A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 4th 18, 01:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default Why no


PowerFLARM has limitations, but is still likely the most useable/useful ADS-B In solution for most USA glider pilots. Especially those that actually fly with their glider near other gliders. But yes folks need to be aware of the limitations.
  #22  
Old May 4th 18, 01:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dirk_PW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

I like where WB is going with his original question. And why not, fundamentally it shouldn't be that hard...

1) Have all ADS-B, Mode-C, Mode-S, and Non-xpdr radar targets get stored in a common database.
2) Through an app on a cell phone, have it downlink your current position, velocity, altitude, etc to the same database.
3) Through the same app, have it upload all targets from this same database that is within your vicinity and graphically display them.

The only hardware needed here is a cell phone. The only connection you need is a cell tower. The hard part is getting access to all the ATC surveillance data in one database. And the main limitation on the user would be connectivity to a cell tower (which I have found to be quite reliable in the air). If you look at this from a "basic situational awareness point of view" (sans collision avoidance), it would be very powerful and everyone would use it.
  #23  
Old May 4th 18, 06:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike Schumann[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:32:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk_PW wrote:
I like where WB is going with his original question. And why not, fundamentally it shouldn't be that hard...

1) Have all ADS-B, Mode-C, Mode-S, and Non-xpdr radar targets get stored in a common database.
2) Through an app on a cell phone, have it downlink your current position, velocity, altitude, etc to the same database.
3) Through the same app, have it upload all targets from this same database that is within your vicinity and graphically display them.

The only hardware needed here is a cell phone. The only connection you need is a cell tower. The hard part is getting access to all the ATC surveillance data in one database. And the main limitation on the user would be connectivity to a cell tower (which I have found to be quite reliable in the air). If you look at this from a "basic situational awareness point of view" (sans collision avoidance), it would be very powerful and everyone would use it.


I just flew my Phoenix Motorglider from Charlotte to MN. At lower altitudes, you can get pretty good cell phone connections. However, as you get to 6,000 ft or higher, the cell phone coverage becomes very dicy. At 8,000 ft I had virtually no coverage during the entire trip.

A number of years ago I was in New York. On the observation deck of the Empire State Building, I had no cell phone coverage.

I have T-Mobile as a provider. Maybe other carriers work better at higher altitudes. However, I think relying on cell phone coverage for any kind of collision avoidance is a highly questionable approach.
  #24  
Old May 4th 18, 07:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Chris Wedgwood[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:19:45 AM UTC+1, Mike Schumann wrote:
However, I think relying on cell phone coverage for any kind of
collision avoidance is a highly questionable approach.



This is correct.

Cell towers use antennas with supressed vertical patterns. This gives more "gain" to ground based phones, and improves range.

I dont see this ever changing, and it is a fundamental limitation for airborne use.
  #25  
Old May 4th 18, 12:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tim Newport-Peace[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Why no

At 06:24 04 May 2018, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:19:45 AM UTC+1, Mike Schumann wrote:
However, I think relying on cell phone coverage for any kind of
collision avoidance is a highly questionable approach.



This is correct.

Cell towers use antennas with supressed vertical patterns. This gives

more
"gain" to ground based phones, and improves range.

I dont see this ever changing, and it is a fundamental limitation for
airborne use.

And event if this was not so, Airborne use would put you in range of far
too many masts and the cell companies won't like this (consumes resources),
so could switch you off!


  #26  
Old May 4th 18, 01:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 624
Default Why no

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:30:07 AM UTC-7, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
At 06:24 04 May 2018, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:19:45 AM UTC+1, Mike Schumann wrote:
However, I think relying on cell phone coverage for any kind of
collision avoidance is a highly questionable approach.



This is correct.

Cell towers use antennas with supressed vertical patterns. This gives

more
"gain" to ground based phones, and improves range.

I dont see this ever changing, and it is a fundamental limitation for
airborne use.

And event if this was not so, Airborne use would put you in range of far
too many masts and the cell companies won't like this (consumes resources),
so could switch you off!


Latency is another issue with mobile phones.
Jim
  #27  
Old May 4th 18, 05:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Why no

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
  #28  
Old May 4th 18, 06:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default Why no


Just stay away from my thermal!

Kirk
66


You stay away from his thermal. Least equipped glider has the right of way. Haha.
  #29  
Old May 4th 18, 10:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

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.
  #30  
Old May 4th 18, 11:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default Why no "situational awareness" (collision avoidance) apps forcell phones?

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Traffic Awareness and Collision Avoidance Talks at the SSA Convention Darryl Ramm Soaring 8 February 28th 18 12:49 AM
3rd Party Flarm data for Situational awareness Alex Kemp Soaring 6 March 12th 13 09:20 PM
GET FREE CELL PHONES and CAMERA PHONES! ssgg Home Built 0 February 13th 06 03:34 AM
Fun with Wx on Cell Phones B4RT Rotorcraft 0 October 9th 05 02:45 PM
Cell phones with GPS Roger Halstead Piloting 0 December 24th 03 04:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.