X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:40:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3865538 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:04:19 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n8PC3ZAR019579 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:03:35 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.d3d.4085ea67 (39329) for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:03:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:04:20 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Hudson airspace X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1253880260" X-Mailer: AOL 9.1 sub 5006 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com -------------------------------1253880260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Here's a technology that could work well in the Hudson area - at least for= =20 controllers.......... =20 _http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090924wam.html?WT.mc_id=3D0909= 25ep ilot&WT.mc_sect=3Dgan_=20 (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090924wam.html?WT.mc_id=3D0909= 25epilot&WT.mc_sect=3Dgan)=20 =20 It's called WAM or Wide Area Multilateration (should be called Anti-WHAM= =20 or Anti What Happens as Aircraft Merge). =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 In a message dated 9/24/2009 9:07:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 wfhannahan@yahoo.com writes: Kevin I am aware of the limitations with cell phone technology. But they work= =20 surprisingly well in cities, buildings and moving vehicles. The direct li= ne=20 of sight, short distance, dramatically simplified protocol, single failur= e=20 tolerance and lack of reflecting obstructions between nearby aircraft off= set=20 the negatives. My comment was a conceptual presentation, not a detailed= =20 design. There would be details involving antenna, power and audio interfa= ce,=20 and these can be developed quickly. =20 Comparing the cell technology system with the perfect system without=20 regard to cost, size, weight, development time and implementation time,= the=20 perfect system is most desirable. =20 I estimate that the cell technology based system would save 98-99.9% of= =20 the lives that would be saved by the perfect system. =20 More importantly, ADSB is not the perfect system. It lacks some important= =20 features specified for the cell technology system. I believe that the cel= l=20 technology system would save MORE lives than ADSB due to low cost, faster= =20 implementation and more features like applicability to sky diving,=20 ultralights, UAV=E2=80=99s, single failure tolerance, obstructions and gr= ound vehicle=20 applications, like snow plows and construction equipment, (recall the air= liner=20 that landed on a closed runway and hit heavy construction equipment. =20 After ADSB is implemented we will still read about, or be involved in,=20 accidents that would have been prevented by the cell based system but are= not=20 covered by ADSB. Perhaps after 20-30 more years of needless accidents we= =20 will have another expensive box mandated for those.=20 For several years at Oshkosh I went to the FAA booth on ADSB and asked.= =20 1=E2=80=A6 What is the maximum capacity of the system?=20 2=E2=80=A6 Will we have to turn off ADSB when we come to Oshkosh? They us= ually do=20 not know that we have to turn off our transponders going into Oshkosh.= =20 3=E2=80=A6 Will it provide protection after any single failure?=20 The answer has always been the same. =E2=80=9CI don=E2=80=99t know, but= we will get back=20 to you.=E2=80=9D_ So far nobody has.=20 ADSB would have been helpful in the twentieth century. We should be=20 building a twenty-first century system.=20 Regards, Bill Hannahan wfhannahan@yahoo.com_ (mailto:wfhannahan@yahoo.com)=20 --- On Thu, 9/17/09, Kevin Stallard wrote: From: Kevin Stallard Subject: [LML] Re: Hudson airspace To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 9:17 PM =20 =20 Bill,=20 I respect and think that your idea would work on the surface, but I think= =20 you over estimate the ability of a cell phone GPS receiver to be reliable= =20 enough for this kind of task.=20 First of all, GPS signals have a signal to noise ratio that is=20 surprisingly small. Secondly, you really have to mount a GPS antenna so= that it sees=20 the sky. =20 I realize it is tempting to look at the high availability of cells phones= =20 and see it as a simple solution, but if you were to start to understand= the=20 technical details, I think you may quickly realize the pit falls of the= =20 technology and question its ability to perform as desired. =20 My personal opinion is that if that solution were to be tried, it would= =20 fail to deliver often enough that it would loose it=E2=80=99s appeal.=20 Kevin=20 -------------------------------1253880260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Here's a technology that could work well in the Hudson area - at leas= t for=20 controllers..........
 
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article= s/2009/090924wam.html?WT.mc_id=3D090925epilot&WT.mc_sect=3Dgan
 
It's called WAM or Wide Area Multilateration (should be called= =20 Anti-WHAM or Anti What Happens as Aircraft=20 Merge).
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 9/24/2009 9:07:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 wfhannahan@yahoo.com writes:
Kevin

I am aware of the limitations with cell phone= =20 technology. But they work surprisingly well in cities, buildings= and=20 moving vehicles. The direct line of sight, short distance, dramati= cally=20 simplified protocol, single failure tolerance and lack of reflecti= ng=20 obstructions between nearby aircraft offset the negatives. My comm= ent=20 was a conceptual presentation, not a detailed design. There would= be=20 details involving antenna, power and audio interface, and these ca= n be=20 developed quickly.

 

Comparing the cell technology system with the= perfect=20 system without regard to cost, size, weight, development time and= =20 implementation time, the perfect system is most desirable.

 

I estimate that the cell technology based sys= tem=20 would save 98-99.9% of the lives that would be saved by the perfec= t=20 system.

 

More importantly, ADSB is not the perfect sys= tem. It=20 lacks some important features specified for the cell technology sy= stem.=20 I believe that the cell technology system would save MORE lives th= an=20 ADSB due to low cost, faster implementation and more features like= =20 applicability to sky diving, ultralights, UAV=E2=80=99s, single fa= ilure=20 tolerance, obstructions and ground vehicle applications, like snow= plows=20 and construction equipment, (recall the airliner that landed on a= closed=20 runway and hit heavy construction equipment.

 

After ADSB is implemented we will still read= about,=20 or be involved in, accidents that would have been prevented by the= cell=20 based system but are not covered by ADSB. Perhaps after 20-30 more= years=20 of needless accidents we will have another expensive box mandated= for=20 those.

 

For several years at=20 Oshkosh I went to the= FAA=20 booth on ADSB and asked.

 

1=E2=80=A6 What is the maximum capacity of th= e system?

 

2=E2=80=A6 Will we have to turn off ADSB when= we come to=20 Oshkosh? They usually= do not=20 know that we have to turn off our transponders going into=20 Oshkosh.

 

3=E2=80=A6 Will it provide protection after= any single=20 failure?

 

The answer has always been the same. =E2=80= =9CI don=E2=80=99t know,=20 but we will get back to you.=E2=80=9D So far nobody has.

 

 

ADSB would have been helpful in the twentieth= =20 century. We should be building a twenty-first century system.

 



Regards,
Bill Hannahan


--- On Th= u,=20 9/17/09, Kevin Stallard <Kevin@arilabs.net> wrote= :

From:=20 Kevin Stallard <Kevin@arilabs.net>
Subject: [LML] Re:= Hudson=20 airspace
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thursday, Septemb= er 17,=20 2009, 9:17 PM

Bill,=

 

I res= pect and=20 think that your idea would work on the surface, but I think you= over=20 estimate the ability of a cell phone GPS receiver to be reliable= =20 enough for this kind of task.

 

First= of all,=20 GPS signals have a signal to noise ratio that is surprisingly=20 small.  Secondly, you really have to mount a GPS antenna so= that=20 it sees the sky.

 

I rea= lize it=20 is tempting to look at the high availability of cells phones and= see=20 it as a simple solution, but if you were to start to understand= the=20 technical details, I think you may quickly realize the pit falls= of=20 the technology and question its ability to perform as desired.&n= bsp;=20

 

My pe= rsonal=20 opinion is that if that solution were to be tried, it would fail= to=20 deliver often enough that it would loose it=E2=80=99s=20 appeal.

 

Kevin=

 


=
-------------------------------1253880260--