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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Borgelt wrote:
"electronically enhanced see and avoid" is what we are really after here, not a 100% guaranteed collision prevention system. I spent some time looking at this a few years ago. Basically, establish two virtual "bubbles" around the glider. The device would announce (by voice) the call sign, bearing, and relative altitude of a similarly equipped glider which, given the present speeds and courses of both gliders, will enter the smaller bubble within some number of seconds. A second announcement would be made if entry is predicted within a second shorter time interval. After that, the glider would be ignored until it exits the larger bubble. The sizes of the bubbles and times could be established by the pilot, and might vary according to speed or cruise/climb mode. My thinking was that the smaller bubble would be around 500 meters radius, the larger 1000 to 2000 meters, the longer time interval 20 seconds, shorter interval 10 seconds. Some additional "smarts" would be required to deal with announcing simultaneous potential conflicts with several other gliders. Initial examination showed that a fast 8 bit processor could actually do the necessary calculations to track as many as 32 gliders with a 2 second update rate, Use of fixed point arithmetic, and table lookups for transcendental functions (or a much faster processor) would have been required. What made me give up on the project was an inability to find suitable, low cost, unlicensed, radio transceivers that could be used legally in the US for this sort of application. One needs to transmit with enough power to allow reliable tracking out to 5 km or so, and enough bandwidth to allow a position broadcast duty cycle of around 1/128 (to allow periodic position reports at randomized intervals, with reasonably low probability of collision). A proof of concept could be done using (licensed) amateur frequencies. But, the difficulties associated with trying to produce a salable product seemed insurmountable. Marc |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
The FLARM device not only provides traffic advisories, it tracks ground hazards like towers and wires. It's also a IGC logger. AFAIK it is not _yet_ an IGC logger. At the moment, the developers concentrate on collision avoidance, IGC logger approval is secondary priority. Friday there'll be another meeting/presentation here at Zuerich with news, updates and discussions. FLARM does NOT provide to the pilot a count of targets in a certain vicinity. A count is a minor factor for collision avoidance and can easily lead to confusion (remember that only FLARM equipped A/C can be targetted!). -Gerhard |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
As one of those who is sceptical about the benefits
of an anticollision, I accept the comments made by Mike and Bill. I hope the debate spurs those interested in the development of an anti collision device or perhaps a better description would a proximity alert to rpoduce a working test model that can be evaluated. Another area where we could impove survival of midairs would be built in parachutes. I am sure that many survival midairs accidents are not survived because of the time taken to and the ability to get out of a damaged aircraft quickly. An in built parachute with automatic deployment would surely help. Tests have been carried out and shown to work. Size and weight may be just part of the problem but modern materials, would surely help to solve this. Why it it that that, as yet, the devizes are not been built into new gliders? Dave |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
They are built into a couple of new gliders, you just need to be willing to
pay for it. -- Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" "Dave Martin" a écrit dans le message de ... As one of those who is sceptical about the benefits of an anticollision, I accept the comments made by Mike and Bill. I hope the debate spurs those interested in the development of an anti collision device or perhaps a better description would a proximity alert to rpoduce a working test model that can be evaluated. Another area where we could impove survival of midairs would be built in parachutes. I am sure that many survival midairs accidents are not survived because of the time taken to and the ability to get out of a damaged aircraft quickly. An in built parachute with automatic deployment would surely help. Tests have been carried out and shown to work. Size and weight may be just part of the problem but modern materials, would surely help to solve this. Why it it that that, as yet, the devizes are not been built into new gliders? Dave |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
At 23:00 03 May 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
I don't think anyone would maneuver in response to the alert, they would maneuver in response to what their eyes told them when they looked at the threat in response to the alert. Sadly I think it is just what they would do, bit like people braking violently when they see a GATSO (speed cam) late, it matters not that they are within the speed limit. We have a rule in the UK that if we see a glider on the approach with it's wheel still up we do not try and call on the radio, it is thought that accidents are caused by people being distracted and crashing because they stopped concentrating on landing and tried to lower the wheel, an automatic reaction. Undercarriage warning horns are discouraged for the same reason. I suspect a collision warning would be reacted to with even more urgency and less thought. It is not that we are unthinking people it is just that if someone yells 'duck' we do. I am sorry if my opion offends and seems negative but the answer to this problem is a human one, better education, better training, better awareness of the problem and potential hazards and perhaps even a change in the way we view flying close to each other. My subjective view is that the majority of collisions take place between aircraft that know exactly where the other aircraft is yet still manage to make contact. This is certainly true of the military who as I said earlier are the only other significant organisation that encourage aircraft to fly close together. I really don't see how another gadget in the cockpit can help unless it is very sophisticated indeed. Bill Daniels 'Andy Blackburn' wrote in message ... I can think of ways to filter for only the most proximate threats, even in a gaggle (closest proximity, closing rate, etc). What seems to me would be difficult in a gaggle setting is figuring out what to do once everyone starts maneuvering in response to alerts - it could quickly get overwhelming. Even so, more information is likely better than less under most circumstances. 9B At 21:12 03 May 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: 303pilot wrote: 'Eric Greenwell' wrote in message Ony if you think the problem is 40 gliders instead of 3 or 4, which is all that was involved in the recent collisions. I'm not a programmer, but I work with them on a daily basis. It seems to me that even a 3 or 4 glider problem is highly complex because sailplanes fly in highly irregular paths. But still more manageable the 40, right :} ? But to answer the question, and keeping in mind I don't know any details of the Flarm system, it may not be possible or necessary to have a TCAS-like system. Though several gliders flying at random may indeed be complex, the algorithms chosen can make simplifying assumptions based on the nature of glider flight. Also, the pilot arriving at a thermal might modify his arrival to keep the threat level low, compared to how he does it now, so as not to 'alarm' the pilots already in the thermal (and for other situations, also, not just thermals). We don't even fly straight point to point--we weave left and right, we dolphin. A ship might be going (more or less) straight and a couple hundred feet below me. Not a threat, right? Maybe, maybe not--what if I'm in a thermal and he's seen me and plans to join me. He suddenly converts speed to altitude and he's in my blind spot. My GPS has a 4 second polling cycle. Ooops. Most GPS receivers we use emit at once a second, though _flight recorders_ might record at a slower rate (the newer ones will also record at once per second). Rate isn't a problem. What if two ships are in a thermal but maintaining separation. Everything's fine, right? Sure, until we get to the top of the lift band and he suddenly tightens his turn to go through the core as he heads out on course. This simple situation is likely easy to handle. It should cause some alarms in both cockpits, unless it is a diving exit, which would put him well below the still thermalling glider! I'm sure anyone contemplating these systems has thought of these situations and more, and intends to cope with them, and use extensive testing to validate the equipment. As I mentioned before, the equipment might cause changes in pilot behavior, perhaps because they wish to avoid causing alarms, or because they now realize better the dangers involved. Have you ever flown in a thermal with even 10 gliders? I have many times. I can not keep track of even 10 gliders, but I can still thermal safely when there are that many and more. We are not flying around at random, but circling in an orderly fashion. Only the nearby gliders are a threat that must be monitored. In any case, a system that deals with only a few gliders will cover most of the situations. Orderly? To you and I yes. To a program? Not really. Think about what happens at cloudbase in a contest gaggle. The (mostly) orderly and similar actions (mostly same speed & bank angle) get more random. Some pilots increase their radius purposefully suboptimizing climb rates, others deploy a bit of spoiler, others leave. How are these actions to be predicted? Even if I have a 1 second polling rate on my GPS & 'traffic analysis/collision avoidance system', how many variables can change in that one second and how fast can my safe separation be erased? In one second? Very few. Gliders simply don't react quickly in roll, and pilots don't pitch rapidly in the cloudbase gaggle. The ones I've been in, everyone is changing direction smoothly and slowly. Away from a gaggle, pitch changes can occur rapidly, but one second still seems short enough to me. It would be better to seek the opinion of someone actually attempting this, of course! snip What must we do? Propose something - we're listening. Here's my modest proposal, eat them. Sorry, trying again-- Don't ask the system to figure collision potential and don't introduce another screen. Just have a system call out 'target NNW, same altitude, closing @ x'. If I see it, I say something like 'clear' or 'check' and the system stops alerting me to the known target. If I don't acknowledge the target the system continues to provide information at regular intervals to help me find it. If I were designing a system, I'd make this capability the first phase. Perhaps it would be good enough. I'd try a button on the stick before the confirmation. I might be re-notified of 'cleared' targets if we continue to fly in proximity to one another. Frankly, I can't imagine a user interface that would be useful in a large gaggle. That's probably OK because that's where we're likely to be most alert to this type of threat. Brent -- Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
... 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.) The GPS position itself should be optional. i.e. if a GPS is available and a GPS position available from it, the device should send it, but in any case send an ID of the glider (e.g. its registration number or its tail number, or both), so that even if you don't know exactly where another glider is, you know that there is a glider nearby, as the power of the device makes that you receive only broadcasts from near gliders. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Michel Talon wrote:
Jeff Dorwart wrote: Let me mention an important factor here, the age of the pilot. I have constated on myself that as one ages, the field of vision becomes narrower, not to mention that attention is not of the same quality, reflexes become poor, etc. This could well be one of the most important factors at play here. Sooaring is much much bettre fitted to young people in excellent health and doing a lot of sports (i mean sports like squash) than to old people. But mostly old people have the time and money for gliding. In my personal case, I am well aware of my declining capabilities, but I think the lot of free time I can (and do) devote to gliding compensates for that, i.e. if I had started gliding betweeen 15 and 50, I would have been flying less than 50 hours per year (now over 200) and this factor overrides the decline due to age. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martin wrote in message
An in built parachute with automatic deployment would surely help. Tests have been carried out and shown to work. Manually deployed built-in parachutes have been tested and shown to work in controlled conditions. I am not aware that anyone has developed or demonstrated an automatic deployment parachute for gliders. Schleicher offered a ballistic chute option in the marketing brochures for the ASW-28. As far as I know it was never an available option. I heard the testing showed problems. Anyone know details. Andy |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Michel Talon wrote: Jeff Dorwart wrote: Let me mention an important factor here, the age of the pilot. I have constated on myself that as one ages, the field of vision becomes narrower, not to mention that attention is not of the same quality, reflexes become poor, etc. This could well be one of the most important factors at play here. Sooaring is much much bettre fitted to young people in excellent health and doing a lot of sports (i mean sports like squash) than to old people. But mostly old people have the time and money for gliding. In my personal case, I am well aware of my declining capabilities, but I think the lot of free time I can (and do) devote to gliding compensates for that, i.e. if I had started gliding betweeen 15 and 50, I would have been flying less than 50 hours per year (now over 200) and this factor overrides the decline due to age. I don't think so. I remarked that a fair number of people whom i learnt killed themselves soaring, were "well known famous" pilots, flying a lot, but getting older. And, yes, since the soaring pilots population is indeed getting older, thanks to the effect you mention (time and money), it could well be that the number of accidents augment, if this theory is true, of course. -- Michel TALON |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Michel
Over 90% of people who go into Old Peoples Homes die there Over 80% of people die in bed Over 30% of people who go into hospital die To live you need to avoid going into hospital, going to bed or going into a home. You are right older people do fly more they have more time they are likely to have more accidents through that factor alone. This argument is not likely to be won by ageist ramblings. Statistics are like lamposts, more for illumination than leaning on. At 16:48 04 May 2004, Michel Talon wrote: Robert Ehrlich wrote: Michel Talon wrote: Jeff Dorwart wrote: Let me mention an important factor here, the age of the pilot. I have constated on myself that as one ages, the field of vision becomes narrower, not to mention that attention is not of the same quality, reflexes become poor, etc. This could well be one of the most important factors at play here. Sooaring is much much bettre fitted to young people in excellent health and doing a lot of sports (i mean sports like squash) than to old people. But mostly old people have the time and money for gliding. In my personal case, I am well aware of my declining capabilities, but I think the lot of free time I can (and do) devote to gliding compensates for that, i.e. if I had started gliding betweeen 15 and 50, I would have been flying less than 50 hours per year (now over 200) and this factor overrides the decline due to age. I don't think so. I remarked that a fair number of people whom i learnt killed themselves soaring, were 'well known famous' pilots, flying a lot, but getting older. And, yes, since the soaring pilots population is indeed getting older, thanks to the effect you mention (time and money), it could well be that the number of accidents augment, if this theory is true, of course. -- Michel TALON |
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 |