Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - See and be seen fallacy

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

See and be seen fallacy

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:21 am Post subject: See and be seen fallacy

Here is a quote from August 1996 Plane & Pilot, , page 52: "Information Gets Airborne", CDTI Test Flight.

 	  Quote: 	
		  The test lasted for about an l.5 hours and, in every instance, the Baron's PPI picked up the intruders and gave us ample warning of the potential collision course. At deliberate head on closing speeds of 280 knots (almost five miles a minute) we had nearly two minutes of warning of a threat in the area.

   Despite knowing the relative altitude, distance and bearing of the threat aircraft and all three of us staring intently at that section of sky as soon as we spotted the blip, none of us ever acquired a target visually outside one mile range. We did perhaps 20 to 25 intercepts during the test, and I was surprised that we couldn't see the threats until they were very close.

   In short, there's little question CDTI works. Problem is, if you buy CDTI, know there's an airplane out there and have its range, altitude and bearing, will you see it in time?

	
 The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other aircraft is based on slow airspeeds of early aircraft.  At the closure rate in the above example, two pilots have 13 seconds to see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive action.  And it takes the aircraft time to change course.  How many pilots just happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it gets within one mile?  Pilots look at charts or a glass panel or at scenery on the ground for several seconds at a time.  If the pilot happens to look in the direction of another aircraft, how many of those 13 seconds are left, if any?  Strobes and ATC traffic advisories can help but can not be depended on.  ADS-B is the best tool we have for avoiding collisions.  And that could be improved by adding voice commands such as, "Danger Traffic, climb and turn right immediately !"

  I am not suggesting that we stop looking out the window.  But doing so will not necessarily avoid a collision with another aircraft headed our way.

  If the EAA or AOPA or FAA conducted a similar traffic avoidance test to the one above using modern avionics, it might lead to improved safety.

Joe

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Joe Gores

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:39 am Post subject: See and be seen fallacy

 	  Quote: 	
		    The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other 

 aircraft is based on slow airspeeds of early aircraft.  At the 

 closure rate in the above example, two pilots have 13 seconds to 

 see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive action.  And 

 it takes the aircraft time to change course.  How many pilots just 

 happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it 

 gets within one mile?


	




   Exactly. About 15 years ago I participated in an ad hoc

   gathering of techno-wennies, pilots and operators who

   sifted through a host of simple ideas for collision

   avoidance for exploiting then existing technologies. We met

   at the EAA museum in OSH one January weekend that was

   about as cold as I've ever experienced! I was amazed that

   my travel companion's car even started the morning we

   left for home . . . I think it was about 15 below that

   morning.



   In two days, we crafted a recommendation that

   a host of objects of interest to pilots could be

   'tagged' with a simple beacon that says, "Here I am! My

   position is (LAT,LON), my speed over ground is (GS), my

   course is (DEG), my height is (ALT) and my threat category

   is (A thru H for fixed, drifting balloon, air recreational vehicle,

   light plane, high performance, small air transport,

   medium air transport, heavy air transport).



   The data would be a simple squitter stream with a repetition

   rate proportional to ground speed. The faster you're moving,

   the greater your update rate.



   Beacons could be fitted to mountain tops, towers, buildings,

   airport obstructions, and all manner of flying machine.

   The beacon would be independent of any receiver and associated

   interpreter of data.  It would be cheap and easy to install

   beacons that could also serve as crash locators. The major

   difference between beacons and locators being that the

   beacons ran all the time.



   Any owner/operator interested in utilizing this data would

   add a receiver/interpreter that could supply all manner

   of warning either aurally or visually. The data stream is

   open source so any number of end users could exploit the

   data for incorporation into their panel mounted offering.



   That was a satisfying experience and a great study in

   spontaneous organization. That little brain trust of about

   20 folks produced what I believed was an exceedingly elegant

   solution to a very difficult problem . . . how to make a

   huge constellation of solid objects with closure speeds

   of 10-400 MPH aware of each other irrespective of external

   visual conditions . . . and supply quality data that

   goes to reduction of risk for collision. It was a 'talk

   and be heard philosophy'.



   The white paper produced from that meeting was shared with

   a number of 'high ranking' interests in aviation safety . . .

   but the best we got out of it was clumsy enhancements to existing

   monopolies . . . no opportunity for creative exploitation

   of an open source technology.

   Bob . . .

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:43 am Post subject: See and be seen fallacy

Doesn't surprise me. Haven't we all had the experience of hearing a

pilot call their position in the pattern, and us looking and looking

and not seeing them, until several seconds later?

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:21 AM, user9253 <fransew(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Here is a quote from August 1996 Plane & Pilot, , page 52: "Information Gets Airborne", CDTI Test Flight.

> The test lasted for about an l.5 hours and, in every instance, the Baron's PPI picked up the intruders and gave us ample warning of the potential collision course. At deliberate head on closing speeds of 280 knots (almost five miles a minute) we had nearly two minutes of warning of a threat in the area.

>    Despite knowing the relative altitude, distance and bearing of the threat aircraft and all three of us staring intently at that section of sky as soon as we spotted the blip, none of us ever acquired a target visually outside one mile range. We did perhaps 20 to 25 intercepts during the test, and I was surprised that we couldn't see the threats until they were very close.

>    In short, there's little question CDTI works. Problem is, if you buy CDTI, know there's an airplane out there and have its range, altitude and bearing, will you see it in time?

>

  The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other aircraft is based on slow airspeeds of early aircraft.  At the closure rate in the above example, two pilots have 13 seconds to see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive action.  And it takes the aircraft time to change course.  How many pilots just happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it gets within one mile?  Pilots look at charts or a glass panel or at scenery on the ground for several seconds at a time.  If the pilot happens to look in the direction of another aircraft, how many of those 13 seconds are left, if any?  Strobes and ATC traffic advisories can help but can not be depended on.  ADS-B is the best tool we have for avoiding collisions.  And that could be improved by adding voice commands such as, "Danger Traffic, climb and turn right immediately !"

   I am not suggesting that we stop looking out the window.  But doing so will not necessarily avoid a collision with another aircraft headed our way.

   If the EAA or AOPA or FAA conducted a similar traffic avoidance test to the one above using modern avionics, it might lead to improved safety.

 Joe

 --------

 Joe Gores

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420139#420139

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

mrspudandcompany(at)veriz
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:32 am Post subject: See and be seen fallacy

 	  Quote: 	
		   

   The white paper produced from that meeting was shared with

   a number of 'high ranking' interests in aviation safety . . .

   but the best we got out of it was clumsy enhancements to existing

   monopolies . . . no opportunity for creative exploitation

   of an open source technology.


	




        The "I didn't design it therefore it is of no value" philosophy



        Roger

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum