's as much or more to monitor than there always was - we've just accepted that humans don't do it well and found other solutions. Gliders have the highest rate of midairs of all forms of hard wing aviation. I'm happy with the collision threat and the things I do to minimise it and I'll go on flying gliders. If you're not happy, Dave, you need to accept that it won't be improved without electronic assistance. Isn't 50 or more years enough? Graeme Cant |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
At 05:12 30 April 2004, Graeme Cant wrote:
Dave Martin wrote: Whatever happened to teaching good look out and airmanship? Nothing. It's still taught and practiced as effectively, efficiently and thoroughly as it ever was - and has been for many years. And it's just as ineffective as it ever was. Are you one of those who see it as simply a problem of laziness and complacency? You're probably right but they're both endemic in human nature and won't change now. For jobs as important as this, monitoring systems designed with built-in tendencies to distraction and complacency and with multiple duties just to top it off - are simply inadequate and always will be. All forms of training in lookout are doomed to fail because of basic human limitations. Not just optical limitations. Humans are simply bad at continuous alertness and monitoring for a very low probability threat over a long period. That's why we no longer have engineer's panels in the flight decks of large aeroplanes. There's as much or more to monitor than there always was - we've just accepted that humans don't do it well and found other solutions. Gliders have the highest rate of midairs of all forms of hard wing aviation. I'm happy with the collision threat and the things I do to minimise it and I'll go on flying gliders. If you're not happy, Dave, you need to accept that it won't be improved without electronic assistance. Isn't 50 or more years enough? Graeme Cant Graeme Where did I say I wasn't happy with the present situation ? Adding an electronic device will not ease the problem, in the majority of cases it could compound the problems faced by the average pilot. Large aircraft do not fly in close proximity to others in great numbers such as a thermal gaggle. They also have such things as transponders, outside radar support from control towers and other sophisticated equipment plus the electronic power to support all the devices. In the main they fly in regulated airspace, where everyone has the same equipment Flying in isolation such a device may help but in crowded skies I suspect the information supplied would overload the equipment and pilot, as you say above, 'Humans are simply bad at continuous alertness and monitoring for a very low probability threat over a long period.' How does this equate with a large competiton gaggle who must monitor high probability threats over long periods say several hours and during their flight will meet others not in their competition on their flight path. I suppose someone will say they train for this type of flying. Fitting units to gliders in isolation will also give the pilot a false sense of security. You ask, 'Isn't 50 or more years enough?' 1 year is too long! Dave |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
news:sofkc.273$ts3.24024@attbi_s02... "303pilot" brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom wrote in message ... snip This still leaves the problem I think Andy was getting at of what is the acceptable false positive:false negative ratio? Too many false positives and pilots won't use it. False negatives would lead to collisions, deaths and, at least in the US, lawsuits that would likely put the manufacturer out of business. Brent We can't ask for perfection or nothing will ever be available. It seems to me that there are two indications we should be looking for in a basic anti-collision device. I'm not one to make perfection the enemy of improvement.... 1, There are (n) gliders in close proximity - say 1 kilometer. Even simple GPS broadcast devices should be able to determine the number of gliders nearby. It should beep softly when the number changes. (If the device says there are 3 gliders nearby and you can only see 2, you need to keep looking.) I think stopping here would be a good trade-off between improvement and perfection. Helping me identify that there's something I don't know that I don't know is very valuable. While we're dreaming, how about the ability to verbally acknowledge visual contact with 2 of the 3 ships and let the computing & display power focus on helping us find the unseen ship? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:sofkc.273
2, If one of these represents a collision danger, the device should give a bearing. The device need only determine that the target is at or near the same altitude, the distance is closing and the relative bearing is nearly constant. If there is only 1% chance of an actual collision, that would get my undivided attention. And that's the part that really scares me! It's is far to easy to focus on a known threat to the total exclusion of searching for the unknown threats. I've seen far too many airplane drivers place full reliance on ATC traffic calls and more recently on TCAS advisories. As glider pilots we face the same problem when joining thermals. It's far too easy to narrow one's scan to all the known traffic, to plan the entry based on that knowledge, and then to be surprised by another glider that could have been seen with a wider scan. Collision warning devices can increase safety if all gliders have them and they are working. When only a few gliders are equipped there could be a reduction in safety. Andy |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"303pilot" brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom wrote in message 1, There are (n) gliders in close proximity - say 1 kilometer. Even simple GPS broadcast devices should be able to determine the number of gliders nearby. It should beep softly when the number changes. (If the device says there are 3 gliders nearby and you can only see 2, you need to keep looking.) I think stopping here would be a good trade-off between improvement and perfection. Helping me identify that there's something I don't know that I don't know is very valuable. While we're dreaming, how about the ability to verbally acknowledge visual contact with 2 of the 3 ships and let the computing & display power focus on helping us find the unseen ship? Unfortunately, discrete tracking and acknowledgement will add an order of magnitude to the computing power needed. Providing bearing and distance to any glider that presents greater than zero probability of a collision is pretty easy by comparison. The number of glider thus reported will be low even in a large gaggle. Bill Daniels |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mid Air collisions are a problem. Maybe we need to
pull together more information about them. There are a number of different phases of flight during which they occur: Climbing phase (high Angle of Attack) (power planes only) Circuit phase (all planes) Aerobatics (all planes) IFR & low visibility flight (all planes) Normal flight (all planes) Thermalling (soaring planes only) We need to understand the proportion of collisions occurring in the different phases and the potential contributory factors. Road Traffic Accidents happen more often in good weather than bad. It is not entirely clear that thermal collisions happen more often in competition gaggles than when there are only two in a thermal, whatever our instincts. For the different flight phases, different factors will be more or less important and the solutions and devices to prevent collisions may be different. Personnally I would be surprised if TCAS devices could cope with resolving the trajectories of thermalling gliders other than the basic level of identifying another nearby plane. Thus I suspect that the main detection instrument in thermals remains the eyeball. In which case, every effort should be made to ensure the best use of the eyeball in thermals. There may be a role for such devices in other phases eg normal flight and IFR. The only power planes that regularly fly close together are the military and aerobatic display teams. I am sure that the Red Arrows are fitted with the instruments that they best require, but I would be most surprised if they have any electronic device warning them that they are about to hit a team-mate. I expect that they do a lot of training, have superb lookout and excellent communications. I would assume that a TCAS/GPS device will be making noises at 1 mile and probably very loud noises at 1/4 mile (1500 ft). With a typical thermalling diameter of 200-600 feet and circling period of less than 20 seconds, any normal TCAS would be screaming fit to be turned off! We are also entering the area where the margin of error for a GPS (30 ft horizontally, 100 ft vertically) is a significant issue. GPS is not accurate enough to tell which side of the highway you are driving on, nor probably to determine the correct seperation of two thermalling gliders when the pilots using their eyeballs consider that they are adequately seperated. I cannot envisage an electronic GPS device for avoiding intra-thermal collisions, assuming that the planes are going to remain in the same thermal. Rory |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
This is what it boils down to EDUCATION/TRAINING
Training pilots how to look out. How to concentrate, What the dangers are, real and perceived and potential and where these danger lurk in a particular phase of flight. We will never eliminate accidents but by education we can reduce the opportunities. Train hard fly easy as some one said! Dave At 17:00 30 April 2004, Rory O'Conor wrote: Mid Air collisions are a problem. Maybe we need to pull together more information about them. There are a number of different phases of flight during which they occur: Climbing phase (high Angle of Attack) (power planes only) Circuit phase (all planes) Aerobatics (all planes) IFR & low visibility flight (all planes) Normal flight (all planes) Thermalling (soaring planes only) We need to understand the proportion of collisions occurring in the different phases and the potential contributory factors. Road Traffic Accidents happen more often in good weather than bad. It is not entirely clear that thermal collisions happen more often in competition gaggles than when there are only two in a thermal, whatever our instincts. For the different flight phases, different factors will be more or less important and the solutions and devices to prevent collisions may be different. Personnally I would be surprised if TCAS devices could cope with resolving the trajectories of thermalling gliders other than the basic level of identifying another nearby plane. Thus I suspect that the main detection instrument in thermals remains the eyeball. In which case, every effort should be made to ensure the best use of the eyeball in thermals. There may be a role for such devices in other phases eg normal flight and IFR. The only power planes that regularly fly close together are the military and aerobatic display teams. I am sure that the Red Arrows are fitted with the instruments that they best require, but I would be most surprised if they have any electronic device warning them that they are about to hit a team-mate. I expect that they do a lot of training, have superb lookout and excellent communications. I would assume that a TCAS/GPS device will be making noises at 1 mile and probably very loud noises at 1/4 mile (1500 ft). With a typical thermalling diameter of 200-600 feet and circling period of less than 20 seconds, any normal TCAS would be screaming fit to be turned off! We are also entering the area where the margin of error for a GPS (30 ft horizontally, 100 ft vertically) is a significant issue. GPS is not accurate enough to tell which side of the highway you are driving on, nor probably to determine the correct seperation of two thermalling gliders when the pilots using their eyeballs consider that they are adequately seperated. I cannot envisage an electronic GPS device for avoiding intra-thermal collisions, assuming that the planes are going to remain in the same thermal. Rory |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Durbin" wrote in message om... "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:sofkc.273 2, If one of these represents a collision danger, the device should give a bearing. The device need only determine that the target is at or near the same altitude, the distance is closing and the relative bearing is nearly constant. If there is only 1% chance of an actual collision, that would get my undivided attention. And that's the part that really scares me! It's is far to easy to focus on a known threat to the total exclusion of searching for the unknown threats. I've seen far too many airplane drivers place full reliance on ATC traffic calls and more recently on TCAS advisories. As glider pilots we face the same problem when joining thermals. It's far too easy to narrow one's scan to all the known traffic, to plan the entry based on that knowledge, and then to be surprised by another glider that could have been seen with a wider scan. Collision warning devices can increase safety if all gliders have them and they are working. When only a few gliders are equipped there could be a reduction in safety. Andy So, another argument for doing nothing. Bill Daniels |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |
Anti collision lights mods for Arrow 1968?? | Frode Berg | Piloting | 3 | May 20th 04 05:42 AM |
Anti collision light mod for Piper Arrow 1968 model? | Frode Berg | Owning | 4 | May 20th 04 05:16 AM |
New anti collision system for aircrafts, helicopters and gliders | Thierry | Owning | 10 | February 14th 04 08:36 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |