I am interested in finding out what the current state of the art is
regarding automated VISUAL detection of mid-air collision threats.
"Active" tech to avoid collisons such as devices that signal other
devices with position, speed, heading, etc. work well, but require that
everyone have the same or similar installed in their aircraft and that
those devices are turned on and working correctly. Passive tech would
not depend on the other guy's tech at all. Machine vision and the
technologies that comprise it are advancing rapidly, getting cheaper.
Fast processing and sensitive, high resolution imaging are available and
relatively cheap. Software to resolve the perceived threats, Flarm
software, already exists. I just saw a TED video of a machine that could
track flying mosquitos and shoot them down with a laser (I want one of
those). So, why don't we have electronic eyeballs watching out for
traffic for us? Yes, I understand that it might take more than one to
cover the full sphere around the aircraft.

Some small amount of poking around on the net has yielded not too much
info. I am thinking that some of y'all technically astute types that
populate this group would know more.

Do a Google search on "UAV Collision Avoidance". UAV is what you might casually call a drone. There is a ton of active research.

Visual avoidance is promising because it has low weight and power requirements and as you point out the target to avoid can be completely passive.

Visual collision avoidance is part of the very active research in "Machine Vision" which is what you might call "Robotic Vision", the sort of thing that Google's self-driving cars exploit.

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:12:28 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Do a Google search on "UAV Collision Avoidance". UAV is what you might casually call a drone. There is a ton of active research.
>
>
>
> Visual avoidance is promising because it has low weight and power requirements and as you point out the target to avoid can be completely passive.
>
>
>
> Visual collision avoidance is part of the very active research in "Machine Vision" which is what you might call "Robotic Vision", the sort of thing that Google's self-driving cars exploit.

I want one! I can't wait for all the FLARM bashers to start shouting how such a "Machine Vision" device would be harmful and resurrect the whats wrong with looking out for yourself arguments. LOL!

-Jim

In article >,
Jim > wrote:

> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:12:28 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > Do a Google search on "UAV Collision Avoidance". UAV is what you might
> > casually call a drone. There is a ton of active research.
> >
> >
> >
> > Visual avoidance is promising because it has low weight and power
> > requirements and as you point out the target to avoid can be completely
> > passive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Visual collision avoidance is part of the very active research in "Machine
> > Vision" which is what you might call "Robotic Vision", the sort of thing
> > that Google's self-driving cars exploit.
>
> I want one! I can't wait for all the FLARM bashers to start shouting how such
> a "Machine Vision" device would be harmful and resurrect the whats wrong with
> looking out for yourself arguments. LOL!
>
> -Jim

Yeah, I absolutely want one too, or some sort of effective collision
avoidance aid! However, I might actually be a "Flarm Basher". I was one
of the first to sign on to the Flarm "mandatory-if-rentals-available"
effort. That was before it started looking like the U.S. version of
Flarm at that time was essentially vaporware and, judging from
discussions about technical problems, is now only just starting to
emerge from "beta-test". Folks who came onto RAS stridently pushing for
making Flarm mandatory right away certainly set off alarms in my head.
Seemed a little too much like trying to stampede the herd in a
particular direction. One would hope that this has been just
over-enthusiatic cheerleading for a beneficial (in principle)
technology.

I am sure I am not the only guy flying gliders that honestly does not
have the money to spend on one more $2000 device that sort-of works.
Especially in light of the fact that technology and government
regulation are both moving, if slowly, in this area and it would suck to
buy a Flarm and then a couple of years down the road a different, and
maybe better technology becomes mandated by law. Oops, now I gotta shell
out more thousands of $. I did spend for a PCAS and will somehow find
the money for further appropriate technology when I am convinced of what
that is. For now, does that make me a "Flarm Basher"?