X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web33905.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.69.183] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with SMTP id 3862793 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:28:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.191.69.183; envelope-from=wfhannahan@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 136 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Sep 2009 23:27:30 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=I5IFB+jrh5eIw8T4T77x85V3fyQ1iiOmliOhkyc6p+D6BKjaGo231n2iZI64oCLd/opKDiMSVV2qaVXMNF62xxor/85fLaj8sZes+mx4NRYdUxqxSSLFf/DFLetwEOE5SUNZFlcgZBsfZJr5q6bsIJKdLbyCleG0CFEffPEpVRs=; X-Original-Message-ID: <863867.98726.qm@web33905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 7HvQfqMVM1ls2QONNH1pqi1AQiIBVZmZ_WylZlOL4L4uIcXvxwJ39MaVZfkWt.yqnrsmCSYTc.lFNDxULE.tMGEcEeeQ8Cg.mOzYmD7r9BaHiTngnp7oz0ErlDGYfv8bUN8jo71Kj94_SDvKpBspsLyPij2w5ZLp9bLhcI6Izxmd8myALNH2Z2g8rGHhLns.lgyZ3I5I2E8_rvuDwONF.fVaRnWlLLWv0808kuJmFXfmO18YjjOQnR.UCSA4S1uK8b8I8FDGnlWMGQf8cBfjk2FSPjllYhoeBSuTmQsh5zpO7mCCEg3khGm.mHMg3lIcsew8ihAtgIPbQYWlS9sQv4UPUj65PUihFxprtm6_HQv2Quq_Sr4PTQVzy33R Received: from [71.208.17.233] by web33905.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:27:30 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/7.0.14 YahooMailWebService/0.7.347.2 X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:27:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Hannahan Subject: Hudson airspace X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-296046091-1253662050=:98726" --0-296046091-1253662050=:98726 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kevin =0A=0A=0A=0AI am aware of the limitations with cell phone technology. But= =0Athey work surprisingly well in cities, buildings and moving vehicles. Th= e=0Adirect line of sight, short distance, dramatically simplified protocol,= single=0Afailure tolerance and lack of reflecting obstructions between nea= rby aircraft=0Aoffset the negatives. My comment was a conceptual presentati= on, not a detailed=0Adesign. There would be details involving antenna, powe= r and audio interface,=0Aand these can be developed quickly. =0A=0A=C2=A0= =0A=0AComparing the cell technology system with the perfect system=0Awithou= t regard to cost, size, weight, development time and implementation time,= =0Athe perfect system is most desirable. =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AI estimate that = the cell technology based system would save 98-99.9%=0Aof the lives that wo= uld be saved by the perfect system. =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AMore importantly, ADS= B is not the perfect system. It lacks=0Asome important features specified f= or the cell technology system. I believe=0Athat the cell technology system = would save MORE lives than ADSB due to low=0Acost, faster implementation an= d more features like applicability to sky diving,=0Aultralights, UAV=E2=80= =99s, single failure tolerance, obstructions and ground vehicle=0Aapplicati= ons, like snow plows and construction equipment, (recall the airliner=0Atha= t landed on a closed runway and hit heavy construction equipment. =0A=0A=C2= =A0=0A=0AAfter ADSB is implemented we will still read about, or be=0Ainvolv= ed in, accidents that would have been prevented by the cell based system=0A= but are not covered by ADSB. Perhaps after 20-30 more years of needless=0Aa= ccidents we will have another expensive box mandated for those.=0A=0A=C2=A0= =0A=0AFor several years at Oshkosh=0AI went to the FAA booth on ADSB and as= ked. =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A1=E2=80=A6 What is the maximum capacity of the syste= m?=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A2=E2=80=A6 Will we have to turn off ADSB when we come t= o Oshkosh?=0AThey usually do not know that we have to turn off our transpon= ders going into Oshkosh.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A3=E2=80=A6 Will it provide protec= tion after any single failure?=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AThe answer has always been = the same. =E2=80=9CI don=E2=80=99t know, but we=0Awill get back to you.=E2= =80=9D So far nobody has.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AADSB would have been= helpful in the twentieth century. We=0Ashould be building a twenty-first c= entury system.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A Regards, Bill Hannahan =20 wfhannahan@yahoo.com --- 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 =0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ABill, =0A=0A =C2=A0 =0A=0AI respect and = think that your idea would=0Awork on the surface, but I think you over esti= mate the ability of a cell phone=0AGPS receiver to be reliable enough for t= his kind of task. =0A=0A =C2=A0 =0A=0AFirst of all, GPS signals have a sign= al to=0Anoise ratio that is surprisingly small.=C2=A0 Secondly, you really = have to mount a=0AGPS antenna so that it sees the sky. =0A=0A =C2=A0 =0A= =0AI realize it is tempting to look at the high=0Aavailability of cells pho= nes and see it as a simple solution, but if you were=0Ato start to understa= nd the technical details, I think you may quickly realize=0Athe pit falls o= f the technology and question its ability to perform as desired.=C2=A0=0A = =0A=0A =C2=A0 =0A=0AMy personal opinion is that if that=0Asolution were to = be tried, it would fail to deliver often enough that it would=0Aloose it=E2= =80=99s appeal. =0A=0A =C2=A0 =0A=0AKevin =0A=0A =C2=A0 =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A= =0A=0A=0A --0-296046091-1253662050=:98726 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kevin
=0A=0A

I am aware of the limitation= s with cell phone technology. But=0Athey work surprisingly well in cities, = buildings and moving vehicles. The=0Adirect line of sight, short distance, = dramatically simplified protocol, single=0Afailure tolerance and lack of re= flecting obstructions between nearby aircraft=0Aoffset the negatives. My co= mment was a conceptual presentation, not a detailed=0Adesign. There would b= e details involving antenna, power and audio interface,=0Aand these can be = developed quickly.

=0A=0A

 

= =0A=0A

Comparing the cell technology system with the = perfect system=0Awithout regard to cost, size, weight, development time and= implementation time,=0Athe perfect system is most desirable.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

I est= imate that the cell technology based system would save 98-99.9%=0Aof the li= ves that would be saved by the perfect system.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

More importantly, AD= SB is not the perfect system. It lacks=0Asome important features specified = for the cell technology system. I believe=0Athat the cell technology system= would save MORE lives than ADSB due to low=0Acost, faster implementation a= nd more features like applicability to sky diving,=0Aultralights, UAV=E2=80= =99s, single failure tolerance, obstructions and ground vehicle=0Aapplicati= ons, like snow plows and construction equipment, (recall the airliner=0Atha= t landed on a closed runway and hit heavy construction equipment.

=0A= =0A

 

=0A=0A

After ADSB is implemented we will still read about, or be=0Ainvolved in, a= ccidents that would have been prevented by the cell based system=0Abut are = not covered by ADSB. Perhaps after 20-30 more years of needless=0Aaccidents= we will have another expensive box mandated for those.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

For severa= l years at Oshkosh=0AI went to = the FAA booth on ADSB and asked.

=0A=0A

&nbs= p;

=0A=0A

1=E2=80=A6 What is the maximum cap= acity of the system?

=0A=0A

 

= =0A=0A

2=E2=80=A6 Will we have to turn off ADSB when = we come to Oshkosh?=0AThey usua= lly do not know that we have to turn off our transponders going into Oshkosh.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

3=E2=80=A6 Will it pr= ovide protection after any single failure?

=0A=0A

=  

=0A=0A

The answer has always bee= n the same. =E2=80=9CI don=E2=80=99t know, but we=0Awill get back to you.= =E2=80=9D So far nobody has.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

ADSB would have been helpful in the twentieth century. We=0Ashou= ld be building a twenty-first century system.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

Regards,
Bill Hannah= an


--- On Thu, 9/1= 7/09, Kevin Stallard <Kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:

From: Kevin Stallard <Kevin@arilabs.net>
Sub= ject: [LML] Re: Hudson airspace
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thurs= day, September 17, 2009, 9:17 PM

=0A=0A=0A = =0A =0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A

Bill,

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

I = respect and think that your idea would=0Awork on the surface, but I think y= ou over estimate the ability of a cell phone=0AGPS receiver to be reliable = enough for this kind of task.

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

First of all, GPS= signals have a signal to=0Anoise ratio that is surprisingly small.  S= econdly, you really have to mount a=0AGPS antenna so that it sees the sky. =

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A

I realize it is tempting to look at the high= =0Aavailability of cells phones and see it as a simple solution, but if you= were=0Ato start to understand the technical details, I think you may quick= ly realize=0Athe pit falls of the technology and question its ability to pe= rform as desired. =0A

=0A=0A

<= font color=3D"navy" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">  

=0A=0A

My personal opinion = is that if that=0Asolution were to be tried, it would fail to deliver often= enough that it would=0Aloose it=E2=80=99s appeal.

=0A=0A=

 =

=0A=0A

Kevin

=0A=0A

 

=0A=0A
=0A=0A =0A=0A

=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-296046091-1253662050=:98726--