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

[WB]

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)

[Tom BravoMike]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:17:55 PM UTC-5, 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)

In my opinion, the new GliderLink app which uses the inexpensive goTenna devices answers at least half of your expectations - the data and computing power of our cellphones while not being handicapped by poor cellular coverage. All this theoretically so far - but I should be getting my goTennas soon and will try the app out - and report.

[WB]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:17:55 PM UTC-5, 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)

OK. So now I see the earlier discussion about "Gliderlink". So folks are thinking about this. I hope the lack of much detailed discussion is because people are developing such apps and don't want to spill the beans. If that's so, then good on ya'.

[WB]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:31:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:17:55 PM UTC-5, 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)
>
> In my opinion, the new GliderLink app which uses the inexpensive goTenna devices answers at least half of your expectations - the data and computing power of our cellphones while not being handicapped by poor cellular coverage. All this theoretically so far - but I should be getting my goTennas soon and will try the app out - and report.

Thanks for pointing out the Gliderlink discussion. I missed it while on the road and didn't scroll down far enough to see it. Looking forward to reading your experience with the Gliderlink app and the goTennas.

[son_of_flubber]

The computations to support collision avoidance between gliders sharing thermals have to be done very frequently, very fast, and without delay. That sort of computation is called 'real time computation and programming'. And I think that collision avoidance is actually 'HARD real time computing', computing that absolutely and positively must be completed in the allocated time (or somebody dies). This is probably not something that a highly experienced App developer can whip up in Python.

Do Android or Ios operating systems and the hardware that they run on (smartphones) even support real time computing? If somebody sends you a text while you're in a gaggle, does your collision avoidance app hiccup at a critical moment?

[Chris Wedgwood[_2_]]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:17:55 AM UTC+1, 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)

Just at first thought:-

- It would have to be server based,as phones dont have peer-peer networking.. Server goes down.. no warnings.

- In most jurisdictions its illegal to use cellphones when airborne.

- Cellphone coverage is not 100% anywhere, especially in the US I think.

In reality, there is already a great system with all the bugs ironed out, and a large existing user base.. FLARM. Much better to get behind that and promote it.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 20:20:44 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Do Android or Ios operating systems and the hardware that they run on
> (smartphones) even support real time computing? If somebody sends you a
> text while you're in a gaggle, does your collision avoidance app hiccup
> at a critical moment?
>
Anything written in Python is most probably not fit for real-time
execution. Recent articles in The Register (UK-based IT industry news
website) shows that the "AI" boys may prototype algorithms using Python,
but they are translated to C for use - and these guys are using big iron,
not phones, to run their stuff.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Chris Rowland[_2_]]

Phones can't communicate with each other, they communicate with the cell
towers. This communication is designed to be one to one, not one to many
which is what is required. Also the Cell tower aerials are designed to
communicate with phones at grund level, not phones in the air. This means
that the phone gets unreliable above a few thousand feet.

There are two things that FLARM does, peer to peer communication of
position data and collision warning.

There are a number of other systems that provide peer to peer
communication, PilotAware, ADSB in/out and others. They provide
situational awareness but not collision warning.

FLARM is the only one that provides collision warning, to do that the
position data is analysed. The algorithms to do this are complex,
especially for gliders where they are circling rapidly and pilots don't
want continual warnings about gliders that are close but not an imminent
danger.

In theory it would be possible to separate the position data and collision
warning functions of FLARM. But most of the cost of FLARM is in the
collision warning. This software is difficult to write and maintain,
especially as it needs to work reliably and run on a fairly low performance
processor.

A phone would have the power to do this but the cost of the app to do this
would not be low. It could easily be several hundred dollars.

Chris

At 08:12 03 May 2018, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2018 20:20:44 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>> Do Android or Ios operating systems and the hardware that they run on
>> (smartphones) even support real time computing? If somebody sends you
a
>> text while you're in a gaggle, does your collision avoidance app hiccup
>> at a critical moment?
>>
>Anything written in Python is most probably not fit for real-time
>execution. Recent articles in The Register (UK-based IT industry news
>website) shows that the "AI" boys may prototype algorithms using Python,
>but they are translated to C for use - and these guys are using big iron,

>not phones, to run their stuff.
>
>
>--
>Martin | martin at
>Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 09:14:00 +0000, Chris Rowland wrote:

> Phones can't communicate with each other, they communicate with the cell
> towers.
>
.... which is why this new GliderLink system is using the goTenna radio
mesh system for its M:M radio link. The phone uses a 1:1 Bluetooth
connection to the Gotenna mesh transceiver, which operates on one of the
unlicensed bands. Like FLARM, the band used varies from country to
country.

> This communication is designed to be one to one, not one to
> many which is what is required. Also the Cell tower aerials are
> designed to communicate with phones at grund level, not phones in the
> air. This means that the phone gets unreliable above a few thousand
> feet.
>
.... and even lower in some parts of the UK. I've had no bars at all at
3000 ft in a thermal over the centre of Huntingdon. I can only suppose
that, because the southern English counties can be regarded as optically
flat for RF purposes, the telcos provide as little vertical coverage as
possible to minimise their cell tower electricity bills.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[[email protected]]

It'll happen soon. The Flarm mafia won't be happy, some of them will probably refuse to get the app just to be rebels.

[krasw]

I'm still amazed, after so many years, of the Flarm-mafia mentality. Who made them the bad guys? They invented collision avoidance technology, licenced it and sold to end-users. Then someone stole their code and hacked the protocol public, illegally. Suddenly they were criminals because they tried to protect their investment. I mean for f*cks sake, what planet do you live on?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:13:24 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> I'm still amazed, after so many years, of the Flarm-mafia mentality. Who made them the bad guys? They invented collision avoidance technology, licenced it and sold to end-users. Then someone stole their code and hacked the protocol public, illegally. Suddenly they were criminals because they tried to protect their investment. I mean for f*cks sake, what planet do you live on?

There is a difference between intellectual theft and competition. You seem to be assuming any anti collision app will use algorithms stolen from Flarm. Of course that would be wrong. Nothing wrong with writing new code that puts Flarm out of business. Remember to responsibly dispose of your Flarm unit in a proper electronics recycling bin.

[WB]

Some good discussion, although some responders apparently did not really read my original post. As I said in the original post, I am aware that cell phones don't talk directly to each other (goTenna and similar notwithstanding). I am aware that cell phones systems aren't meant to work with phones at altitude although they seem to do well enough to track our gliders in contests. I am aware that cell coverage is highly discontinuous. I did say that I would not expect such a system to do what Flarm does, hence my "outside of racing gaggles" remark". That's why I originally titled my post "situational awareness" with "collision avoidance" in parentheses.

We have a bad habit of letting better be the enemy of good enough. Flarm is wonderful thing. I have a big 'ol gold PowerFlarm with too many antennas installed in my glider. I like it and I use it every flight. Unfortunately, in the US PowerFlarm is quite expensive and still requires a lot fussing with to get it to work properly. Cost and hassle have limited it's adoption. If we had a $15 app on cell phones that just told us where to look for traffic, and everyone had it, the gain in safety would be well beyond what we currently get from Flarm (gaggles excepted).

I see the purpose of such an app as letting everyone in the air know where to look for traffic. Not really a collision avoidance app, but really a situational awareness aid. So cheap and easy that everyone from skydivers to big iron drivers would have it. It's not so much to keep us from running our gliders into each other, it's to make us visible so that we can use the 100% installed base of Mark I Human Eyeballs and Human Brains to do the collision avoidance part.

WB

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:35:35 AM UTC-4, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
^ In most jurisdictions its illegal to use cellphones when airborne.

- and yet many glider pilots use IGCdroid. I am still not sure whether that is technically legal. In the USA, in my case.

[Dan Marotta]

The ADS-B in my C-180 provides collision warning.Â* Shortly after the
installation I was flying a GPS arc to an ILS (practice approach) when I
got an aural warning:Â* "Traffic 3 o'clock high, 1 mile!"Â* I had been
monitoring the traffic on my tablet, ATC had been reporting each of us
to the other, and I knew I was below the traffic.Â* Since we were both
VFR, no vectors were issued.

My system is a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS and GTX-345 ADS-B In/Out
transponder.Â* Not really suitable for a glider, but great for a light plane.

Can anyone say if a Trig TT22 with TN70 will provide collision warnings?

I understand the differences in gliding and powered flight and while
collision warnings are really terrific, if I had to choose only one, I'd
go for situational awareness.Â* I can easily avoid the more distant
traffic and, if a thermal is too crowded, I'll just go somewhere else.Â*
And, no, I don't do contest flying.

On 5/3/2018 3:14 AM, Chris Rowland wrote:
> There are a number of other systems that provide peer to peer
> communication, PilotAware, ADSB in/out and others. They provide
> situational awareness but not collision warning.

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> The ADS-B in my C-180 provides collision warning.Â* Shortly after the
> installation I was flying a GPS arc to an ILS (practice approach) when I
> got an aural warning:Â* "Traffic 3 o'clock high, 1 mile!"Â* I had been
> monitoring the traffic on my tablet, ATC had been reporting each of us
> to the other, and I knew I was below the traffic.Â* Since we were both
> VFR, no vectors were issued.
>
> My system is a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS and GTX-345 ADS-B In/Out
> transponder.Â* Not really suitable for a glider, but great for a light plane.
>
> Can anyone say if a Trig TT22 with TN70 will provide collision warnings?
>

The TT22 and TN70 gives you ADS-B Out only, unlike your GTX-345 that does ADS-B Out/In (1090ES Out and 1090ES In and UAT In). Glider pilots would normally get ADS-B In via a PowerFLARM (1090ES In only) or if they have room for a separate display then in some cases a Stratus or Stratux receiver (and if you do that get a dual link receiver).

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I believe the FCC rule (in the US) is to NOT make/receive calls from a cellphone in the air. Major reason is potential swamping of multiple cell towers from a single phone, thus maybe blocking other calls.
Data through the same system uses quite a bit less bandwidth.

At least, that is my understanding.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:04:35 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> I believe the FCC rule (in the US) is to NOT make/receive calls from a cellphone in the air. Major reason is potential swamping of multiple cell towers from a single phone, thus maybe blocking other calls.
> Data through the same system uses quite a bit less bandwidth.
>
> At least, that is my understanding.

Are you saying voice calls not OK, data OK from the air? How about text messages (also low bandwidth)? Of course, SOME data uses ARE high bandwidth (watch Netflix?), but I agree that the packets sent out by IGCdroid are low-bandwidth. The FCC rule may not differentiate those though.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:04:35 AM UTC+10, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> I believe the FCC rule (in the US) is to NOT make/receive calls from a cellphone in the air. Major reason is potential swamping of multiple cell towers from a single phone, thus maybe blocking other calls.
> Data through the same system uses quite a bit less bandwidth.
>
> At least, that is my understanding.

I know most of the conversation is US centric, but for context, here is a statement from the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (Cell phone industry body): http://www.amta.org.au/pages/Mobile.Phones.and.Aircraft
http://www.amta.org.au/files/AMTA-Position-on-Aircraft-Interference-2013.pdf

The summary is in Australia there is no government regulation on cell phone use and it is up to the pilot/carriers to decide what policy they want to set. The cell phone companies industry body seems to have no concerns about issues with the cell phone system (GSM). The referenced PDF quotes research done in countries outside the US showing that there is no substantiated proof that phonescan interfere with aircraft systems.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:06:17 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > The ADS-B in my C-180 provides collision warning.Â* Shortly after the
> > installation I was flying a GPS arc to an ILS (practice approach) when I
> > got an aural warning:Â* "Traffic 3 o'clock high, 1 mile!"Â* I had been
> > monitoring the traffic on my tablet, ATC had been reporting each of us
> > to the other, and I knew I was below the traffic.Â* Since we were both
> > VFR, no vectors were issued.
> >
> > My system is a Garmin 430 WAAS GPS and GTX-345 ADS-B In/Out
> > transponder.Â* Not really suitable for a glider, but great for a light plane.
> >
> > Can anyone say if a Trig TT22 with TN70 will provide collision warnings?
> >
>
> The TT22 and TN70 gives you ADS-B Out only, unlike your GTX-345 that does ADS-B Out/In (1090ES Out and 1090ES In and UAT In). Glider pilots would normally get ADS-B In via a PowerFLARM (1090ES In only) or if they have room for a separate display then in some cases a Stratus or Stratux receiver (and if you do that get a dual link receiver).

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.

[Darryl Ramm]

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.

[Dirk_PW[_2_]]

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.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

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.

[Chris Wedgwood[_2_]]

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.

[Tim Newport-Peace[_4_]]

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!

[JS[_5_]]

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

[kirk.stant]

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

[[email protected]]

> Just stay away from my thermal!
>
> Kirk
> 66

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

[jfitch]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Tango Eight]

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

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Tango Eight]

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

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

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.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

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.

[kirk.stant]

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

[kirk.stant]

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

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

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?

[[email protected]]

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?

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:08:58 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> Please share with me exactly what I am saying about PowerFlarm that is factually incorrect?

Your posts continually claim that PF does not see UAT or TIS-B aircraft. Since you HAVE to have a Mode C transponder to put out UAT ADS-B OUT and TIS-B, the PF will detect the presence of that aircraft - AND Mode S ADS-B out, AND plain Mode S transponders, AND other PF gliders.

Back at you - what setup do you have in a glider that gives the equivalent situational awareness as PowerFlarm? Does it display on commong glider displays? How much does it cost?

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:49:19 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:08:58 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > Please share with me exactly what I am saying about PowerFlarm that is factually incorrect?
>
> Your posts continually claim that PF does not see UAT or TIS-B aircraft. Since you HAVE to have a Mode C transponder to put out UAT ADS-B OUT and TIS-B, the PF will detect the presence of that aircraft - AND Mode S ADS-B out, AND plain Mode S transponders, AND other PF gliders.
>
> Back at you - what setup do you have in a glider that gives the equivalent situational awareness as PowerFlarm? Does it display on commong glider displays? How much does it cost?
>
> Kirk
> 66

1. You do not need to have a Mode C or S transponder to equip an aircraft with UAT ADS-B Out. If you are exclusively flying in an area where transponders are not required, given the price difference, it is not unreasonable to install a UAT ADS-B transceiver if you want to make yourself visible to ATC and trigger the ADS-B ground stations to get TIS-B and ADS-R traffic.

2. I never said that a PowerFlarm equipped pilot would not see a transponder equipped aircraft. What I have said, which is 100% accurate, is that PowerFlarm does not support TIS-B and ADS-R, so that the situational awareness is not nearly as good as with virtually all other ADS-B receivers. The reality is that when PowerFlarm sees a transponder equipped aircraft, all you know is the altitude of the aircraft, and a rough approximation of its range. You have no way to tell if the aircraft is behind you, off to the side, or in front. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B (and you were ADS-B OUT equipped and within range of a ground station), you would see the exact position of the transponder equipped aircraft with the same accuracy as is visible on ATC radar.

3. I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system that includes a 1090ES transponder with 2020 compliant ADS-B Out support. The system also includes a dual frequency ADS-B IN receiver which supports TIS-B, ADS-R, as well as providing all the weather and TFR data that is transmitted by the ADS-B ground stations. This is certainly not a system you would put in a normal glider. For that, I would recommend a Trig transponder with a GPS position source for ADS-B Out, along with a Scout ADS-B receiver ($199) feeding the Foreflight app running on an iPhone for ADS-B traffic warnings.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:03:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> 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?

Hmmmmmm.... I don't recall we've ever had a glider mid air in R1. One of the reasons I love it here is that the sky is still big.

However, guys I know personally have been involved in 7 glider midairs I can recall in one minute's reflection. Only a few of those are in the NTSB database. Most of those guys are still flying and (not surprisingly) all of them were early adopters of PowerFlarm.

Paragliders are essentially stationary and easier to see than sailplanes. You can equip a paraglider with flarm too.

T8

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> 1. You do not need to have a Mode C or S transponder to equip an aircraft with UAT ADS-B Out. If you are exclusively flying in an area where transponders are not required, given the price difference, it is not unreasonable to install a UAT ADS-B transceiver if you want to make yourself visible to ATC and trigger the ADS-B ground stations to get TIS-B and ADS-R traffic.

Strawman argument. Do you actually think someone who doesn't have a transponder is going to install a UAT out system?
>
> 2. I never said that a PowerFlarm equipped pilot would not see a transponder equipped aircraft. What I have said, which is 100% accurate, is that PowerFlarm does not support TIS-B and ADS-R, so that the situational awareness is not nearly as good as with virtually all other ADS-B receivers. The reality is that when PowerFlarm sees a transponder equipped aircraft, all you know is the altitude of the aircraft, and a rough approximation of its range. You have no way to tell if the aircraft is behind you, off to the side, or in front. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B (and you were ADS-B OUT equipped and within range of a ground station), you would see the exact position of the transponder equipped aircraft with the same accuracy as is visible on ATC radar.

Again, Mike, in a glider this is not the issue - the issue is compatible systems and displays. And the incredibly stupid FAA UAT system coupled with the need to have ADS-B out of some sort to see all ADS-B traffic. Otherwise, my PF would right now see all ADS-B traffic, not just all Mode-S traffic.. And sure, ADS-B in display would be nice - but in and LS6 cockpit there is no room for multiple displays - and barely room to get a transponder on the panel!


> 3. I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system that includes a 1090ES transponder with 2020 compliant ADS-B Out support. The system also includes a dual frequency ADS-B IN receiver which supports TIS-B, ADS-R, as well as providing all the weather and TFR data that is transmitted by the ADS-B ground stations. This is certainly not a system you would put in a normal glider. For that, I would recommend a Trig transponder with a GPS position source for ADS-B Out, along with a Scout ADS-B receiver ($199) feeding the Foreflight app running on an iPhone for ADS-B traffic warnings.

Exactly - you are flying an airplane, not a glider, with room and electrical power for a nice big display. Your setup has NO relevance to true sailplanes that are much more space limited.

So do us a favor and quit bashing PowerFLARM - we understand that for YOUR application it isn't the best solution, and I agree with you on that - but for a small cockpit racing sailplane, current ADS-B solutions are not yet optimum.

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:24:32 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> >
> > 1. You do not need to have a Mode C or S transponder to equip an aircraft with UAT ADS-B Out. If you are exclusively flying in an area where transponders are not required, given the price difference, it is not unreasonable to install a UAT ADS-B transceiver if you want to make yourself visible to ATC and trigger the ADS-B ground stations to get TIS-B and ADS-R traffic.
>
> Strawman argument. Do you actually think someone who doesn't have a transponder is going to install a UAT out system?

I didn't say anyone was going to do this. You said it wasn't possible. It is. Quit posting stuff that is not correct.

> >
> > 2. I never said that a PowerFlarm equipped pilot would not see a transponder equipped aircraft. What I have said, which is 100% accurate, is that PowerFlarm does not support TIS-B and ADS-R, so that the situational awareness is not nearly as good as with virtually all other ADS-B receivers. The reality is that when PowerFlarm sees a transponder equipped aircraft, all you know is the altitude of the aircraft, and a rough approximation of its range. You have no way to tell if the aircraft is behind you, off to the side, or in front. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B (and you were ADS-B OUT equipped and within range of a ground station), you would see the exact position of the transponder equipped aircraft with the same accuracy as is visible on ATC radar.
>
> Again, Mike, in a glider this is not the issue - the issue is compatible systems and displays. And the incredibly stupid FAA UAT system coupled with the need to have ADS-B out of some sort to see all ADS-B traffic. Otherwise, my PF would right now see all ADS-B traffic, not just all Mode-S traffic. And sure, ADS-B in display would be nice - but in and LS6 cockpit there is no room for multiple displays - and barely room to get a transponder on the panel!

The FAA's UAT system is NOT stupid. It was essential to provide the bandwidth necessary for the wealth of ADS-B services for which ADS-B was initially designed, such as weather, Flight Restrictions, etc. What was unfortunate was the unwillingness of foreign governments to sign on the UAT standard, resulting in the complexities of a dual frequency system. Not an ideal situation, but one we are going to have to live with.

>
>
> > 3. I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system that includes a 1090ES transponder with 2020 compliant ADS-B Out support. The system also includes a dual frequency ADS-B IN receiver which supports TIS-B, ADS-R, as well as providing all the weather and TFR data that is transmitted by the ADS-B ground stations. This is certainly not a system you would put in a normal glider. For that, I would recommend a Trig transponder with a GPS position source for ADS-B Out, along with a Scout ADS-B receiver ($199) feeding the Foreflight app running on an iPhone for ADS-B traffic warnings..
>
> Exactly - you are flying an airplane, not a glider, with room and electrical power for a nice big display. Your setup has NO relevance to true sailplanes that are much more space limited.
>
> So do us a favor and quit bashing PowerFLARM - we understand that for YOUR application it isn't the best solution, and I agree with you on that - but for a small cockpit racing sailplane, current ADS-B solutions are not yet optimum.

There are ADS-B solutions that are appropriate for racing sailplanes. It is a no-brainer for anyone flying an experimental glider that is already equipped with a Trig transponder to add a TN-72 GPS source and be ADS-B OUT equipped. Add a $199 Scout ADS-B receiver and Foreflight running on an iPhone in your shirt pocket and you have a full blown dual frequency ADS-B collision avoidance system with audio prompts without taking up any panel space.

What is absurd is the half baked Euro Centric engineering in PowerFlarm that makes it such a limited system in the US market. The hardware is all there. They are just too lazy (or share your anti UAT attitude), to take advantage of the existing US ADS-B infrastructure to have a truly effective anti-collision system. So that leaves glider pilots in the quandary of do you want an optimized system to protect against glider-glider collisions, or do you want a general purpose system that protects you from collisions with general aviation aircraft. Rather than rail at me for pointing out the obvious, why don't you spend some of your energy ranting at PowerFlarm on why they don't get their act together and fully support the US ADS-B architecture.

[Paul Agnew]

I tested an XGPS170 Dual with the Avare app on my Android phone yesterday and found it helpful, but a little lacking. Avare allows "filtering" of ADS-B traffic at 10,000ft or 100,000ft ranges and I could really use a mid-range option. I didn't look at it until off tow, but it appeared to be receiving the signal well above 2000' - and possibly lower. I was trying to connect with some seabreeze lift and didn't have much time to devote to watching to see when the signal was lost in the descent. (Alas, it was a late afternoon, post-annual inspection sled ride - just missed it by that much.)

The other option I would like to see is a simpler map for just traffic awareness instead of overlaying the sectional. The little blue dot representing an airplane gets lost in the clutter on the Miami sectional.

The biggest improvement they could make would be to add a proximity range and audio alert to Avare. I had a small corporate jet in my vicinity that showed up perfectly, but only after I had already spotted him coming my way. (I had XCSoar up and wasn't staring at the screen.) An audio alert would have been great to improve my awareness of his proximity.

Avare...are you listening? Opportunity knocks...

Paul A
ASW-19

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:27:57 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:24:32 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. You do not need to have a Mode C or S transponder to equip an aircraft with UAT ADS-B Out. If you are exclusively flying in an area where transponders are not required, given the price difference, it is not unreasonable to install a UAT ADS-B transceiver if you want to make yourself visible to ATC and trigger the ADS-B ground stations to get TIS-B and ADS-R traffic.
> >
> > Strawman argument. Do you actually think someone who doesn't have a transponder is going to install a UAT out system?
>
> I didn't say anyone was going to do this. You said it wasn't possible. It is. Quit posting stuff that is not correct.
>
> > >
> > > 2. I never said that a PowerFlarm equipped pilot would not see a transponder equipped aircraft. What I have said, which is 100% accurate, is that PowerFlarm does not support TIS-B and ADS-R, so that the situational awareness is not nearly as good as with virtually all other ADS-B receivers. The reality is that when PowerFlarm sees a transponder equipped aircraft, all you know is the altitude of the aircraft, and a rough approximation of its range. You have no way to tell if the aircraft is behind you, off to the side, or in front. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B (and you were ADS-B OUT equipped and within range of a ground station), you would see the exact position of the transponder equipped aircraft with the same accuracy as is visible on ATC radar.
> >
> > Again, Mike, in a glider this is not the issue - the issue is compatible systems and displays. And the incredibly stupid FAA UAT system coupled with the need to have ADS-B out of some sort to see all ADS-B traffic. Otherwise, my PF would right now see all ADS-B traffic, not just all Mode-S traffic. And sure, ADS-B in display would be nice - but in and LS6 cockpit there is no room for multiple displays - and barely room to get a transponder on the panel!
>
> The FAA's UAT system is NOT stupid. It was essential to provide the bandwidth necessary for the wealth of ADS-B services for which ADS-B was initially designed, such as weather, Flight Restrictions, etc. What was unfortunate was the unwillingness of foreign governments to sign on the UAT standard, resulting in the complexities of a dual frequency system. Not an ideal situation, but one we are going to have to live with.
>
> >
> >
> > > 3. I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system that includes a 1090ES transponder with 2020 compliant ADS-B Out support. The system also includes a dual frequency ADS-B IN receiver which supports TIS-B, ADS-R, as well as providing all the weather and TFR data that is transmitted by the ADS-B ground stations. This is certainly not a system you would put in a normal glider. For that, I would recommend a Trig transponder with a GPS position source for ADS-B Out, along with a Scout ADS-B receiver ($199) feeding the Foreflight app running on an iPhone for ADS-B traffic warnings.
> >
> > Exactly - you are flying an airplane, not a glider, with room and electrical power for a nice big display. Your setup has NO relevance to true sailplanes that are much more space limited.
> >
> > So do us a favor and quit bashing PowerFLARM - we understand that for YOUR application it isn't the best solution, and I agree with you on that - but for a small cockpit racing sailplane, current ADS-B solutions are not yet optimum.
>
> There are ADS-B solutions that are appropriate for racing sailplanes. It is a no-brainer for anyone flying an experimental glider that is already equipped with a Trig transponder to add a TN-72 GPS source and be ADS-B OUT equipped. Add a $199 Scout ADS-B receiver and Foreflight running on an iPhone in your shirt pocket and you have a full blown dual frequency ADS-B collision avoidance system with audio prompts without taking up any panel space.
>
> What is absurd is the half baked Euro Centric engineering in PowerFlarm that makes it such a limited system in the US market. The hardware is all there. They are just too lazy (or share your anti UAT attitude), to take advantage of the existing US ADS-B infrastructure to have a truly effective anti-collision system. So that leaves glider pilots in the quandary of do you want an optimized system to protect against glider-glider collisions, or do you want a general purpose system that protects you from collisions with general aviation aircraft. Rather than rail at me for pointing out the obvious, why don't you spend some of your energy ranting at PowerFlarm on why they don't get their act together and fully support the US ADS-B architecture.

Mike, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your pro-UAT bias is noted. Funny how Europe which has denser air traffic does fine without UAT. Wx and TFR data was added, IMO, to satisfy the people who wanted to keep the old Mode C transponders with a UAT ADS-B out setup. Carrot.

Your solution (ADS-B in on my phone) is unacceptable. People don't look out the window as it is, now you want them pulling out their phone and messing with that inflight? No thank you.

Kirk
66

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Not at Kirk....just a way to post through iPad......

Cell info RELIES on a cell connection.
Pretty much PERIOD.

If out of suitable range of a cell tower, ANY cell info is either lost or may be so out of date you get the warning AFTER the midair.
So, what's the point?

You need ship to ship info rather quick.

You want to follow a friend or competitor? Then some lag is sorta OK.

You want to avoid a ship to ship collision, a "RIGHT NOW" may not be enough.. Back to eyeballs, regardless of how imperfect they may be.

Sheesh, I hate "nannies" and I hate some rules (like mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles).

But.......I will like pay attention to nannies and you will likely NEVER catch me on a motorcycle without a helmet. Even if I am "putt putting" in front of my house. Taken from someone that broke their back 35 years ago from a car that didn't yield on a small highway.They were wrong, I broke my back.
You may be right, you may also be dead right.
I prefer, "see and avoid, hope I can testify at the hearing......".

[frikkin Internet has created so many "muscle men" that would likely fold in person.....].....sigh....in general, not at Kirk at this point, or at Gregg, at this point....

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 4:33:26 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Not at Kirk....just a way to post through iPad......
>
> Cell info RELIES on a cell connection.
> Pretty much PERIOD.
>
> If out of suitable range of a cell tower, ANY cell info is either lost or may be so out of date you get the warning AFTER the midair.
> So, what's the point?
>
> You need ship to ship info rather quick.
>
> You want to follow a friend or competitor? Then some lag is sorta OK.
>
> You want to avoid a ship to ship collision, a "RIGHT NOW" may not be enough. Back to eyeballs, regardless of how imperfect they may be.
>
> Sheesh, I hate "nannies" and I hate some rules (like mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles).
>
> But.......I will like pay attention to nannies and you will likely NEVER catch me on a motorcycle without a helmet. Even if I am "putt putting" in front of my house. Taken from someone that broke their back 35 years ago from a car that didn't yield on a small highway.They were wrong, I broke my back.
> You may be right, you may also be dead right.
> I prefer, "see and avoid, hope I can testify at the hearing......".
>
> [frikkin Internet has created so many "muscle men" that would likely fold in person.....].....sigh....in general, not at Kirk at this point, or at Gregg, at this point....

Hi Charlie,

With 2 Kirks now it's getting confusing, but a good heated discussion is always fun, as long as it stays civil.

Totally agree about any cell-based solution; it's more for spectating on the ground than real save-your-life stuff.

And I'm totally with you on the Nanny-state thing - I like to make my own researched decision rather than accept whatever some functionary/lawyer decides is best for me!

The really tragic thing about this whole ADS-B debacle is that the FAA managed to take a basically simple idea and make it so complicated that we are all arguing with each other about it! For us VFR flyers it should have been a $500 gizmo that told everybody where you are and would let you see everybody. At that price, they could have GIVEN the darn things to all VFR pilots for less than the cost of one mid-air.

Anyway, I had fun this Saturday flying XC and watching all the ADS-B and transponder traffic on my PF.

Cheers,

Kirk

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:27:57 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:24:32 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1. You do not need to have a Mode C or S transponder to equip an aircraft with UAT ADS-B Out. If you are exclusively flying in an area where transponders are not required, given the price difference, it is not unreasonable to install a UAT ADS-B transceiver if you want to make yourself visible to ATC and trigger the ADS-B ground stations to get TIS-B and ADS-R traffic.
> > >
> > > Strawman argument. Do you actually think someone who doesn't have a transponder is going to install a UAT out system?
> >
> > I didn't say anyone was going to do this. You said it wasn't possible. It is. Quit posting stuff that is not correct.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2. I never said that a PowerFlarm equipped pilot would not see a transponder equipped aircraft. What I have said, which is 100% accurate, is that PowerFlarm does not support TIS-B and ADS-R, so that the situational awareness is not nearly as good as with virtually all other ADS-B receivers.. The reality is that when PowerFlarm sees a transponder equipped aircraft, all you know is the altitude of the aircraft, and a rough approximation of its range. You have no way to tell if the aircraft is behind you, off to the side, or in front. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B (and you were ADS-B OUT equipped and within range of a ground station), you would see the exact position of the transponder equipped aircraft with the same accuracy as is visible on ATC radar.
> > >
> > > Again, Mike, in a glider this is not the issue - the issue is compatible systems and displays. And the incredibly stupid FAA UAT system coupled with the need to have ADS-B out of some sort to see all ADS-B traffic. Otherwise, my PF would right now see all ADS-B traffic, not just all Mode-S traffic. And sure, ADS-B in display would be nice - but in and LS6 cockpit there is no room for multiple displays - and barely room to get a transponder on the panel!
> >
> > The FAA's UAT system is NOT stupid. It was essential to provide the bandwidth necessary for the wealth of ADS-B services for which ADS-B was initially designed, such as weather, Flight Restrictions, etc. What was unfortunate was the unwillingness of foreign governments to sign on the UAT standard, resulting in the complexities of a dual frequency system. Not an ideal situation, but one we are going to have to live with.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 3. I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system that includes a 1090ES transponder with 2020 compliant ADS-B Out support. The system also includes a dual frequency ADS-B IN receiver which supports TIS-B, ADS-R, as well as providing all the weather and TFR data that is transmitted by the ADS-B ground stations. This is certainly not a system you would put in a normal glider. For that, I would recommend a Trig transponder with a GPS position source for ADS-B Out, along with a Scout ADS-B receiver ($199) feeding the Foreflight app running on an iPhone for ADS-B traffic warnings.
> > >
> > > Exactly - you are flying an airplane, not a glider, with room and electrical power for a nice big display. Your setup has NO relevance to true sailplanes that are much more space limited.
> > >
> > > So do us a favor and quit bashing PowerFLARM - we understand that for YOUR application it isn't the best solution, and I agree with you on that - but for a small cockpit racing sailplane, current ADS-B solutions are not yet optimum.
> >
> > There are ADS-B solutions that are appropriate for racing sailplanes. It is a no-brainer for anyone flying an experimental glider that is already equipped with a Trig transponder to add a TN-72 GPS source and be ADS-B OUT equipped. Add a $199 Scout ADS-B receiver and Foreflight running on an iPhone in your shirt pocket and you have a full blown dual frequency ADS-B collision avoidance system with audio prompts without taking up any panel space.
> >
> > What is absurd is the half baked Euro Centric engineering in PowerFlarm that makes it such a limited system in the US market. The hardware is all there. They are just too lazy (or share your anti UAT attitude), to take advantage of the existing US ADS-B infrastructure to have a truly effective anti-collision system. So that leaves glider pilots in the quandary of do you want an optimized system to protect against glider-glider collisions, or do you want a general purpose system that protects you from collisions with general aviation aircraft. Rather than rail at me for pointing out the obvious, why don't you spend some of your energy ranting at PowerFlarm on why they don't get their act together and fully support the US ADS-B architecture.
>
> Mike, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your pro-UAT bias is noted. Funny how Europe which has denser air traffic does fine without UAT. Wx and TFR data was added, IMO, to satisfy the people who wanted to keep the old Mode C transponders with a UAT ADS-B out setup. Carrot.
>
> Your solution (ADS-B in on my phone) is unacceptable. People don't look out the window as it is, now you want them pulling out their phone and messing with that inflight? No thank you.
>
> Kirk
> 66

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have a pro UAT bias. If I was going to put ADS-B OUT in a normal glider, I would go the 1090ES route with a Trig Mode S transponder.

As far as an iPhone based ForeFlight collision warning system, you are once again commenting on something that you know nothing about. You don't need to pull the iPhone out of your pocket. ForeFlight gives you an audio warning of exactly where the collision threat is (i.e. "11 O'Clock, 2 miles, 1,000 ft low"), so you can keep your eyeballs outside the cockpit knowing EXACTLY where to look for the threat traffic.

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:40:44 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:27:57 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:24:32 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. You do not need to have a Mode C or S transponder to equip an aircraft with UAT ADS-B Out. If you are exclusively flying in an area where transponders are not required, given the price difference, it is not unreasonable to install a UAT ADS-B transceiver if you want to make yourself visible to ATC and trigger the ADS-B ground stations to get TIS-B and ADS-R traffic.
> > > >
> > > > Strawman argument. Do you actually think someone who doesn't have a transponder is going to install a UAT out system?
> > >
> > > I didn't say anyone was going to do this. You said it wasn't possible. It is. Quit posting stuff that is not correct.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I never said that a PowerFlarm equipped pilot would not see a transponder equipped aircraft. What I have said, which is 100% accurate, is that PowerFlarm does not support TIS-B and ADS-R, so that the situational awareness is not nearly as good as with virtually all other ADS-B receivers. The reality is that when PowerFlarm sees a transponder equipped aircraft, all you know is the altitude of the aircraft, and a rough approximation of its range. You have no way to tell if the aircraft is behind you, off to the side, or in front. If PowerFlarm supported TIS-B (and you were ADS-B OUT equipped and within range of a ground station), you would see the exact position of the transponder equipped aircraft with the same accuracy as is visible on ATC radar.
> > > >
> > > > Again, Mike, in a glider this is not the issue - the issue is compatible systems and displays. And the incredibly stupid FAA UAT system coupled with the need to have ADS-B out of some sort to see all ADS-B traffic. Otherwise, my PF would right now see all ADS-B traffic, not just all Mode-S traffic. And sure, ADS-B in display would be nice - but in and LS6 cockpit there is no room for multiple displays - and barely room to get a transponder on the panel!
> > >
> > > The FAA's UAT system is NOT stupid. It was essential to provide the bandwidth necessary for the wealth of ADS-B services for which ADS-B was initially designed, such as weather, Flight Restrictions, etc. What was unfortunate was the unwillingness of foreign governments to sign on the UAT standard, resulting in the complexities of a dual frequency system. Not an ideal situation, but one we are going to have to live with.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3. I have a Phoenix Motorglider with a Dynon Skyview system that includes a 1090ES transponder with 2020 compliant ADS-B Out support. The system also includes a dual frequency ADS-B IN receiver which supports TIS-B, ADS-R, as well as providing all the weather and TFR data that is transmitted by the ADS-B ground stations. This is certainly not a system you would put in a normal glider. For that, I would recommend a Trig transponder with a GPS position source for ADS-B Out, along with a Scout ADS-B receiver ($199) feeding the Foreflight app running on an iPhone for ADS-B traffic warnings.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly - you are flying an airplane, not a glider, with room and electrical power for a nice big display. Your setup has NO relevance to true sailplanes that are much more space limited.
> > > >
> > > > So do us a favor and quit bashing PowerFLARM - we understand that for YOUR application it isn't the best solution, and I agree with you on that - but for a small cockpit racing sailplane, current ADS-B solutions are not yet optimum.
> > >
> > > There are ADS-B solutions that are appropriate for racing sailplanes. It is a no-brainer for anyone flying an experimental glider that is already equipped with a Trig transponder to add a TN-72 GPS source and be ADS-B OUT equipped. Add a $199 Scout ADS-B receiver and Foreflight running on an iPhone in your shirt pocket and you have a full blown dual frequency ADS-B collision avoidance system with audio prompts without taking up any panel space.
> > >
> > > What is absurd is the half baked Euro Centric engineering in PowerFlarm that makes it such a limited system in the US market. The hardware is all there. They are just too lazy (or share your anti UAT attitude), to take advantage of the existing US ADS-B infrastructure to have a truly effective anti-collision system. So that leaves glider pilots in the quandary of do you want an optimized system to protect against glider-glider collisions, or do you want a general purpose system that protects you from collisions with general aviation aircraft. Rather than rail at me for pointing out the obvious, why don't you spend some of your energy ranting at PowerFlarm on why they don't get their act together and fully support the US ADS-B architecture.
> >
> > Mike, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your pro-UAT bias is noted. Funny how Europe which has denser air traffic does fine without UAT. Wx and TFR data was added, IMO, to satisfy the people who wanted to keep the old Mode C transponders with a UAT ADS-B out setup. Carrot.
> >
> > Your solution (ADS-B in on my phone) is unacceptable. People don't look out the window as it is, now you want them pulling out their phone and messing with that inflight? No thank you.
> >
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have a pro UAT bias. If I was going to put ADS-B OUT in a normal glider, I would go the 1090ES route with a Trig Mode S transponder.
>
> As far as an iPhone based ForeFlight collision warning system, you are once again commenting on something that you know nothing about. You don't need to pull the iPhone out of your pocket. ForeFlight gives you an audio warning of exactly where the collision threat is (i.e. "11 O'Clock, 2 miles, 1,000 ft low"), so you can keep your eyeballs outside the cockpit knowing EXACTLY where to look for the threat traffic.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. If I were to put ADS-B OUT and IN into my glider, I would go the TT22/TN72 route for OUT, a dual band for IN, and display it all on an AIR ATD57 (which would merge ADS-B with FLARM for the best of both worlds. But that ain't cheap: around $3500 when all is included.

Kirk
66