Anti Collision Warning

"Dave Martin" wrote in message
...

So all we need is a simple instrument that meets the
following criteria.

1. It will detect at least 40 gliders in close proximity.
2. Plus those within a 5 nautical mile range.
3. Work out their relative positions.
4. Assess the collision threat of each and every one.
5. Feed the information to the pilot of each glider
in a readable format that can be assessed within the
bat of an eyelid.
6. Develop the instrument with little financial assistance
from within the movement.
7. Ensure every glider has the equipment fitted.
8. Ensure the equipment works with very little power
consumption.
9. Ensure that the cost is no more that a launch fee.
10. Make fitting compulsary to ALL aircraft flying
in uncontrolled airspace.


The above vastly overstates the issue. It's yet one more "do nothing"
argument. Make the problem seem too difficult and people will give up.

Listing the nearby gliders is very easy. You don't need to list them by
contest ID just the number within a reasonable distance. Those beyond 1 Km
are of little interest. You aren't interested in the relative positions of
all gliders, only those that represent a non-zero probably of a collision.
At any instant, out of 40 gliders, only one or two might represent a real
hazard.

This is a very easy bit of computer programming. Devices that do almost
exactly this are already available as consumer devices. (FRS walkie talkies
with integral GPS ~ $150US) Only small improvements are needed for glider
use.

Making every glider carry one is not likely or necessary but it could become
a requirement for contest flying. Clubs with a large fleet might decide to
install them. Most gliders fly within a local area so local rules will
work.

This device need only work with gliders. The rest of the aircraft fleet
will use transponders. For protection from these, you need a transponder
too.

Bill Daniels

Argument number 3.While collision avoidance equipment is available and
expensive (not because of politics really but because
of liability), it is not flawless. I have spent thousands
of hours with TCAS and have seen numerous near mid-air
reports filed. It is a vast improvement to nothing.
It does not replace the mark I eyball, but augments
it enhancing safety. Many pilots get balled up (preoccupied)
looking for the reported TCAS traffic and fail to see
the piper cub buzzing by till he passes 300 ft. over
the cockpit. Good tool. Not fallible, distracting
and expensive. I had one installed on a Gulfstream
1 for $35000.00 and the equipment requirement is the
same for a C-172. An alternative, which is listed
on Tim's W&W web site is a radio monitor that receives
the IFF transponder (which the TCAS also is) and gives
a range and relative altitude for the closest target.
Not a bad tool for cruising solo but not useful in
a thermal of more than two where of course (hmm...)you
would know the proximity of that one other target.
Multiple targets that are transponder equipped within
the minimum range of .1mi (600 ft) displayed would
not be displayed. Like I said a good tool for on the
run, not in a thermal.Now to the meat of the matter. The most valuable lesson
we can learn from the recent mid airs we have suffered
is improved Communications. Virtually all gliders
are radio equipped. In the pattern with very diverse
aircraft types we avoid collisions not only with visual
diligence, but mostly by communicating clearly where
we are flying. If you are entering a thermal, announce
to those in the vicinity of your intentions. I am
not suggesting constant radio communications while
thermalling, but if you are joining say so. If you
tell your neighbors you intend to do something and
you decide to do something else, say so.I am not suggesting that technology does not exist
or can be developed to combat this, nor do I think
we should sit on our laurels waiting for someone else
to come up with some magic tool to do it for us. I
think we should press on talking about possibilities
and put our briains together to come up with that tool.
Possibly those of the technology camp can start an
LLC to mitigate the liability and develop a tool but
I think we are obligated to improve the tools we already
have to increase our situational awareness. That tool
is the radio and the improvement we can make today
is to practice good communications of our intentions.v/rjeff

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.




--

Michel TALON

I don't think that collisions between gliders is a
matter of pure eyesight, it is more situational awareness
and expectation. There is also a school of thought
that says that an experienced pilot uses his experience
not to get into situations where quick reflexes are
involved. I am not sure that flying is an area where
reflex actions are necessarily a good thing.

Young bull to old bull 'Lets run down the paddock and
service some of those cows'
Old bull to young bull, 'Lets walk down and service
all of them'

At 18:36 01 May 2004, 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.




--

Michel TALON

I am not against a technology solution per se. What
I am against is looking for a solution which could
take years to implement when a solution is needed tomorrow.

It seems to me that several people think that the introduction
of technology will be simple, it won't. The problem
is extremely complex. Assuming that GPS is accurate
enough, it isn't (especially in vertical positioning),
and that it updates qickly enough, it doesn't, at least
the ones we use at the moment don't, that still leaves
the problem of keeping track of 40 gliders constantly
changing direction realtime, can AWACS do that? Still
leaves the problem of how you keep the pilot informed,
display in the cockpit? I don't think so. Having sorted
out all that, what does a pilot do in response to an
urgent warning of collision, turn into another glider
which was not logged as a threat until the sudden evasive
turn was made. Technology might give the warning but
it is the human that has to react.

I personally don't think we have the technology or
expertise to design such a system or indeed the expertise
to put it in a small enough space to fit in a glider
right now, and the cost could be more than the average
glider is worth. I am not saying do nothing, what I
am saying is do something realistic and achievable
now. I have little doubt that what has been proposed
will be with us in 10 years time but it is now that
we have a problem.

I stand by what I originally wrote, humans are the
cause of accidents, humans can prevent accidents. Whether
we have the will to do it is another matter entirely.

If GPS was that accurate radar whould be obsolete and
transponders museum items.

At 06:18 01 May 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:


Don Johnstone wrote:

The answer is, good lookout, good situational awareness
and the ability to put safety first, press on itius
second.

This doesn't sound like an answer to me. I do all those
things, yet I've
still come close to collisions.

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.

I don't expect the other guy to get out of my way,
but I've still come
close to collisions.

These have generally been contest situations involving
many gliders, but
not always. An effective, but not perfect, way to avoid
collsions is to
always fly well away from other gliders. It's not a
perfect way, because
you can't stop other glider from seeing you and joining
you.

I'm surprised people are willing to claim a technological
solution is
unworkable without any demonstration of it's ability.
How can you say
'The answer is, good lookout, good situational awareness
and the ability
to put safety first, press on itius second', when you
have no data on
the proposed solution? Wouldn't a better remark be
'Try it, and show us
the results?'

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

The whole anti collision warning thing is way to dangerous. If you
could design and build such a device, how do you get that information
to the pilot?

At a club nearby there was a mid-air a few years ago. nobody was
hurt, but every-one was shaken up. A short while later the club
two seater was in circuit and called downwind with the wrong callsign.
The club duty pilot on the ground saw the glider in circuit and heard
the call. Noticing the difference he called the glider and warned him
that another glider was in circuit. The pilot was so concerned with
looking out for the 'other' glider that he neglected his circuit
and landed short of the airfield damaging the glider.

To busy looking for the 'other' glider to fly his own. Imagine flying
in a busy part of the sky with all that information about the other
five glider being thrust at you all the time. Distraction could cause
more problems than the information fixes.

But if collisions happen because situational awareness is inadequate,
perhaps the first step is to enhance situational awareness. A device
that could show the location of nearby gliders would be handy, but
the simpler the better. A little information that can be absorbed
in a glance and integrated into your normal scan would be useful
with being such a distraction that it was dangerous. The MK1 eyeball
may not be adequate by itself, but it is an essential tool that
we need to keep using for outside scan, not peering at some instrument.
This is especially true if there are other gliders close by.


--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

At 14:18 01 May 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:

'Dave Martin' wrote in message
...

So all we need is a simple instrument that meets the
following criteria.

1. It will detect at least 40 gliders in close proximity.
2. Plus those within a 5 nautical mile range.
3. Work out their relative positions.
4. Assess the collision threat of each and every one.
5. Feed the information to the pilot of each glider
in a readable format that can be assessed within the
bat of an eyelid.
6. Develop the instrument with little financial assistance
from within the movement.
7. Ensure every glider has the equipment fitted.
8. Ensure the equipment works with very little power
consumption.
9. Ensure that the cost is no more that a launch fee.
10. Make fitting compulsary to ALL aircraft flying
in uncontrolled airspace.


The above vastly overstates the issue. It's yet one
more 'do nothing'
argument. Make the problem seem too difficult and
people will give up.

Listing the nearby gliders is very easy. You don't
need to list them by
contest ID just the number within a reasonable distance.
Those beyond 1 Km
are of little interest. You aren't interested in the
relative positions of
all gliders, only those that represent a non-zero probably
of a collision.
At any instant, out of 40 gliders, only one or two
might represent a real
hazard.

This is a very easy bit of computer programming. Devices
that do almost
exactly this are already available as consumer devices.
(FRS walkie talkies
with integral GPS ~ $150US) Only small improvements
are needed for glider
use.

Making every glider carry one is not likely or necessary
but it could become
a requirement for contest flying. Clubs with a large
fleet might decide to
install them. Most gliders fly within a local area
so local rules will
work.

This device need only work with gliders. The rest
of the aircraft fleet
will use transponders. For protection from these,
you need a transponder
too.

Bill Daniels

Bill

You are clearly a pilot in the US, with vast open skies
in which to fly.

Here in the UK our skies are crowded, we are being
squeezed by commercial ventures who need more and more
airspace
Frequently contests fly over and around other gliding
sites, pilots on cross countries select other gliding
as turn points. Local soaring is some areas can take
in can take in 10 or more other sites, plus powered
strips.

You say in addition to the anticollision device we
should also have a transponder and in the UK few glider
pilots have radio licences so they can use the ttansponder
(although this is changing). At present we do not have
the power to drive them.

At a meeting of with airtraffic controlers they were
alarmed at the thought of 40 gliders all flying in
a contest fitted with transponders, they thought it
would screw up A their computers and B their controllers
trying to make sense of 40 gliders in a thermal.

You say my argument vastly overstates the issue, I
think it is very much understated for UK flying.

These are real issues when flying cross country in
a crowded little island.

I would welcome and applaud someone who can solve the
problem but in the short term let us be realistic.


Unless everyone carries the equipment it is about as
much good as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest.
It may tell you were some gliders are but not every
one, therein lies the danger.

Enough said,

Dave

Don Johnstone wrote:

I am not against a technology solution per se. What
I am against is looking for a solution which could
take years to implement when a solution is needed tomorrow.

I'm listening for that solution, but so far all I hear is more of what
we are already doing: better training and pilots that don't make
mistakes. Propose something (I don't have any good ideas).


It seems to me that several people think that the introduction
of technology will be simple, it won't. The problem
is extremely complex.

Ony if you think the problem is 40 gliders instead of 3 or 4, which is
all that was involved in the recent collisions.

Assuming that GPS is accurate
enough, it isn't (especially in vertical positioning),

When I overlay the GPS altitude traces from the last flight with my two
GPS recorders, I see the greatest deviations (one trace compared to the
other) are less than +/- 50 feet. This is less than the wingspan of my
glider! Most of the time it is less than +/- 15 feet. I think this is
good enough for gliders.

and that it updates qickly enough, it doesn't, at least
the ones we use at the moment don't,

How much more often than once a second is required? That is 25 points
per circle, which seems like plenty to me. Our speeds and accelerations
are low, so I think an even slower rate would be adequate for
thermalling and beating back and forth on a ridge.

that still leaves
the problem of keeping track of 40 gliders constantly
changing direction realtime, can AWACS do that?

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.

Still
leaves the problem of how you keep the pilot informed,
display in the cockpit? I don't think so. Having sorted
out all that, what does a pilot do in response to an
urgent warning of collision, turn into another glider
which was not logged as a threat until the sudden evasive
turn was made. Technology might give the warning but
it is the human that has to react.

These are not new questions, so you can be assured that people
contemplating these systems are considering them. Systems do not spring
fully featured and perfect from the mind of an engineer, but proceed
through stages of development and testing. Exactly what problems and
benefits will appear during this process can't be predicted very well.


I personally don't think we have the technology or
expertise to design such a system or indeed the expertise
to put it in a small enough space to fit in a glider
right now, and the cost could be more than the average
glider is worth. I am not saying do nothing, what I
am saying is do something realistic and achievable
now. I have little doubt that what has been proposed
will be with us in 10 years time but it is now that
we have a problem.

I stand by what I originally wrote, humans are the
cause of accidents, humans can prevent accidents. Whether
we have the will to do it is another matter entirely.

What must we do? Propose something - we're listening.


If GPS was that accurate radar whould be obsolete

GPS _IS_ far more accurate than radar! But the system that uses it is
being deployed very slowly.

and
transponders museum items.

Some of us already believe that! But I still installed one, because that
is the current system best suited to keep me and airliners separated (it
can also help keep smaller airplanes and even skydivers away from me).

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Dave Martin" wrote in message
...
At 14:18 01 May 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:

'Dave Martin' wrote in message
...

So all we need is a simple instrument that meets the
following criteria.

1. It will detect at least 40 gliders in close proximity.
2. Plus those within a 5 nautical mile range.
3. Work out their relative positions.
4. Assess the collision threat of each and every one.
5. Feed the information to the pilot of each glider
in a readable format that can be assessed within the
bat of an eyelid.
6. Develop the instrument with little financial assistance
from within the movement.
7. Ensure every glider has the equipment fitted.
8. Ensure the equipment works with very little power
consumption.
9. Ensure that the cost is no more that a launch fee.
10. Make fitting compulsary to ALL aircraft flying
in uncontrolled airspace.


The above vastly overstates the issue. It's yet one
more 'do nothing'
argument. Make the problem seem too difficult and
people will give up.

Listing the nearby gliders is very easy. You don't
need to list them by
contest ID just the number within a reasonable distance.
Those beyond 1 Km
are of little interest. You aren't interested in the
relative positions of
all gliders, only those that represent a non-zero probably
of a collision.
At any instant, out of 40 gliders, only one or two
might represent a real
hazard.

This is a very easy bit of computer programming. Devices
that do almost
exactly this are already available as consumer devices.
(FRS walkie talkies
with integral GPS ~ $150US) Only small improvements
are needed for glider
use.

Making every glider carry one is not likely or necessary
but it could become
a requirement for contest flying. Clubs with a large
fleet might decide to
install them. Most gliders fly within a local area
so local rules will
work.

This device need only work with gliders. The rest
of the aircraft fleet
will use transponders. For protection from these,
you need a transponder
too.

Bill Daniels

Bill

You are clearly a pilot in the US, with vast open skies
in which to fly.

Here in the UK our skies are crowded, we are being
squeezed by commercial ventures who need more and more
airspace
Frequently contests fly over and around other gliding
sites, pilots on cross countries select other gliding
as turn points. Local soaring is some areas can take
in can take in 10 or more other sites, plus powered
strips.

You say in addition to the anticollision device we
should also have a transponder and in the UK few glider
pilots have radio licences so they can use the ttansponder
(although this is changing). At present we do not have
the power to drive them.

At a meeting of with airtraffic controlers they were
alarmed at the thought of 40 gliders all flying in
a contest fitted with transponders, they thought it
would screw up A their computers and B their controllers
trying to make sense of 40 gliders in a thermal.

You say my argument vastly overstates the issue, I
think it is very much understated for UK flying.

These are real issues when flying cross country in
a crowded little island.

I would welcome and applaud someone who can solve the
problem but in the short term let us be realistic.


Unless everyone carries the equipment it is about as
much good as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest.
It may tell you were some gliders are but not every
one, therein lies the danger.

Enough said,

Dave

Yes I do fly in the vast empty skies of the western USA, thank goodness.
However, I'm also a pilot who has survived a mid-air with another glider
while flying in those "empty" skies.

Try to picture this. The little device goes "Beep" and when you look at it,
the 20mm 2-digit LED display says "06" meaning 6 gliders are within one
kilometer. My reaction is to look outside like crazy until I can see all
six. It beeps again and displays 07 meaning that another glider has joined
the gaggle. I look even harder. This uses the "Mark 1 eyeball" to it's
maximum.

Extremely accurate GPS data has nothing to do with this. If the error is
that the 7th glider is really 1.005 Km away instead of 1.000 why would I
care? If a glider joins the gaggle without this device there is a very good
chance I will see him while looking for the others even though the device
does not detect him.

It is not necessary to compute the trajectories of all gliders in the gaggle
to determine those with a collision probability. Those 500 feet above and
below present no danger whatsoever.

Now picture an advanced version. The device still displays "07" but it now
sounds "deedle, deedle, deedle" and an LED at 8 O'clock illuminates meaning
that there is a non-zero probability collision threat at that relative
bearing. The "Mark 1 eyeballs" leap into action and I look over my left
shoulder to see that the other glider will pass clear. Is this a "false
alarm"? Not really. I really wanted to see him if he was that close. I
appreciated the "heads up". The device need only compute probabilities for
those targets near and closing while near the same altitude.

Perhaps the problem is calling this an "Anti-Collision Device" when it is
really a situational awareness aid.

As for battery life, perhaps you noticed the news that a fully IFR equipped
Kestral 17 flown by Gordon Boettger flew 1562 Kilometers in 11:15 from
Minden, Nevada, USA to Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Most of the flight was
in wave above 20,000 feet. Gordon's Kestral was transponder equipped as
well as carrying a lot of other electronics to operate legally in positive
control airspace. Battery capacity didn't seem to be a problem.

The device I'm talking about would weigh less than 200 gms and run on four
AA batteries for 50+ hours. The amount of time spent looking at it will be
fractions of a second and then only when critical information is displayed.

Bill Daniels

In article ,
Mike,

The FLARM concept has been painfully obvious, from a technology point
of view, since the introduction of low-cost GPS. In fact, it could
even have been partially implemented with LORAN, but those receivers
were expensive and were never widely deployed.

Unfortunately, FLARM-type collision avoidance is only going to work if
it's deployed to virtually all aircraft, which would require the
authorities to insist on it. This won't happen: ADS-B is the chosen
approach.

Sort of important to this approach is "is it worth it?" and
"does the solution cause more death than the problem?"

Kind of like parachutes. If the added weight increases the
marginal stall speed to the point it causes .001% more
fatal accidents, but only saves .0092% more pilots
in breakups, then it was a bad idea. Of course it's
extremely unlikely anyone can prove the extra 15 pounds was
the cause of fatality, right?

How many added fatalities will there be because the pilot
is distracted by the bleepy noise, even though the aircraft
would have missed by six inches if neither pilot was aware?
How many will die because of the distraction itself?

This is just too hard to calculate. Huge numbers (hours
of flight)multiplied by tiny estimated numbers (risk of midair)
makes for a tough comparison. Now instead of risk
use cost in $$$$s to implement, and the true cost vs. benefit is
very difficult to estimate correctly...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA