BW wrote 27.2.08: “
a) in collision avoidance systems, interoperability is crucial, hence common standards are paramount
b) there is no technical reason why a 1090ES certified system would be more expensive or more power hungry than a certified FLARM system of equivalent range -- the reason FLARM is cheap and light is that it is uncertified and shorter range.
c) 1090ES is the established ICAO standard
Therefore the sensible way forward for all airspace users is to rally around a light and affordable 1090ES-based system that is proportionate in its cost and power consumption to the class of aircraft in which it is to be used.
-----------------------------------
My reactions:
a) in collision avoidance systems, interoperability is crucial, hence common standards are paramount
In an ideal world, and other things being equal, I would agree. But other things are far from equal today, and I see no sign that they will be in the foreseeable future.
b) there is no technical reason why a 1090ES certified system would be more expensive or more power hungry than a certified FLARM system of equivalent range -- the reason FLARM is cheap and light is that it is uncertified and shorter range.
Even the difference between certified and uncertified is likely to add so much cost that it will preclude wide use, except where it is virtually or actually mandatory, such as glider flying in the Alps. EASA replacing the hitherto BGA airworthiness and modification system in the UK at the very least adds cost, and in practice may make widespread or universal adoption virtually unattainable.
I suspect that, for many gliders, even uncertified FLARM, in a portable rather than installed form, is at the very least difficult to put into universal operation. Anything bigger, certified, requiring more battery, and if developed for other users and not delivering the algorithm-based outputs for which glider pilots designed it, it’s going to be less welcome and/or less practical.
c) 1090ES is the established ICAO standard
Fine, but new developments based on it will have incremental development costs which have to be recovered, and will take time which means it is not an immediately available solution.
“Therefore the sensible way forward for all airspace users is to rally around a light and affordable 1090ES-based system that is proportionate in its cost and power consumption to the class of aircraft in which it is to be used.”
AFAIK, it is not accepted by any of the major players, stakeholder organisations, or the majority of their constituencies, that it is the sensible way forward. For such a plan to get off the ground, I think it would need selling to them. They would need to see how it addresses their concerns, and how it is going to benefit them. Everyone with a financial turn of mind would want to see that their personal costs and the overall investment in any such scheme are a sensible and proportionate use of money, in relation to the risks and/or costs of not adopting universal and interoperable systems. I am certainly not so persuaded myself, at present.
Again,
AFAIK, mode S, ADS-B, and Flarm were all developed in different “communities” and even different countries, to address different needs. They each obtained sufficient support and take up among their respective communities to justify their respective development. Their continued expansion by those who want them shows that this process is continuing. The strength of objection to spreading any of the three, potentially to take over some part or all of one or both of the other two functions, is indicative of the difficulty in convincing people that there is a widely acceptable universal solution to collision avoidance.
I realise that these arguments are largely glider oriented, but that of course is where I come from, although I do take a wider view too.
Chris N.