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

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:12:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:48:56 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 6:17:55 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
Smart phones can talk to each other (through the cell system, duh) and they have substantial computing power. They have GPS so they know where they are, how high they are, and how fast they are going. We know they can output and receive that data in flight because we use them to track our gliders giving out our position, climb rate, and ground speed and we can view those tracks on the very same phone. I would guess that there's a smart phone in the cockpit of nearly every light aircraft flying. So, my question is: Why is there no situational awareness app for our phones? Yes, I know about the limitations of the cell system and the phones, especially in flight. I wouldn't expect a cell phone based system to perform in every category as well as the all singing, all dancing PowerFlarm. In it's favor, such an app could be nearly free compared to $2000 for a PowerFlarm setup. Considering the "installed base" of smart phones, the penetration of such an app could be very rapid and widespread, maybe even approaching near universal adoption. So what if it does not do everything that a PowerFlarm does? Even if it only provided a snapshot of the local traffic every 5 or even 10 second, the safety benefits (outside of racing gaggles) would far exceed PowerFlarm simply because of the potential for such rapid and widespread adoption. Everyone could finally see everyone.

C'mon, I know I ain't the first person, or even the 10,000th to have this idea. If I had any idea how to code an app, or the time to learn how. I'd give it a try myself.

WB (doped to the gills on cold meds and exhausted from a 950 mile drive, so forgive me if the above is gibberish)

More situational awareness is always good. The problem with calling it "collision avoidance" is that it would be highly unreliable. Just in the systems mentioned on this thread and the other couple active ones, we could have 5 gliders in a thermal, each with different and incompatible "collision avoidance" systems. These things depend on universal - or at least ubiquitous - adoption for efficacy. A cell phone base solution will do nothing for collision with other aircraft, even if adopted in all gliders.

I am beginning to wish that sailplanes would lose their ADS-B out exemption.....
I am beginning to wish that the SSA required PowerFlarm for all competition.....
It's a bad feeling for a libertarian, but where personal responsibility is lacking, rules step in.

If SSA cucks on transponders I'm going to be asking the chief council all sorts of fun questions. Nothing about towhooks. Lolzlollz

Like what, exactly? I can't wait to hear. Puff up that manly chest dude, and tell us. Or maybe just quit behaving like an idiot and can it.

I just had a phone call from a buddy who used to fly at Middletown. I've flown there, I know the setup. I told him: "If I were going to be flying routinely at Middletown (or Blairstown, or Wurtsboro), I'd have a transponder next week." And: you guys ought to be flying with transponders on any club equipment that goes over about 4500'. You guys are on borrowed time without and if you were honest you'd admit it and do something about it before you cause an accident and saddle us all with an equipment mandate (or worse).

T8

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:48:56 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
I am beginning to wish that the SSA required PowerFlarm for all competition.....
It's a bad feeling for a libertarian, but where personal responsibility is lacking, rules step in.

Just putting it out there, the Nephi events are manditory that the aircraft are equipped with Flarm. The event organizers can petition the SSA to make Flarm compulsory for that event.

Holding my cards for the moment. Plenty to work with. If people are going to ask the government to put restrictions on me I'm going to return the favor. Shut your Flarm off, your collision odds will be about the same, and your nerves will be less frazzled.

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Holding my cards for the moment. Plenty to work with. If people are going to ask the government to put restrictions on me I'm going to return the favor. Shut your Flarm off, your collision odds will be about the same, and your nerves will be less frazzled.

You know exactly as much about flarm in the cockpit environment as all the guys who used to give me advice about flaps: nothing at all. In FACT: Flarm has made large US contests quite a bit less frazzling, and all of the guys who fly in these contests know this. The voluntary equipage rate was 90% at Perry. To these guys, you look like a complete fool. To anyone who flies the Alps, you look like a complete fool.

Your interest in spite is noted.

T8

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:14:49 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:13:31 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
Powerflarm is not a good ADS-B IN solution. It does not see UAT equipped aircraft, nor does it support ADS-R or TIS-B, which makes UAT and conventional transponder equipped aircraft visible to ADS-B IN equipped AC (as long as those aircraft are also ADS-B OUT equipped).

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

As usual, Mike, you are factually wrong.

PowerFLARM most definitely shows ADS-B (Mode S, the most common). It also shows Mode C and Mode S transponders in PCAS mode; and since UAT ADS-B has to be associated with a Mode C or S transponder, it will show them.

Now, again, tell me what ADS-B IN/OUT setup you have in a pure glider - that interfaces with standard glider displays.

Crickets....

Please stop spreading your "fake news" about PowerFLARM. We get it that you don't like it. Get over it. Enjoy your ADS-B whatever and I'll enjoy my PF.

Just stay away from my thermal!

Kirk
66

How about you actually reading my posts???? I didn't say that PowerFlarm doesn't show ADS-B traffic. I said that it doesn't show UAT ADS-B traffic. Nor did I say that it did't show transponder traffic. I said it didn't show TIS-B traffic.

Supporting TIS-B improves the situational awareness in regard to transponder equipped aircraft orders of magnitude better than the PowerFlarm PCAS type transponder detection. PowerFlarm can't give you any hints on where a transponder equipped aircraft is (behind you, in front, to the left????). The range is a very crude approximation based on signal strength. The only thing it can tell you pretty accurately is the altitude of the transponder aircraft.

An ADS-B receiver that supports TIS-B will show you exactly where a transponder equipped aircraft is, to the same resolution as is visible on ATC radar. This of course assumes that you are within range of an ADS-B ground station and that your aircraft is ADS-B OUT equipped.

What are you using for data to come up with your "conclusion" that "the collision odds with be about the same"? Let me guess, no data, just a feeling?

If I am reading these posts correctly, you do not have Flarm, so I will conclude that you have no personal experience with Flarm. Perhaps you should look at the history of Flarm where it has made a substantial dent in the number of mid-airs in the Alps, pardon the pun.

So please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if you are totally ignorant, of Flarm, at the minimum, and your comments are just opinions not based in data, but personal feelings against being told what to do? My 12 year old niece has the same personality flaws, that will not server her well either.


On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Holding my cards for the moment. Plenty to work with. If people are going to ask the government to put restrictions on me I'm going to return the favor. Shut your Flarm off, your collision odds will be about the same, and your nerves will be less frazzled.

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 12:21:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Just stay away from my thermal!

Kirk
66

You stay away from his thermal. Least equipped glider has the right of way. Haha.

Least skilled pilot lands first. And you are definitely in the hunt for the least mentally skilled pilot around.

Kirk
66

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:43:59 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:

How about you actually reading my posts???? I didn't say that PowerFlarm doesn't show ADS-B traffic. I said that it doesn't show UAT ADS-B traffic.. Nor did I say that it did't show transponder traffic. I said it didn't show TIS-B traffic.

Supporting TIS-B improves the situational awareness in regard to transponder equipped aircraft orders of magnitude better than the PowerFlarm PCAS type transponder detection. PowerFlarm can't give you any hints on where a transponder equipped aircraft is (behind you, in front, to the left????). The range is a very crude approximation based on signal strength. The only thing it can tell you pretty accurately is the altitude of the transponder aircraft.

An ADS-B receiver that supports TIS-B will show you exactly where a transponder equipped aircraft is, to the same resolution as is visible on ATC radar. This of course assumes that you are within range of an ADS-B ground station and that your aircraft is ADS-B OUT equipped.

Mike, unlike you, I can read and comprehend. Your posts about Flarm are factually incorrect. You don't like Flarm, OK, don't use it. But right NOW, ADS-B is pretty much a non-player in the glider market. Again, tell me what YOU use in your pure glider?

Yesterday my PF was happily showing me airliners, commuters, and VFR traffic (via Mode C PCAS). No UAT? So effing what - UAT has to have Mode C or Mode S - and I see that. And what is the fleet implementation of UAT - or Mode-S ADS-B out - in the aircraft ACTUALLY FLYING RIGHT NOW? 20%, max?.

Hey, if your ADS-B in/out gives you warm fuzzies, great! Me, my PF gives me what I need, right now. In a few years, there may be a suitable ADS-B Out solution that I will get. Who knows. But the trash you are putting out helps NO-ONE.

Kirk
66

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:49:32 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:43:59 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:

How about you actually reading my posts???? I didn't say that PowerFlarm doesn't show ADS-B traffic. I said that it doesn't show UAT ADS-B traffic. Nor did I say that it did't show transponder traffic. I said it didn't show TIS-B traffic.

Supporting TIS-B improves the situational awareness in regard to transponder equipped aircraft orders of magnitude better than the PowerFlarm PCAS type transponder detection. PowerFlarm can't give you any hints on where a transponder equipped aircraft is (behind you, in front, to the left????). The range is a very crude approximation based on signal strength. The only thing it can tell you pretty accurately is the altitude of the transponder aircraft.

An ADS-B receiver that supports TIS-B will show you exactly where a transponder equipped aircraft is, to the same resolution as is visible on ATC radar. This of course assumes that you are within range of an ADS-B ground station and that your aircraft is ADS-B OUT equipped.

Mike, unlike you, I can read and comprehend. Your posts about Flarm are factually incorrect. You don't like Flarm, OK, don't use it. But right NOW, ADS-B is pretty much a non-player in the glider market. Again, tell me what YOU use in your pure glider?

Yesterday my PF was happily showing me airliners, commuters, and VFR traffic (via Mode C PCAS). No UAT? So effing what - UAT has to have Mode C or Mode S - and I see that. And what is the fleet implementation of UAT - or Mode-S ADS-B out - in the aircraft ACTUALLY FLYING RIGHT NOW? 20%, max?.

Hey, if your ADS-B in/out gives you warm fuzzies, great! Me, my PF gives me what I need, right now. In a few years, there may be a suitable ADS-B Out solution that I will get. Who knows. But the trash you are putting out helps NO-ONE.

Kirk
66

Please share with me exactly what I am saying about PowerFlarm that is factually incorrect?

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
What are you using for data to come up with your "conclusion" that "the collision odds with be about the same"? Let me guess, no data, just a feeling?
Geez I didn't research the numbers but I'm pretty certain mid air collision rates in Region 1 haven't changed post Flarm. Thus collision odds are about the same. This ain't the Alps. But I have a question about soaring in the Alps, how do you guys miss the masses of nonbeeping paragliders?