PowerFlarm and ADS-B solution, can we find one?

In the spirit of technical discussion I must point out what seems to me
to be a basic flaw in logic.

The statement that you can gain or lose altitude at 10 m/s (~20 kt) is
certainly valid in the US southwest. However the supposition that two
gliders traveling in opposite directions with 200 meter vertical
separation would be at risk of collision due to one suddenly dropping
and the other suddenly climbing /_in the same airmass_/ does not appear
to be a serious risk. To do this would require one or both of the
gliders to pull up in sink or push over in lift. In reality both would
either pull up or push over thus keeping the vertical separation nearly
the same.

As to the stealth argument, if only ID and (claimed) climb rate are
masked, with position and relative altitude still displayed, where's the
loss in situational awareness? Remember that there are still right of
way rules to follow to avoid swapping paint.

Someone mentioned the danger of one glider pushing over to leave a
thermal as another is pulling up into the same thermal. This is a valid
concern, though a special case. Assuming both aircraft are equipped
with some sort of anti-collision device then a maintained situational
awareness should preclude any abrupt maneuvers in close proximity to
another glider. I realize that some folks have a "get out of my way"
philosophy and no device can be expected to keep them from doing
something unexpected.

On 1/5/2016 3:56 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 9:02:51 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:08:40 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
I think it is time to end this back and forth ping pong about restricting the use of PF. We have to agree to disagree and try to come up with a solution that could work for both groups.
Let's try to define some criteria that might be acceptable to all:
1) Should targets be visible on PowerFlarm display?
2) If (1) is "Yes" then what is the desired distance at which targets should be visible on PowerFlarm display?
3) Do we allow for displaying altitude of another glider on PowerFlarm display?
4) Do we allow for displaying information pertaining to climb rate or simply indicate if a glider is ascending or descending?
5) Do we need to be able to identify a conflicting glider?
6) What are the minimum requirements for identification of conflicting traffic?
7) Should we aim not to degrade PF functions for non-contest participating PF users in the area of a contest?
8) How do we deal with ADS-B in a glider? I have ADS-B out plus I have ADS-B in on both 1090 and 978.
9) Anything else?


In the interest of having a constructive discussion on the topic- THANK YOU ANDRZEJ!, I will provide my personal opinions.
1- Yes
2- I have suggested 5km previously
3- Relative altitude only, with limit of 200meters(admittedly somewhat arbitrary)
4 No
5- Yes if it is an identified conflict.
6- Provide whatever ID the other glider is using. With ID's suppressed for tactical purposes, I think more pilots would be likely to make them available for conflict resolution.
7- Yes. To me this is the greatest shortcoming of existing Stealth. This is a double sided problem to solve. Plus- it provides little if any degradation of safety for other stake holders. This factor was the principle reason why the BGA stopped the Stealth mandate over there. Negative- it is much harder to ensure that the new mode performs equally for all without hackers turning it wide open again. This would require use of flight displays running programs shown to be compliant. Nothing is without complication. The other negative is that it could enable ground tracking . Possibly the privacy settings could prevent this.
8- I don't have enough visibility into how effective ADSB information will be tactically compared to Flarm to have an opinion. From a tactical point of view, I'd love it to be not there at all. From a safety point of view, I'd like it to be effective.
Again- Thanks for fostering a constructive exchange.
UH
I think we can find a common ground on a number of points:
(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7)
In regards to (3) I would suggest we increase the 200 meters and this is why. Flying in Ely, NV I learned that I can gain or lose 200 meters is just 20 seconds flying straight. I almost busted class A once.
Let's consider this closely:
We have two gliders flying in opposite directions. One glider gains altitude the other loses altitude. The other glider may all of the sudden appear on your display say 1 km in front of you with 200 meters of vertical separation (very difficult to see). You would be left with just 10 seconds to avoid collision.

The 5 km of horizontal distance gives us about 37 seconds of warning. We need to come up with the same 37 seconds of warnings for vertical separation.

Let's consider an edge case both gliders change altitude 10 m/s each, quite possible in western conditions. This gives you 20 m/s combined vertical closure speed. If you want to obtain reaction time of 37 seconds (same as for the 5 km distance) you need 720 meters of separation. That means you need to be able to see traffic that is either 2000 feet above you or below you (I rounded the number down). Of course any lower number would be problematic. I hope you agree with this reasoning.

Now the hard part (8), the information that ADS-B provides can be utilized to show whatever one wants with the right smart phone software. The only way to restrict that would be to run approved displays. In the USA however all ADS-B in solutions that are useful are provided by companies that have nothing to do with gliding.

One option I see is that PowerFlarm upgrades software of their unit to ensure proper reception of ground station information (if there is enough processing power within the unit to deal with both ground station broadcast and Flarm functions). Then display manufacturers could filter traffic the same way as they would do for gliders. With the exception of traffic moving faster than e.g. 150 kts where no filtering would take place. That leaves us with a case where there is not enough ground station coverage (west) and where 978 Mhz band is useful to identify traffic equipped with ADS-B out UAT. Maybe PF units could be upgraded, difficult to say.

Maybe a better solution would be for someone e.g. LXNav or Flarm to create a receiver for both 1090 Mhz and 978 Mhz frequencies that could be configured to restrict output in the same way as with the new mode that we described above.

This is a tough nut to crack and it also limits choices for buyers so a solution would need to be very well priced. An open source project is another opportunity but it would require someone to start it and push forward. The hardware is there but there is still a problem integrating the devices to common display. This is doable but not simple, especially for the market of our size. Although ADS-B In solution that is well priced might be something that many more pilots could get interested in.

Let's keep this thread technical.



--
Dan, 5J