Mike Borgelt wrote:
At 10:44 AM 5/07/05 +0930, you wrote:
And false negatives are precisely the class of FLARM failure which will
totally fail to be revealed in anecdotal evidence.
- mark
Presumably if you fly with a few friends and all are FLARM equipped and you
stop getting warnings when from past experience you should have them from
visual observation you will detect the false negatives.
FLARM is electronically _aided_ VFR, see and avoid, not an IFR system.
Nobody is making claims for prevention of 100% of mid airs or close
encounters, just improvement on the human eye/brain detection/perception
system. The collision detection algorithms were developed by using lots of
real flight logs and I'm sure they have been tweaked since.
User experience seems to be positive. People are getting warnings on
traffic they otherwise wouldn't see. Please everyone read the pdf's on the
FLARM site and the forum.
Let's see what Peter Temple has to say about Vinon.
These guys have actually got up & done something. That is in itself
commendable.
However if it is to be come an informal world standard ( and earn them
lots of money in the process ) then why would you not attempt to lobby
for the best possible solution if it means a minor adaption that may
substantially increase the level of detection performance. A commercial
company will generally be guided by the market requirements if there is
sufficient co-ordinated useful feedback.
Don
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
