Help us with this petition for security on anti-collision systems

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:10:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:
We wish to thank everybody. We have some 900 pilots (and are growing) that think that the protocol should be free and then everybody is free to buy the system he prefers!

No monopoly, especially on security. IGC should agree with this.
THANKS AGAIN

One more time...

Did DSX and Flarm have an agreement, or did DSX reverse engineer Flarm's IP without Flarm's blessing?

I think we know the answer. I know what my response would be to a competitor that reverse engineered *my* IP.

Petitions are for losers, anyway. You want to do business, you behave like businessmen.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:59:12 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I'll buy the beer.

Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the finer points of my mother language apparently. ;-)

Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with a probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to estimate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and then maps these paths to estimate likely conflicts and warns if it finds one. I consider that warning a prediction - if nothing changes the two aircraft will likely collide. Sure, it's an estimate but I still consider that more of a prediction than just putting airplane-shaped dots on a display and telling the pilot "you figure it out". I'd rather have a microprocessor and an algorithm than burying my head in a traffic display. I'd call that warning a prediction but maybe I'm being sloppy with the definitions.

The point is - FLARM will give you a warning only for pretty real threats.. A traffic advisory system can only annoy you with constant warnings of aircraft in the vicinity whether they are a threat or not or leave it to you to find threats.by staring at a display. You need to project a flight path with some precision to strike a balance between too may false positives and leaving too many possible threats suppressed until too late. Given how we fly I think FLARM does quite well. It's also why ADS-B will struggle to operate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries to plaster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B unit. PowerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target with both FLARM and ADS-B Out.

9B

The discussion in this thread raises a significant question as to how much "predictive" information is actually transmitted as part of the FLARM protocol. I suspect that the differences in the information transmitted by FLARM and ADS-B are relatively minor.

I don't question the sophistication of FLARM's algorithms in filtering out collision threats that are real based on the trajectories of the aircraft in a soaring environment. Much of this processing must take place in the FLARM's receiver, as the trajectories of both the receiving aircraft and the threat aircraft must be known to determine if there is a collision threat.

My problem is with the assertion that a similar system can not be implemented using ADS-B. This is patently false. Numerous low cost iPhone and/or Android apps already provide collision threat warnings today using low cost ADS-B receivers. These apps not only report collision warnings for ADS-B equipped aircraft, but also for all transponder equipped aircraft that are identified by TIS-B received from an ADS-B ground stations (Note: You need to be ADS-B OUT equipped to reliably receive TIS-B traffic).

It is unlikely that these existing apps are optimized like FLARM is to recognize the unique flight profiles that are common with glider traffic. We will have to wait and see whether or not these companies will find it worth their while to invest in more sophisticated algorithms to specifically target the glider market. However, there are glider specific apps (iGlide, etc..) that are specifically aimed at the soaring market, which would have a strong marketing advantage in including this kind of advanced ADS-B based capability.

In Europe, given the large installed FLARM base, this may be an academic discussion. In the US, FLARM will never be widely deployed outside of the competitive soaring community. Here, an economical ADS-B based solution that provided reliable warnings, not only for other gliders, but also all other GA aircraft, would be a big hit.

At 13:15 29 May 2015, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:59:12 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn
wrote:
I'll buy the beer.=20
=20
Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the
f=
iner points of my mother language apparently. ;-)
=20
Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with
a
=
probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to
estim=
ate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and
the=
n maps these paths to estimate likely conflicts and warns if it finds
one.
=
I consider that warning a prediction - if nothing changes the two
aircraft
=
will likely collide. Sure, it's an estimate but I still consider that
more
=
of a prediction than just putting airplane-shaped dots on a display and
tel=
ling the pilot "you figure it out". I'd rather have a microprocessor and
an=
algorithm than burying my head in a traffic display. I'd call that
warning=
a prediction but maybe I'm being sloppy with the definitions.
=20
The point is - FLARM will give you a warning only for pretty real
threats=
.. A traffic advisory system can only annoy you with constant
warnings of
ai=
rcraft in the vicinity whether they are a threat or not or leave it to
you
=
to find threats.by staring at a display. You need to project a flight
path
=
with some precision to strike a balance between too may false
positives
and=
leaving too many possible threats suppressed until too late. Given
how we
=
fly I think FLARM does quite well. It's also why ADS-B will struggle to
ope=
rate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries
to
p=
laster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B
unit.
P=
owerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target
with
both=
FLARM and ADS-B Out.
=20
9B

The discussion in this thread raises a significant question as to how
much
=
"predictive" information is actually transmitted as part of the FLARM
proto=
col. I suspect that the differences in the information transmitted by
FLAR=
M and ADS-B are relatively minor.
I don't question the sophistication of FLARM's algorithms in filtering
out
=
collision threats that are real based on the trajectories of the aircraft
i=
n a soaring environment. Much of this processing must take place in
the
FL=
ARM's receiver, as the trajectories of both the receiving aircraft and
the
=
threat aircraft must be known to determine if there is a collision
threat.

My problem is with the assertion that a similar system can not be
implement=
ed using ADS-B. This is patently false. Numerous low cost iPhone
and/or
A=
ndroid apps already provide collision threat warnings today using low
cost
=
ADS-B receivers. These apps not only report collision warnings for
ADS-B
e=
quipped aircraft, but also for all transponder equipped aircraft that are
i=
dentified by TIS-B received from an ADS-B ground stations (Note:
You need
=
to be ADS-B OUT equipped to reliably receive TIS-B traffic).

It is unlikely that these existing apps are optimized like FLARM is to
reco=
gnize the unique flight profiles that are common with glider traffic.
We
w=
ill have to wait and see whether or not these companies will find it
worth
=
their while to invest in more sophisticated algorithms to specifically
targ=
et the glider market. However, there are glider specific apps (iGlide,
etc=
..) that are specifically aimed at the soaring market, which would have
a
st=
rong marketing advantage in including this kind of advanced ADS-B
based
cap=
ability.

In Europe, given the large installed FLARM base, this may be an
academic
di=
scussion. In the US, FLARM will never be widely deployed outside of
the
co=
mpetitive soaring community. Here, an economical ADS-B based
solution
that=
provided reliable warnings, not only for other gliders, but also all
other=
GA aircraft, would be a big hit.

The differences in the information transmitted by Flarm and ADS-B are
not minor. There is plenty of information included, or linked to, earlier

in this thread to explain what Flarm transmits and why.

John Galloway

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 4:40:38 AM UTC-5, Lucas wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:02 AM UTC+2, Lucas wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 12:45:08 PM UTC+2, Kevin Neave wrote:
Since you ask...

The first hit from Google for "dsx systems t-advisor" is

http://frank.schellenberg.nl/wp-cont...r_07_12_19.pdf

This states..

"The Traffic Advisor, notifies the pilot the presence of all planes that
enter within the radio operating range (that for the T-Advisor is up to 7
km)"

I may be dim but I read that as "T-Advisor tells you 'that there are lots
of gliders flying within 7 km' ".

So I'll rephrase that.

It *would* tell me that there are lots of planes flying within 7km of me if
they were fitted with DSX.

The aircraft I'm interested in are the ones that are that are converging
with me. Flarm warns me of these as long as they are also Flarm equipped
Flarm is intended as an aid to lookout, generally I've seen most contacts
by the time Flarm generates a warning, occasionally I get a wake up call.
Flarm reminds me that my lookout is not as good as it could be.
(Of course I have no idea how many I'm missing and Flarm isn't picking up)

I don't see what T-Advisor would give me

A large number of the gliders flying XC in the UK (possibly a majority by
now) are using Flarm. I don't know of ANY using DSX.

So I repeat the question, how many gliders in Europe are using DSX?
Or more specifically how many in the UK are using DSX?

KN



At 23:44 26 May 2015, Lucas wrote:
Kevin Neave, can you show in which website you read that the T-Advisor
tells you "that there are lots of gliders flying within 7 km" ?

Kevin, I understand that the sentence can be read in a way different from what was intended: the T-Advisor notifies the pilot of the NEW presence of a glider within range. It blimps once, to tell the pilot that there is a glider there, and will not continue indicating it to the pilot (how could it indicate continuously all gliders in range, on a led display ? Obviously this is impossible, beside useless).

Your comment derives from the fact that you have not had the chance of flying with a T-Advisor, otherwise you would have noticed how it works. Way differently from what you think. But you have forgotten to read the rest of the manual, where it is clearly specified that the system warns the pilot only about gliders that are going to possibly collide.

All pilots with T-Advisor, that has been developed with the input of all of them, are extremely happy to be notified when a glider enters the operating range of the system: it is very helpful to spot another glider at a quite long distance, not mainly for collision avoidance but for information. Also in competitions.

Therefore, the T-Advisor doesn't keep beeping for *any* aircraft in range, buto only for those that are close to possibly collide, warning the pilot with different levels of beeps and led flashes depending on the severity of the situation. This doesn't mean it decides which plane is more dangerous: it tells you what planes are going to hit you based on the approaching speed/distance = time to impact. The warnings are prioritized according the time to impact.
The pilot decides, ultimately.
What it doesn't is to decide which threat to display and which not, based on a "prediction", that, I reiterate, is impossible for a glider not flying with a regular trajectory (straight of stable rate of turn - it's enough to look at the glider traces of any flight to understand this).


.... I think that your worries are

Sorry: it was posted inadvertently, before completion:
I think that what worried you is clear now.
Again: pity you hadn't got the chance of flying with a T-Advisor.
Most T-Advisor pilots have been reporting their satisfaction about how the system warns them about surrounding traffic and risk of collisions.
None of them has ever said that it's annoying in thermals and has to turn down the volume. And this is another difference to the other system.
All of them reported that the function that informs them about the position of another plane entering into the range is very useful.
Many T-Advisor pilots are ex-Flarm pilots.

Ok, so finally it all boils down to: a small group of Flarm users don't like the Flarm display setup, and want something less intrusive. So instead of DSX licencing the Flarm protocol and using their own display logic, they come up with their own system - despite the fact that there is already a huge installed base of Flarm users.

So now that Flarm decides to encrypt their protocol (due to the OGN hacking and privacy issues), suddenly DSX T-advisor users are out in the cold.

Hmm, anyone remember VHS vs BetaMax? Best system doesn't always win - but when only one system is left, it becomes the de-facto protocol!

Kirk

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 2:13:45 AM UTC-7, Lucas wrote:
you are a control system engineer, therefore you work with deterministic systems. The glider pilot, whose actions depend on atmospheric conditions unknown a priori (i.e. vertical gusts/thermals), is not a deterministic system..

Nope - control systems engineers spend most of their time dealing with the effects of noise and non-determinist effects - no system is perfectly deterministic and you assume so at your peril. The issue is to figure out "how" deterministic a system is . Also, if you make NO assumptions about aircraft dynamics many systems are not accurately observable or controllable. Knowing what the aircraft can do dynamically makes a huge difference in knowing where it is and where it can possibly go. Assuming nothing about aircraft dynamics in your system IS making an assumption - you assume the system will keep doing exactly what it was doing when you measured it last - if it was going up it will keep going up indefinitely, if it was circling you assuming it will follow the instantaneous velocity vector and stop circling instantaneously. The simple model is worse - a lot worse. It is a disservice to the soaring community to assert that the simple model is better because the more sophisticated model is somehow "impossible" - that is bunk. It might be "impossible" to program for someone who doesn't understand aircraft dynamics, but that's not the same as claiming that it is an impossible task. Aircraft have flown on autopilots that use the same basic principles for decades - including ones that can autoland under all kinds of non-deterministic airmass dynamics.

Closure rate is an example of a simple projection model - it is the simplest you can imagine as it understands NOTHING about the dynamics of the underlying systems. Simpler is not better in this case - it is quite useful to know that gliders have energy and stall speeds and minimum turn radii to understand whether a glider getting closer to you is actually on a path to hit you or not.

As an algorithm closure rate implicitly assumes the instantaneous closure rate will continue unabated until zero distance and collision. This is NOT true - hardly ever. In only a small percentage of cases to aircraft getting closer represent a collision threat. Without a more sophisticated algorithm you either have to warn the pilot of ALL of them (hardly useful) or set a threshold on closure rate and distance that delays the warning to reduce the false warnings. You would have to set it pretty tight in terms of time to impact to get the warnings down to a tolerable level and even so you will get a lot.

Thought experiment - imagine you are on a low, flat final glide at 70 kts and a bunch of other gliders are well above you and well to either side of you at 150 knots on fast final glides. None of them represent collision risks but they will have a very high rate of closure with a very short time to impact up until they get nearly abeam of you at which point the closure rate will fall of dramatically. Maybe it would be good not to panic you unless someone actually points their glider close enough to you to be a legitimate risk.

Note: As I understand the FLARM algorithm, it is basically indistinguishable from a closure rate algorithm at close range and for high closure rates because it becomes basically mathematically impossible for the paths not to intersect given the "dynamic radius" that FLARM puts on position estimates. So in the above scenario, if one of those gliders steepend their decent and started turing towards you you would get a warning.

So to summarize - it appears based on your statements that the T-Advisor does use a collision algorithm - it's just a much more simplistic one than FLARM does. This algorithm is based on closure rate and (if I understand you) distance. Depending on the thresholds set for issuing a warning this will generate either more false negatives or (more likely given your statement about 100% probability - a very loose standard since it assumes nothing about what the airplane is physically capable of doing) it will generate a lot more false positive warnings.

I'd be interested to see a cockpit video of one of these systems in flight in a situation with, say 30 other gliders milling about in a thermal in a pre-start situation at a contest.

9B

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 7:45:05 AM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:

The differences in the information transmitted by Flarm and ADS-B are
not minor. There is plenty of information included, or linked to, earlier
in this thread to explain what Flarm transmits and why.

John Galloway

Yep.

Has anyone actually pulled apart some of the (pre-encryption) Flarm transmissions? You would think that would settle this debate. I have not personally verified it, but have been told directly by FLARM engineers and the logic of not having to do flight path projections for every glider you are tracking individually makes sense to me when it is a relatively straightforward proposition to send out a handful of projected flight path points as part of each glider's transmission. That plus the dropped packet issue convinced me that this wasn't something the FLARM marketing people came up with just to snow people (BTW, I don't believe Flarm has any dedicated marketing people - which may explain some things).

It amazes me how much misunderstanding and misinformation is floating around out there on this. Glider pilots are generally pretty smart - though many are also dogmatic.

Andy
9B

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:59:12 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I'll buy the beer.

Prediction, projection, position, protection. I'm not very clear on the finer points of my mother language apparently. ;-)

Here's how I look at it. FLARM calculates a projected flight path with a probabilistic "error radius" determined based on flight parameters to estimate a likely future position (assuming no change in control inputs) and then maps these paths to estimate likely conflicts and warns if it finds one.. I consider that warning a prediction - if nothing changes the two aircraft will likely collide. Sure, it's an estimate but I still consider that more of a prediction than just putting airplane-shaped dots on a display and telling the pilot "you figure it out". I'd rather have a microprocessor and an algorithm than burying my head in a traffic display. I'd call that warning a prediction but maybe I'm being sloppy with the definitions.

The point is - FLARM will give you a warning only for pretty real threats. A traffic advisory system can only annoy you with constant warnings of aircraft in the vicinity whether they are a threat or not or leave it to you to find threats.by staring at a display. You need to project a flight path with some precision to strike a balance between too may false positives and leaving too many possible threats suppressed until too late. Given how we fly I think FLARM does quite well. It's also why ADS-B will struggle to operate as a collision warning system for gliders - even if someone tries to plaster a collision projection algorithm on top of some Garmin ADS-B unit. PowerFLARM throws out the ADS-B information if it detects a target with both FLARM and ADS-B Out.

9B

The discussion in this thread raises a significant question as to how much "predictive" information is actually transmitted as part of the FLARM protocol. I suspect that the differences in the information transmitted by FLARM and ADS-B are relatively minor.

I don't question the sophistication of FLARM's algorithms in filtering out collision threats that are real based on the trajectories of the aircraft in a soaring environment. Much of this processing must take place in the FLARM's receiver, as the trajectories of both the receiving aircraft and the threat aircraft must be known to determine if there is a collision threat..

My problem is with the assertion that a similar system can not be implemented using ADS-B. This is patently false. Numerous low cost iPhone and/or Android apps already provide collision threat warnings today using low cost ADS-B receivers. These apps not only report collision warnings for ADS-B equipped aircraft, but also for all transponder equipped aircraft that are identified by TIS-B received from an ADS-B ground stations (Note: You need to be ADS-B OUT equipped to reliably receive TIS-B traffic).

It is unlikely that these existing apps are optimized like FLARM is to recognize the unique flight profiles that are common with glider traffic. We will have to wait and see whether or not these companies will find it worth their while to invest in more sophisticated algorithms to specifically target the glider market. However, there are glider specific apps (iGlide, etc.) that are specifically aimed at the soaring market, which would have a strong marketing advantage in including this kind of advanced ADS-B based capability.

In Europe, given the large installed FLARM base, this may be an academic discussion. In the US, FLARM will never be widely deployed outside of the competitive soaring community. Here, an economical ADS-B based solution that provided reliable warnings, not only for other gliders, but also all other GA aircraft, would be a big hit.

Here we go again. Mike sharing his ignorance about powerflram with the world. Mike, each and every assumption and assertion you make is wrong. Maybe someone else will be willing to correct you on every wrong assumption, I wouldn't waste my time...

On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:04:52 +0000, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

At 22:44 28 May 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:58:39 +0000, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

Firstly, the Easter Egg was built into the previous version of FLARM
firmware long before OGN can into being. OGN was not the cause. As I
understand it the Easter Egg was to ensure that users were on
reasonably
up-to-date Firmware.

By Easter Egg, do you mean the protocol expiry date? If so its not what
I

was talking about and I don't have a problem with it: given that FLARM
was designed for small, low-powered hardware, syncing protocol version
that way makes a helluva lot more sense that having to maintain backward
compatibility over the last 'n' protocol versions just because some lazy
git can't be bothered to keep his software up to date.

Secondly, any transmissions received by an OGN Receiver that have the
Do-Not-Track bit set are discarded at the receiver. There are never
sent
to the Server.

Not necessarily: you can't guarantee anything like that if the receiver
is the result of a third party reverse engineering project, which is
what

I've always heard about the RPi-hosted FLARM receiver units. If the
software author decides he wants to see everybody and ignores that bit
then pop goes your invisibility cloak.

In which case it is not an OGN receiver any longer.

Indeed. Its just a bit sad that the authors of the original OGN received
got so dogmatic over their "all data must be displayed because I said so"
attitude that they forced the use of encryption to enforce the data
source's right to privacy.

IMO that makes them more akin to the most intrusive internet ad-slingers
than to normal glider pilots.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 2:33:02 PM UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:10:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:
We wish to thank everybody. We have some 900 pilots (and are growing) that think that the protocol should be free and then everybody is free to buy the system he prefers!

No monopoly, especially on security. IGC should agree with this.
THANKS AGAIN

One more time...

Did DSX and Flarm have an agreement, or did DSX reverse engineer Flarm's IP without Flarm's blessing?

I think we know the answer. I know what my response would be to a competitor that reverse engineered *my* IP.

Petitions are for losers, anyway. You want to do business, you behave like businessmen.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

One more time: have you read the previous posts ?
If yes: you know that the T-Advisor works in a different way and the hardware is more performing. What is reverse engineer for ?
If not, you can go up and read them.

Are you connected with Flarm ?
If you mention the IP, you are supposed to know them. Can you write here for everyone what IP Flarm has ?
Again, it's in the previous posts, so it is clear that you have not read them or you ignore them purposely.
To show that you know the subject, write here the IP that Flarm has.
Otherwise you make allegations without any base, which is useless for a discussion and a bad behavior.

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:43:32 PM UTC+2, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 2:13:45 AM UTC-7, Lucas wrote:
you are a control system engineer, therefore you work with deterministic systems. The glider pilot, whose actions depend on atmospheric conditions unknown a priori (i.e. vertical gusts/thermals), is not a deterministic system.

Nope - control systems engineers spend most of their time dealing with the effects of noise and non-determinist effects - no system is perfectly deterministic and you assume so at your peril. The issue is to figure out "how" deterministic a system is . Also, if you make NO assumptions about aircraft dynamics many systems are not accurately observable or controllable. Knowing what the aircraft can do dynamically makes a huge difference in knowing where it is and where it can possibly go. Assuming nothing about aircraft dynamics in your system IS making an assumption - you assume the system will keep doing exactly what it was doing when you measured it last - if it was going up it will keep going up indefinitely, if it was circling you assuming it will follow the instantaneous velocity vector and stop circling instantaneously. The simple model is worse - a lot worse. It is a disservice to the soaring community to assert that the simple model is better because the more sophisticated model is somehow "impossible" - that is bunk. It might be "impossible" to program for someone who doesn't understand aircraft dynamics, but that's not the same as claiming that it is an impossible task. Aircraft have flown on autopilots that use the same basic principles for decades - including ones that can autoland under all kinds of non-deterministic airmass dynamics.

Closure rate is an example of a simple projection model - it is the simplest you can imagine as it understands NOTHING about the dynamics of the underlying systems. Simpler is not better in this case - it is quite useful to know that gliders have energy and stall speeds and minimum turn radii to understand whether a glider getting closer to you is actually on a path to hit you or not.

As an algorithm closure rate implicitly assumes the instantaneous closure rate will continue unabated until zero distance and collision. This is NOT true - hardly ever. In only a small percentage of cases to aircraft getting closer represent a collision threat. Without a more sophisticated algorithm you either have to warn the pilot of ALL of them (hardly useful) or set a threshold on closure rate and distance that delays the warning to reduce the false warnings. You would have to set it pretty tight in terms of time to impact to get the warnings down to a tolerable level and even so you will get a lot.

Thought experiment - imagine you are on a low, flat final glide at 70 kts and a bunch of other gliders are well above you and well to either side of you at 150 knots on fast final glides. None of them represent collision risks but they will have a very high rate of closure with a very short time to impact up until they get nearly abeam of you at which point the closure rate will fall of dramatically. Maybe it would be good not to panic you unless someone actually points their glider close enough to you to be a legitimate risk.

Note: As I understand the FLARM algorithm, it is basically indistinguishable from a closure rate algorithm at close range and for high closure rates because it becomes basically mathematically impossible for the paths not to intersect given the "dynamic radius" that FLARM puts on position estimates. So in the above scenario, if one of those gliders steepend their decent and started turing towards you you would get a warning.

So to summarize - it appears based on your statements that the T-Advisor does use a collision algorithm - it's just a much more simplistic one than FLARM does. This algorithm is based on closure rate and (if I understand you) distance. Depending on the thresholds set for issuing a warning this will generate either more false negatives or (more likely given your statement about 100% probability - a very loose standard since it assumes nothing about what the airplane is physically capable of doing) it will generate a lot more false positive warnings.

I'd be interested to see a cockpit video of one of these systems in flight in a situation with, say 30 other gliders milling about in a thermal in a pre-start situation at a contest.

9B

Your note doesn't solve the basic problem: you cannot "predict" where the pilot will go in 10-20-... seconds.
Therefore any "prediction" is not possible.
This is very simple: there is no way of predicting what the pilot will do in most situations.
As already wrote, it's enough to look at a flight trace.
And, pardon me, but I have been working on flight dynamics for 19 years now.. I don't know about you, but the background seems quite different at this point.