There was quite a thread storm 11 months ago here about the TT21
transponder. I assume some of the 'early adopters' here purchased and
installed one. Any complaints??

I read that the Trigg is ADB-S out compliant. Has anyone attached a
GPS in and had any luck in an area with a ADB-S system in place? With
all the mid-air accidents, my wife is spooked and I need to tell her
something is going to make it better or safer or smarter or
something. It would be great if the Trigg worked well as a ADB-S
broadcast so we would only have to buy a cheap receiver that would
blue-tooth into my oudie the other aircraft locations. Yes it might
be a dream but I can only hope. Please, everyone stay safe and no
more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby. I know its
safe, but multiple deaths in a short period of time does not send the
right message to my significant other. Please fly
safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am one of the TRIG dealers so take this as you will......but I've
delivered so far about 40 of these...had only one that had an issue that I
know of and it was a user error that cause the failure..and best of all, it
was simply replaced by our distributor, no questions asked for a brand new
one.....so from what I can see these have been absolutely excellent so
far.....and support have been 1st class...I'm still selling and delivering
them now and have not seen any reason not to continue!
Tim Mara

Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Grider Pirate" > wrote in message
...
> There was quite a thread storm 11 months ago here about the TT21
> transponder. I assume some of the 'early adopters' here purchased and
> installed one. Any complaints??
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5353 (20100809) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5353 (20100809) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

On Aug 9, 3:07*pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:
> I read that the Trigg is ADB-S out compliant. *Has anyone attached a
> GPS in and had any luck in an area with a ADB-S system in place? *With

A couple of things:

1) Very few aircraft are ADS-B equipped right now. So you might see a
few aircraft if you got some kind of "ADS-B In" system set up; but
just equipping for ADS-B only may *not* show you all of the traffic
out there (I'm unsure if aircraft with Mode C transponders are
detected by standard ADS-B "In" systems).

2) The closest thing to a "universal detector" that is currently on
the market is the powerFLARM system that's just come out. See the
other thread on RAS about this.

Enjoy,

--Noel

On Aug 9, 3:07*pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:
> I read that the Trigg is ADB-S out compliant. *Has anyone attached a
> GPS in and had any luck in an area with a ADB-S system in place? *With
> all the mid-air accidents, my wife is spooked and I need to tell her
> something is going to make it better or safer or smarter or
> something. *It would be great if the Trigg worked well as a ADB-S
> broadcast so we would only have to buy a cheap receiver that would
> blue-tooth into my oudie the other aircraft locations. *Yes it might
> be a dream but I can only hope. *Please, everyone stay safe and no
> more crashing! *If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby. *I know its
> safe, but multiple deaths in a short period of time does not send the
> right message to my significant other. *Please fly
> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Trig certainly works as an ADS-B transmitter, the FAA is flying
them for ADS-B survey work. I have not hands-on used one. Places out
West currently lack ADS-B GBT coverage and so are less interest to
play with right now.

What collision scenario are you most worried about? Glider-on-glider,
glider-on-GA or glider-on-airliner or fast jet? Starting with a
transponder gives you great visibility to ATC near crowded airspace
and to those airliner and fast jet TCAS systems.

The "cheap (ADS-B) receiver" you probably want is a PowerFLARM. ~
$US1,695 list may challenge your idea of "cheap" but it is a lot of
technology for the price. All other current ADS-B receivers are at
best only a few hundred dollars cheaper and don't offer near the
capabilities for glider applications (and you get flarm-flarm protocol
support for "free").

Darryl

On 8/9/2010 7:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, > wrote:
>> I read that the Trigg is ADB-S out compliant. Has anyone attached a
>> GPS in and had any luck in an area with a ADB-S system in place? With
>> all the mid-air accidents, my wife is spooked and I need to tell her
>> something is going to make it better or safer or smarter or
>> something. It would be great if the Trigg worked well as a ADB-S
>> broadcast so we would only have to buy a cheap receiver that would
>> blue-tooth into my oudie the other aircraft locations. Yes it might
>> be a dream but I can only hope. Please, everyone stay safe and no
>> more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
>> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby. I know its
>> safe, but multiple deaths in a short period of time does not send the
>> right message to my significant other. Please fly
>> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The Trig certainly works as an ADS-B transmitter, the FAA is flying
> them for ADS-B survey work. I have not hands-on used one. Places out
> West currently lack ADS-B GBT coverage and so are less interest to
> play with right now.
>
> What collision scenario are you most worried about? Glider-on-glider,
> glider-on-GA or glider-on-airliner or fast jet? Starting with a
> transponder gives you great visibility to ATC near crowded airspace
> and to those airliner and fast jet TCAS systems.
>
> The "cheap (ADS-B) receiver" you probably want is a PowerFLARM. ~
> $US1,695 list may challenge your idea of "cheap" but it is a lot of
> technology for the price. All other current ADS-B receivers are at
> best only a few hundred dollars cheaper and don't offer near the
> capabilities for glider applications (and you get flarm-flarm protocol
> support for "free").
>
> Darryl
>
An ADS-B receiver is useless unless you are also transmitting ADS-B out.
If you have both and you are in range of an ADS-B ground station, you
will see all transponder equipped aircraft that are visible on ATC
radar. If you buy an ADS-B IN only receiver, you will not reliably
receive any traffic info from any ground stations.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/9/2010 5:07 PM, flyingmr2 wrote:
>/snip/ Please, everyone stay safe and no
> more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby./snip/ Please fly
> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One way to fly safe - er, is to avoid being in the vicinity of other
aircraft. Easy for me to say! That might mean no contests?

Brian W

On Aug 9, 6:30*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 7:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, > *wrote:
> >> I read that the Trigg is ADB-S out compliant. *Has anyone attached a
> >> GPS in and had any luck in an area with a ADB-S system in place? *With
> >> all the mid-air accidents, my wife is spooked and I need to tell her
> >> something is going to make it better or safer or smarter or
> >> something. *It would be great if the Trigg worked well as a ADB-S
> >> broadcast so we would only have to buy a cheap receiver that would
> >> blue-tooth into my oudie the other aircraft locations. *Yes it might
> >> be a dream but I can only hope. *Please, everyone stay safe and no
> >> more crashing! *If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
> >> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby. *I know its
> >> safe, but multiple deaths in a short period of time does not send the
> >> right message to my significant other. *Please fly
> >> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > The Trig certainly works as an ADS-B transmitter, the FAA is flying
> > them for ADS-B survey work. I have not hands-on used one. Places out
> > West currently lack ADS-B GBT coverage and so are less interest to
> > play with right now.
>
> > What collision scenario are you most worried about? Glider-on-glider,
> > glider-on-GA or glider-on-airliner or fast jet? Starting with a
> > transponder gives you great visibility to ATC near crowded airspace
> > and to those airliner and fast jet TCAS systems.
>
> > The "cheap (ADS-B) receiver" you probably want is a PowerFLARM. ~
> > $US1,695 list may challenge your idea of "cheap" but it is a lot of
> > technology for the price. All other current ADS-B receivers are at
> > best only a few hundred dollars cheaper and don't offer near the
> > capabilities for glider applications (and you get flarm-flarm protocol
> > support for "free").
>
> > Darryl
>
> An ADS-B receiver is useless unless you are also transmitting ADS-B out.
> * If you have both and you are in range of an ADS-B ground station, you
> will see all transponder equipped aircraft that are visible on ATC
> radar. *If you buy an ADS-B IN only receiver, you will not reliably
> receive any traffic info from any ground stations.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Reread his read his post carefully. He started with assuming he had a
Trig TT21 with ADS-B out and then was talking about adding an ADS-B
receiver.

Darryl

On 8/9/2010 9:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2010 7:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 3:07 pm, > wrote:
>>>> I read that the Trigg is ADB-S out compliant. Has anyone attached a
>>>> GPS in and had any luck in an area with a ADB-S system in place? With
>>>> all the mid-air accidents, my wife is spooked and I need to tell her
>>>> something is going to make it better or safer or smarter or
>>>> something. It would be great if the Trigg worked well as a ADB-S
>>>> broadcast so we would only have to buy a cheap receiver that would
>>>> blue-tooth into my oudie the other aircraft locations. Yes it might
>>>> be a dream but I can only hope. Please, everyone stay safe and no
>>>> more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
>>>> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby. I know its
>>>> safe, but multiple deaths in a short period of time does not send the
>>>> right message to my significant other. Please fly
>>>> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> The Trig certainly works as an ADS-B transmitter, the FAA is flying
>>> them for ADS-B survey work. I have not hands-on used one. Places out
>>> West currently lack ADS-B GBT coverage and so are less interest to
>>> play with right now.
>>
>>> What collision scenario are you most worried about? Glider-on-glider,
>>> glider-on-GA or glider-on-airliner or fast jet? Starting with a
>>> transponder gives you great visibility to ATC near crowded airspace
>>> and to those airliner and fast jet TCAS systems.
>>
>>> The "cheap (ADS-B) receiver" you probably want is a PowerFLARM. ~
>>> $US1,695 list may challenge your idea of "cheap" but it is a lot of
>>> technology for the price. All other current ADS-B receivers are at
>>> best only a few hundred dollars cheaper and don't offer near the
>>> capabilities for glider applications (and you get flarm-flarm protocol
>>> support for "free").
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> An ADS-B receiver is useless unless you are also transmitting ADS-B out.
>> If you have both and you are in range of an ADS-B ground station, you
>> will see all transponder equipped aircraft that are visible on ATC
>> radar. If you buy an ADS-B IN only receiver, you will not reliably
>> receive any traffic info from any ground stations.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Reread his read his post carefully. He started with assuming he had a
> Trig TT21 with ADS-B out and then was talking about adding an ADS-B
> receiver.
>
> Darryl

The post was asking if anyone was actually using the ADS-B Out
functionality in the Trig. Just because you have this unit installed
and are using it as a Mode S transponder does not mean that you have it
hooked up to a compatible GPS source and have actually turned on the
ADS-B out capability. I suspect that there isn't a single Trig equipped
glider in the US that is actually transmitting an ADS-B out signal today.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/9/2010 9:19 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 5:07 PM, flyingmr2 wrote:
>> /snip/ Please, everyone stay safe and no
>> more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
>> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby./snip/
>> Please fly
>> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> One way to fly safe - er, is to avoid being in the vicinity of other
> aircraft. Easy for me to say! That might mean no contests?
>
> Brian W
>

Given the current turmoil with ADS-B vs. Powerflarm, etc....the smartest
investment might not be any avionics at all, but a ballistic recovery chute.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 9, 9:05*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 9:19 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
>
> > On 8/9/2010 5:07 PM, flyingmr2 wrote:
> >> /snip/ Please, everyone stay safe and no
> >> more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
> >> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby./snip/
> >> Please fly
> >> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > One way to fly safe - er, is to avoid being in the vicinity of other
> > aircraft. Easy for me to say! That might mean no contests?
>
> > Brian W
>
> Given the current turmoil with ADS-B vs. Powerflarm, etc....the smartest
> investment might not be any avionics at all, but a ballistic recovery chute.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Mike,
with respect, it seems that you are quite fixated on ADS-B and the way
FLARM was (not) introduced to the US, and that you respond to every
post with that filter. I don't see the turmoil; I have a transponder,
so if you have powerflarm you will see me. If you have ADS-B, flarm,
or powerflarm I will see you, because I am going to have a powerflarm
ASAP. So you have flarm or powerflarm you will see me again. If power
traffic is a threat I will see it (their transponder). If they have
ATC following, or TCAS they will see my transponder.

The turmoil, is it that the exact form of what we will be using in 10
years is not clear? That seems a separate subject. And the ballistic
chute, like that Cirrus had that went through the tow plane, I recall
they burned on the way down, not a fun ride. It's speculation, but if
you project that into next year, and that glider on tow had powerflarm
it (in theory) would have alerted the glider to the incoming cirrus
when it alerted to the transponder and that could have made the
difference.

Any way you slice it the $1,600 seems like cheap insurance to me.

Brian

On 8/10/2010 12:59 AM, brianDG303 wrote:
> On Aug 9, 9:05 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2010 9:19 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/9/2010 5:07 PM, flyingmr2 wrote:
>>>> /snip/ Please, everyone stay safe and no
>>>> more crashing! If we have another fatality in the west anytime soon,
>>>> my wife might pull the plug on her support for this hobby./snip/
>>>> Please fly
>>>> safe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> One way to fly safe - er, is to avoid being in the vicinity of other
>>> aircraft. Easy for me to say! That might mean no contests?
>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>> Given the current turmoil with ADS-B vs. Powerflarm, etc....the smartest
>> investment might not be any avionics at all, but a ballistic recovery chute.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Mike,
> with respect, it seems that you are quite fixated on ADS-B and the way
> FLARM was (not) introduced to the US, and that you respond to every
> post with that filter. I don't see the turmoil; I have a transponder,
> so if you have powerflarm you will see me. If you have ADS-B, flarm,
> or powerflarm I will see you, because I am going to have a powerflarm
> ASAP. So you have flarm or powerflarm you will see me again. If power
> traffic is a threat I will see it (their transponder). If they have
> ATC following, or TCAS they will see my transponder.
>
> The turmoil, is it that the exact form of what we will be using in 10
> years is not clear? That seems a separate subject. And the ballistic
> chute, like that Cirrus had that went through the tow plane, I recall
> they burned on the way down, not a fun ride. It's speculation, but if
> you project that into next year, and that glider on tow had powerflarm
> it (in theory) would have alerted the glider to the incoming cirrus
> when it alerted to the transponder and that could have made the
> difference.
>
> Any way you slice it the $1,600 seems like cheap insurance to me.
>
> Brian

There are a lot of people drinking the PowerFlarm koolaid. PowerFlarm
will not see everyone. In remote areas, where there are no ADS-B ground
stations and transponders are not interrogated by radar systems,
PowerFlarm will not see other aircraft that are equipped with
conventional transponders or ADS-B UAT transponders.

I'm not pushing any particular technology. My only point is that the
cornerstone of an effective collision avoidance strategy is to have
everyone utilize a single common technology.

Ten years ago that could have been FLARM, ADS-B UAT, or ....... What we
have now is a huge mess, where the FAA is pushing two flavors of ADS-B,
which can't see each other in remote low altitude environments, and now
the glider community is going off on their own with FLARM.

Maybe this will all shake out over the next ten years and everyone will
end up gravitating to one of these technologies. On the other hand, we
could also end up with ten more years of the current mayhem and fatal
accidents.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 9, 4:09*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> I am one of the *TRIG dealers so take this as you will......but I've
> delivered so far about 40 of these...had only one that had an issue that I
> know of and it was a user error that cause the failure..and best of all, it
> was simply replaced by our distributor, no questions asked for a brand new
> one.....so from what I can see these have been absolutely excellent so
> far.....and support have been 1st class...I'm still selling and delivering
> them now and have not seen any reason not to continue!
> Tim Mara
>
Thanks Tim.

On 8/10/2010 7:37 AM, Grider Pirate wrote:
> On Aug 9, 4:09 pm, "Tim > wrote:
>> I am one of the TRIG dealers so take this as you will......but I've
>> delivered so far about 40 of these...had only one that had an issue that I
>> know of and it was a user error that cause the failure..and best of all, it
>> was simply replaced by our distributor, no questions asked for a brand new
>> one.....so from what I can see these have been absolutely excellent so
>> far.....and support have been 1st class...I'm still selling and delivering
>> them now and have not seen any reason not to continue!
>> Tim Mara
>>
> Thanks Tim.
>
>
Are any of them interfaced with a GPS navigation source and being used
for ADS-B out?

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/10/2010 12:07 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> There are a lot of people drinking the PowerFlarm koolaid. PowerFlarm
> will not see everyone.


It is not the perfect solution, so you reject it entirely?

We have to use the best of what is available to us, and right now that
is PowerFlarm.

On 8/10/2010 2:58 PM, Greg Arnold wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 12:07 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>>
>> There are a lot of people drinking the PowerFlarm koolaid. PowerFlarm
>> will not see everyone.
>
>
> It is not the perfect solution, so you reject it entirely?
>
> We have to use the best of what is available to us, and right now that
> is PowerFlarm.
>
>

Powerflarm is not yet shipping. The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is.
Right now, ADS-B and PCAS are your options.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 10, 1:29*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
>
> Powerflarm is not yet shipping. *The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is.
> Right now, ADS-B and PCAS are your options.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Mike -

And the Navworx unit that you so heavily promote is $1500 + whatever
the cost for a display (I see some PNA software for $800, or you buy
an EFIS). AND it doesn't support FLARM and I don't see where it
detects and displays Mode C/S (unless you're receiving traffic relays
from ground stations).

--Noel

Correction: The Navworx RECEIVER is $1500 minimum. The transceiver
with both In & Out is $2500 - $2700. Plus display software.

--Noel

On 8/10/2010 4:27 PM, noel.wade wrote:
> Correction: The Navworx RECEIVER is $1500 minimum. The transceiver
> with both In& Out is $2500 - $2700. Plus display software.
>
> --Noel
>

You can't just buy an ADS-B receiver. You need to transmit ADS-B Out to
get traffic data from the ground station.

You are correct. There is no perfect solution. That's my point.
PowerFlarm also has its limitations.

--
Mike Schumann

anytime...
best regards
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Grider Pirate" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 9, 4:09 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> I am one of the TRIG dealers so take this as you will......but I've
> delivered so far about 40 of these...had only one that had an issue that I
> know of and it was a user error that cause the failure..and best of all,
> it
> was simply replaced by our distributor, no questions asked for a brand new
> one.....so from what I can see these have been absolutely excellent so
> far.....and support have been 1st class...I'm still selling and delivering
> them now and have not seen any reason not to continue!
> Tim Mara
>
Thanks Tim.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5356 (20100810) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5356 (20100810) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

I really can't say how they are all being used but to be honest, I doubt
it.ADSB isn't high on anyone's list yet
it may be in the future, but I doubt you'll see any real movement to this
direction until and if the FAA demands it....we are all interested in
safety.to an extent...until it starts reaching into our wallets..then we
typically look for toys first...fun to play with stuff.....then ...
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/10/2010 7:37 AM, Grider Pirate wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 4:09 pm, "Tim > wrote:
>>> I am one of the TRIG dealers so take this as you will......but I've
>>> delivered so far about 40 of these...had only one that had an issue that
>>> I
>>> know of and it was a user error that cause the failure..and best of all,
>>> it
>>> was simply replaced by our distributor, no questions asked for a brand
>>> new
>>> one.....so from what I can see these have been absolutely excellent so
>>> far.....and support have been 1st class...I'm still selling and
>>> delivering
>>> them now and have not seen any reason not to continue!
>>> Tim Mara
>>>
>> Thanks Tim.
>>
>>
> Are any of them interfaced with a GPS navigation source and being used for
> ADS-B out?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5356 (20100810) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5356 (20100810) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

I believe I started the thread storm about the TT21. After having a United
737 pass directly below me by about 300'-500' while thermaling, I decided it
was time to install a transponder. Since my plane is certified
Experimental-Amatuer built, I didn't believe I was constrained by the lack
of a TSO for the TT-21, so I ordered one, installed it, and had it certified
for operation.

I have been very happy. I've seen airliners routing around me on several
occasions since install it. With an CA302 & Tasman varios, Microair Radio
recieving, Oudie, and the TT21 replying to queries while sitting on the
ground, my current draw is about 600ma.

John Scott

I have not enabled the ADS-B out, for all of the reasons listed in the
replies, however, having the ability to do it in the future, when it makes a
little more sense, was a significant factor in my selecting the TT21.

Also, I'm using the TT21 with a L2 dipole antenna mounted vertically on the
forward bulkhead of my glider (ahead of my feet. Seems to work really well.
The transmisson pattern has me flying in the center (very small hole) of a
really big donut.

John


"John Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
>I believe I started the thread storm about the TT21. After having a United
>737 pass directly below me by about 300'-500' while thermaling, I decided
>it was time to install a transponder. Since my plane is certified
>Experimental-Amatuer built, I didn't believe I was constrained by the lack
>of a TSO for the TT-21, so I ordered one, installed it, and had it
>certified for operation.
>
> I have been very happy. I've seen airliners routing around me on several
> occasions since install it. With an CA302 & Tasman varios, Microair
> Radio recieving, Oudie, and the TT21 replying to queries while sitting on
> the ground, my current draw is about 600ma.
>
> John Scott
>

I also have a MRX PCAS in my glider.

John Scott

"John Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
>I believe I started the thread storm about the TT21. After having a United
>737 pass directly below me by about 300'-500' while thermaling, I decided
>it was time to install a transponder. Since my plane is certified
>Experimental-Amatuer built, I didn't believe I was constrained by the lack
>of a TSO for the TT-21, so I ordered one, installed it, and had it
>certified for operation.
>
> I have been very happy. I've seen airliners routing around me on several
> occasions since install it. With an CA302 & Tasman varios, Microair
> Radio recieving, Oudie, and the TT21 replying to queries while sitting on
> the ground, my current draw is about 600ma.
>
> John Scott
>

On Aug 11, 3:54*pm, "John Scott" > wrote:
> I believe I started the thread storm about the TT21. *After having a United
> 737 pass directly below me by about 300'-500' while thermaling, I decided it
> was time to install a transponder. *Since my plane is certified
> Experimental-Amatuer built, I didn't believe I was constrained by the lack
> of a TSO for the TT-21, so I ordered one, installed it, and had it certified
> for operation.
>
> I have been very happy. *I've seen airliners routing around me on several
> occasions since install it. *With an CA302 & *Tasman varios, Microair Radio
> recieving, Oudie, and the TT21 replying to queries while sitting on the
> ground, my current draw is about 600ma.
>
> John Scott

I know John knows this, but to be ultra clear to others the Trig TT-21
has since received TSO approval for a Mode S transponder.

BTW like most ADS-B data-out devices currently in use its currently at
the old "-A" standards level and I expect a firmware update to make
them "-B" (i.e. DO-260B) complaint to meet the FAA carriage mandate.
Trig also tells me that firmware updates will an indication that the
GPS source is feeding the ADS-B and the ability to set the transmitter
capability code bits to describe if your aircraft has a UAT or 1090ES
receiver. Currently you can only set the "1090ES" bit. Trig gets
credit for making that setting so easy to do, its not clear other
transponder vendors are/will be.

In addition to the FAA flying Trig transponder for ADS-B survey work I
though that there was at least one Trig transponders flying in a
glider with 1090ES data out today but since the pilot is being quiet
maybe its not. I do know several owners interested in playing. The
hold up on the west coast is lack of ADS-B ground infrastructure and
anybody having an ADS-B receiver to play with. I think once some geeks
get PowerFLARMs in their hands there will be more reason to play
around with the TT-21 and ADS-B data-out.

Darryl

Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.

I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
being sent.

I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
firmware in the summer of 2011.

-John

On Aug 18, 10:04*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
> any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
> and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
> a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>
> I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
> year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
> set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
> being sent.
>
> I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
> to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
> PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
> and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
> firmware in the summer of 2011.
>
> -John

John, thanks now it rings a bell, it was you I was thinking of for
having 1090ES data-out.

Thanks


Darryl

On Aug 18, 10:04*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
> any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
> and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
> a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>
> I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
> year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
> set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
> being sent.
>
> I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
> to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
> PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
> and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
> firmware in the summer of 2011.
>
> -John

I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. You
can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
coverage through the transition. That plus with 1090ES being
mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.

What did I miss?

9B

On 8/18/2010 8:32 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
> couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
> ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. You
> can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
> coverage through the transition. That plus with 1090ES being
> mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
> two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
> proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
> of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
> PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
> glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.
>
> What did I miss?
The included IGC logger.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

On Aug 18, 8:32*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 10:04*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
> > any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
> > and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
> > a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>
> > I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
> > year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
> > set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
> > being sent.
>
> > I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
> > to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
> > PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
> > and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
> > firmware in the summer of 2011.
>
> > -John
>
> I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
> couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
> ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. *You
> can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
> coverage through the transition. *That plus with 1090ES being
> mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
> two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
> proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
> of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
> PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
> glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.
>
> What did I miss?
>
> 9B

Andy you were thinking of FIS-B (not TIS-B) only being provided by a
UAT receiver. FIS-B is weather, TFR, NOTMAM etc. basically like XM
weather (free but not quite as capable, at least today).... And you
can't have that in a contest even if you want it. :-)

BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Any other
ADS-B receiver being proposed into contest glider cockpits would needs
some form of similar setting, and either a tamper proof way to set
that on the ground or a way to log if a pilot changes it. I don't see
that ever happening with a GA device and if the ADS-B receiver (like
the Mire UAT prototype) is relying on a serial data link and an
external device like a PDA running third party traffic display/warning
software then it's probalby hard to make that not easily hackable. And
every third party software package reading that data would need to
have settings/ways of checking known and trusted by rules committees/
contest directors. The smarts that does the "stealth mode" selective
filtering/fuzzying up of received data really needs to live within the
box, effectively also meaning that the alert software also needs to
live within that box and not on an external system --as you probalby
need the alert system having access to the raw unfuzzied/unfiltered
data.


Darryl

On Aug 18, 11:31*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 8:32*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 10:04*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> > > Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
> > > any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
> > > and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
> > > a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>
> > > I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
> > > year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
> > > set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
> > > being sent.
>
> > > I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
> > > to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
> > > PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
> > > and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
> > > firmware in the summer of 2011.
>
> > > -John
>
> > I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
> > couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
> > ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. *You
> > can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
> > coverage through the transition. *That plus with 1090ES being
> > mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
> > two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
> > proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
> > of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
> > PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
> > glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.
>
> > What did I miss?
>
> > 9B
>
> Andy you were thinking of FIS-B (not TIS-B) only being provided by a
> UAT receiver. FIS-B is weather, TFR, NOTMAM etc. basically like XM
> weather (free but not quite as capable, at least today).... And you
> can't have that in a contest even if you want it. :-)
>
> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Any other
> ADS-B receiver being proposed into contest glider cockpits would needs
> some form of similar setting, and either a tamper proof way to set
> that on the ground or a way to log if a pilot changes it. I don't see
> that ever happening with a GA device and if the ADS-B receiver (like
> the Mire UAT prototype) is relying on a serial data link and an
> external device like a PDA running third party traffic display/warning
> software then it's probalby hard to make that not easily hackable. And
> every third party software package reading that data would need to
> have settings/ways of checking known and trusted by rules committees/
> contest directors. The smarts that does the "stealth mode" selective
> filtering/fuzzying up of received data really needs to live within the
> box, effectively also meaning that the alert software also needs to
> live within that box and not on an external system --as you probalby
> need the alert system having access to the raw unfuzzied/unfiltered
> data.
>
> Darryl

Thanks - I could not care less about FIS-B, so the tradeoff is having
something I don't need eventually (in-flight Notams etc IF I'm near a
ground station) vs. something I do need now (glider-glider intelligent
collision avoidance). I also like the fact that 1090ES will be
required for jets. It makes me wonder why GA wouldn't tend to adopt
1090ES since we already know that relatively affordable solutions are
available.

9B

On Aug 18, 11:31*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 8:32*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 10:04*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> > > Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
> > > any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
> > > and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
> > > a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>
> > > I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
> > > year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
> > > set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
> > > being sent.
>
> > > I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
> > > to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
> > > PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
> > > and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
> > > firmware in the summer of 2011.
>
> > > -John
>
> > I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
> > couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
> > ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. *You
> > can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
> > coverage through the transition. *That plus with 1090ES being
> > mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
> > two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
> > proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
> > of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
> > PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
> > glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.
>
> > What did I miss?
>
> > 9B
>
> Andy you were thinking of FIS-B (not TIS-B) only being provided by a
> UAT receiver. FIS-B is weather, TFR, NOTMAM etc. basically like XM
> weather (free but not quite as capable, at least today).... And you
> can't have that in a contest even if you want it. :-)
>
> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Any other
> ADS-B receiver being proposed into contest glider cockpits would needs
> some form of similar setting, and either a tamper proof way to set
> that on the ground or a way to log if a pilot changes it. I don't see
> that ever happening with a GA device and if the ADS-B receiver (like
> the Mire UAT prototype) is relying on a serial data link and an
> external device like a PDA running third party traffic display/warning
> software then it's probalby hard to make that not easily hackable. And
> every third party software package reading that data would need to
> have settings/ways of checking known and trusted by rules committees/
> contest directors. The smarts that does the "stealth mode" selective
> filtering/fuzzying up of received data really needs to live within the
> box, effectively also meaning that the alert software also needs to
> live within that box and not on an external system --as you probalby
> need the alert system having access to the raw unfuzzied/unfiltered
> data.
>
> Darryl

Also - I agree the contest requirements argue heavily for a glider-
specific solution - most likely PowerFlarm in the US, since the
unfiltered ADS-B technology would lead to leech-heavy contest
behavior. I would expect it to be banned in much the same way we ban
artificial horizons.

9B

> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

On Aug 19, 12:10*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> > BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> > the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> > weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> > existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>
> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
> with and a separate one to leach with?
>
> -Paul

You can always try to sneak prohibited equipment into your glider in a
contest - like an artificial horizon, XM radio weather, etc. Be
prepared to get penalized if you get caught.

I do wonder whether contest rules eventually will require pilots to
disable ADS-B receivers that don't have a contest mode - or will just
accept the leeching, "heads-down" and stealth (turning off your ADS-B
transmitter) behavior that would result from broad adoption of
technology that lacks a contest mode.

Another argument in favor of PowerFlarm for competition flying.

9B

On 8/19/2010 1:47 AM, Andy wrote:
> On Aug 18, 11:31 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 8:32 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 18, 10:04 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
>>>> any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
>>>> and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
>>>> a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>>
>>>> I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
>>>> year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
>>>> set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
>>>> being sent.
>>
>>>> I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
>>>> to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
>>>> PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
>>>> and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
>>>> firmware in the summer of 2011.
>>
>>>> -John
>>
>>> I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
>>> couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
>>> ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. You
>>> can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
>>> coverage through the transition. That plus with 1090ES being
>>> mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
>>> two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
>>> proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
>>> of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
>>> PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
>>> glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.
>>
>>> What did I miss?
>>
>>> 9B
>>
>> Andy you were thinking of FIS-B (not TIS-B) only being provided by a
>> UAT receiver. FIS-B is weather, TFR, NOTMAM etc. basically like XM
>> weather (free but not quite as capable, at least today).... And you
>> can't have that in a contest even if you want it. :-)
>>
>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Any other
>> ADS-B receiver being proposed into contest glider cockpits would needs
>> some form of similar setting, and either a tamper proof way to set
>> that on the ground or a way to log if a pilot changes it. I don't see
>> that ever happening with a GA device and if the ADS-B receiver (like
>> the Mire UAT prototype) is relying on a serial data link and an
>> external device like a PDA running third party traffic display/warning
>> software then it's probalby hard to make that not easily hackable. And
>> every third party software package reading that data would need to
>> have settings/ways of checking known and trusted by rules committees/
>> contest directors. The smarts that does the "stealth mode" selective
>> filtering/fuzzying up of received data really needs to live within the
>> box, effectively also meaning that the alert software also needs to
>> live within that box and not on an external system --as you probalby
>> need the alert system having access to the raw unfuzzied/unfiltered
>> data.
>>
>> Darryl
>
> Also - I agree the contest requirements argue heavily for a glider-
> specific solution - most likely PowerFlarm in the US, since the
> unfiltered ADS-B technology would lead to leech-heavy contest
> behavior. I would expect it to be banned in much the same way we ban
> artificial horizons.
>
> 9B

Why are artificial horizons banned in contests?

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 19, 10:03*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 1:47 AM, Andy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 11:31 pm, Darryl > *wrote:
> >> On Aug 18, 8:32 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 18, 10:04 am, > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Vacation made me late for this thread. Mike Schumann was curious if
> >>>> any Trig transponders were "interfaced with a GPS navigation source
> >>>> and being used for ADS-B out", and Darrl thought that there was one in
> >>>> a glider, in addition to the FAA installation.
>
> >>>> I've had my Trig TT21 flying with 1090ES data-out for just over a
> >>>> year. The GPS source is my Volklogger, and the GPS Integrity Level is
> >>>> set to Low. The VFR transponder check verified that squitters were
> >>>> being sent.
>
> >>>> I plan to have the Trig's firmware upgraded soon, so it'll be possible
> >>>> to turn on the 1090ES data-in capability bit. That way, when my
> >>>> PowerFLARM arrives, I'll be set to look at ADS-B traffic around me -
> >>>> and also set to receive TIS-B traffic when PowerFLARM updates their
> >>>> firmware in the summer of 2011.
>
> >>>> -John
>
> >>> I thought the only disadvantage of 1090ES vs UAT was that the former
> >>> couldn't receive TIS-B traffic. If it's true then why wouldn't the
> >>> ultimate future-proofed solution be a TT21/22 and a PowerFlarm. *You
> >>> can get them both within a few months and the will provide the best
> >>> coverage through the transition. *That plus with 1090ES being
> >>> mandatory in 2020 for big iron you have optimal solutions against the
> >>> two scariest threats (other gliders because of the density and
> >>> proximity issues in remote locations and airliners because hitting one
> >>> of those is a buzz-kill for the whole sport). At the same time you get
> >>> PCAS to cover all the slow adopters. Plus you get integration into
> >>> glider nav systems and glider-specific collision modeling.
>
> >>> What did I miss?
>
> >>> 9B
>
> >> Andy you were thinking of FIS-B (not TIS-B) only being provided by a
> >> UAT receiver. FIS-B is weather, TFR, NOTMAM etc. basically like XM
> >> weather (free but not quite as capable, at least today).... And you
> >> can't have that in a contest even if you want it. :-)
>
> >> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> >> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> >> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> >> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting. Any other
> >> ADS-B receiver being proposed into contest glider cockpits would needs
> >> some form of similar setting, and either a tamper proof way to set
> >> that on the ground or a way to log if a pilot changes it. I don't see
> >> that ever happening with a GA device and if the ADS-B receiver (like
> >> the Mire UAT prototype) is relying on a serial data link and an
> >> external device like a PDA running third party traffic display/warning
> >> software then it's probalby hard to make that not easily hackable. And
> >> every third party software package reading that data would need to
> >> have settings/ways of checking known and trusted by rules committees/
> >> contest directors. The smarts that does the "stealth mode" selective
> >> filtering/fuzzying up of received data really needs to live within the
> >> box, effectively also meaning that the alert software also needs to
> >> live within that box and not on an external system --as you probalby
> >> need the alert system having access to the raw unfuzzied/unfiltered
> >> data.
>
> >> Darryl
>
> > Also - I agree the contest requirements argue heavily for a glider-
> > specific solution - most likely PowerFlarm in the US, since the
> > unfiltered ADS-B technology would lead to leech-heavy contest
> > behavior. I would expect it to be banned in much the same way we ban
> > artificial horizons.
>
> > 9B
>
> Why are artificial horizons banned in contests?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

2 words: IFR gaggles. Not to mention that we fly all our contests
in controlled airspace, so you'd have to pick up instrument clearances
and thus not be on the contest frequency.

They WERE allowed at one time, though. Reichmann describes
attempting to use a climb in a towering cu to overtake the field,
except that a hailshaft developed and shot him down.

-- Matt

On Aug 19, 12:10*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> > BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> > the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> > weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> > existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>
> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
> with and a separate one to leach with?
>
> -Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.


Darryl

Artificial horizons are banned because cloud flying is not permitted
in contests. It's not permitted in controlled airspace the USA at all
unless the glider is IFR equipped and the pilot has a glider
instrument rating; which is possible by the regulations, but I've not
figured out how to do the practical test! The missed approach would
be interesting.

Cloud flying in Class G airspace is technically permitted, but
probably an unwise activity.

On 8/19/2010 9:28 AM, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> Artificial horizons are banned because cloud flying is not permitted
> in contests. It's not permitted in controlled airspace the USA at all
> unless the glider is IFR equipped and the pilot has a glider
> instrument rating; which is possible by the regulations, but I've not
> figured out how to do the practical test! The missed approach would
> be interesting.
>
> Cloud flying in Class G airspace is technically permitted, but
> probably an unwise activity.

I can understand that cloud flying is banned, but banning an instrument
that could save your life because it might be used to violate the rules
sounds like a really crazy idea.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > wrote:
>>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
>>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
>>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
>>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>>
>> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
>> with and a separate one to leach with?
>>
>> -Paul
>
> You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
> if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
> devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
> warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
> I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
> even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
> traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
> attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
> on that display (if the software supports that)).
>
> Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
> file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
> analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
> turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
> if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
> between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
> "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
> in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
> suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
> log file.
>
> I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
> require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
> transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
> trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
> tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
> implies.
>
>
> Darryl
>

Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 19, 4:19*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > *wrote:
> >>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> >>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> >>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> >>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>
> >> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
> >> with and a separate one to leach with?
>
> >> -Paul
>
> > You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
> > if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
> > devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
> > warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
> > I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
> > even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
> > traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
> > attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
> > on that display (if the software supports that)).
>
> > Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
> > file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
> > analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
> > turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
> > if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
> > between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
> > "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
> > in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
> > suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
> > log file.
>
> > I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
> > require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
> > transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
> > trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
> > tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
> > implies.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>
> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In the UK we are supposed to use Flarm in 'stealth mode' for
competitions, where it still warns you of impending collisions, but
doesn't show you where other aircraft are that are not about to
collide with you. I have to admit that I used a non-stealth Flarm unit
in a 2009 Regional competition, and could often pick up other circling
gliders ahead on the Flarm before I could see them, but only within a
limited radius. Is looking for flashes of sunlight being reflected off
the wings of a highly polished sailplane circling in the distance
ahead of you also considered as cheating?

Derek C

On Aug 19, 11:19*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>
> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Yes, ADS-B is currently banned in US contests.

Yes, the Rules Committee is aware that this
"could be perceived as an issue" and will address
it at their November meeting.

Of course, some may remember that GPS
was banned in USA competitions for two
seasons after I introduced a GPS product
to market, and during that time we did have,
um, incursions...

IIRC "GPS was going to ruin the sport !"...

See ya, Dave

On Aug 19, 7:28*am, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
> and the pilot has a glider
> instrument rating;

There is no such rating! Instrument airplane is required.

Andy (GY)

On Aug 19, 7:28*am, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
>
> Cloud flying in Class G airspace is technically permitted, but
> probably an unwise activity.

I would like to see the rule permitting that!

See the FAR Basic VFR Minimums:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/janqtr/14cfr91.155.htm

"Clear of Clouds" is clearly spelled out. :-)

--Noel

On Aug 19, 12:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 7:28*am, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
>
> > and the pilot has a glider
> > instrument rating;
>
> There is no such rating! *Instrument airplane is required.
>
> Andy (GY)

Actually, you take the practical in an airplane. Your certificate will
include glider. Specificlly, my certificate says, "Instrument
airplane, helicopter, and glider". One of the methods of maintaining
glider instrument currency is completing an "Instrument Proficency
Check" in a single engine airplane.

Charlie

On 2010/08/19 7:22 PM, noel.wade wrote:
> On Aug 19, 7:28 am, > wrote:
>>
>> Cloud flying in Class G airspace is technically permitted, but
>> probably an unwise activity.
>
> I would like to see the rule permitting that!
>
> See the FAR Basic VFR Minimums:
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/janqtr/14cfr91.155.htm
>
> "Clear of Clouds" is clearly spelled out. :-)
>
> --Noel
>
Any glider specific realxation of the VFR rule will be in your countries
Part 104. New Zealand has one, as does UK - South Africa does not - not
sure who else has one.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Aug 19, 10:37*am, cfinn > wrote:
> Specificlly, my certificate says, "Instrument
> airplane, helicopter, and glider".

Please check your certificate again and post the exact wording
including all punctuation. According to the FAA database, and
assuming I found the correct person, it should say:

Commercial Pilot
Airplane Single and Multi Engine Land
Rotorcraft Helicopter
Glider
Instrument Airplane and Helicopter

There is no glider instrument rating.

Andy

On Aug 19, 10:22*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> I would like to see the rule permitting that!
>
> See the FAR Basic VFR Minimums:http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/janqtr/14cfr91.155.htm
>
> "Clear of Clouds" is clearly spelled out. :-)

This has been beaten to death before. Instrument flying in class G
airscape is permitted with no flight plan if the plot is rated and the
aircraft is properly equipped.

VFR minima have no significance when flying IFR except that they stop
a VFR pilot from entering cloud and colliding with a pilot legally
flying on instruments.

Andy (GY/CFII)

On Aug 19, 11:20*am, Andy > wrote:

> VFR minima have no significance when flying IFR except that they stop
> a VFR pilot from entering cloud and colliding with a pilot legally
> flying on instruments.

Right. The separation of the "Class G" statement from the rest of the
paragraph about IFR flying in the original post made me think that the
comment was disconnected from the comments about IFR in a glider.
Simple misunderstanding.

--Noel

On Aug 19, 11:22*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 7:28*am, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cloud flying in Class G airspace is technically permitted, but
> > probably an unwise activity.
>
> I would like to see the rule permitting that!
>
> See the FAR Basic VFR Minimums:http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/janqtr/14cfr91.155.htm
>
> "Clear of Clouds" is clearly spelled out. :-)
>
> --Noel

Generally if the rules don't prohibit an activity it is allowed. For
example where is the rule that allows you to land on grass?

The rule you specfiy is for VFR operations, operating in a cloud is
either prohibited VFR or by definition an IFR operation.

My understanding is that if you are Instrument rated and current and
in a Instrument equipped aircraft you can fly into clouds in class G
airspace without a flight plan or ATC approval. The most applicable
rule is FAR 91.173 that requires a flight plan in "controlled"
airspace. The corollary is if it is required in controlled airspace
it must not be required in uncontrolled airspace.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

On Aug 19, 8:19*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > *wrote:
> >>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> >>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> >>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> >>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>
> >> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
> >> with and a separate one to leach with?
>
> >> -Paul
>
> > You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
> > if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
> > devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
> > warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
> > I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
> > even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
> > traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
> > attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
> > on that display (if the software supports that)).
>
> > Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
> > file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
> > analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
> > turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
> > if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
> > between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
> > "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
> > in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
> > suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
> > log file.
>
> > I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
> > require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
> > transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
> > trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
> > tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
> > implies.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>
> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>
> --
> Mike Schumann


None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.


Darryl

On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > wrote:
>>>>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
>>>>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
>>>>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
>>>>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>>
>>>> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
>>>> with and a separate one to leach with?
>>
>>>> -Paul
>>
>>> You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
>>> if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
>>> devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
>>> warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
>>> I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
>>> even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
>>> traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
>>> attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
>>> on that display (if the software supports that)).
>>
>>> Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
>>> file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
>>> analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
>>> turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
>>> if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
>>> between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
>>> "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
>>> in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
>>> suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
>>> log file.
>>
>>> I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
>>> require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
>>> transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
>>> trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
>>> tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
>>> implies.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety
>> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
>> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
>> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>>
>> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
>> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
>
> None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
> the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
> anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
> collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
> being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
> details on what these product features are?
>
> I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
> as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
> world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
> about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
> areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
> transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
> community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
> GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
> products that solve these real world problems.
>
> Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
> a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
> issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
> damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
> contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
> I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
> definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
> sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
> provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
> traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
> perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
> allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
> contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
> restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
> receiver side).
>
> BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
> have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
> they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
> (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
> "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
> devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
> issues.
>
> ---
>
> Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
> avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
> provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
> like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
> the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
> important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
> official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
> that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
> recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
> examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.
>
> You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
> (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
> some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
> stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
> products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
> again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
> is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
> reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
> downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
> any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
> position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
> inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
> single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
> the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
> display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
> market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
> creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
> threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
> differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
> willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
> many of the things Flarm has already done.
>
> For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
> stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
> direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
> or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
> is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
> reduce leeching concerns.
>
>
> Darryl

The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
The number one focus should be safety. Knowing the exact location of
every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.

There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. If that gives
someone an advantage, that is a good thing; it will encourage everyone
else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.

Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
tricks the race leader is using to win.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 19, 9:38*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> >>>>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> >>>>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> >>>>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>
> >>>> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
> >>>> with and a separate one to leach with?
>
> >>>> -Paul
>
> >>> You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
> >>> if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
> >>> devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
> >>> warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g..
> >>> I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
> >>> even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
> >>> traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
> >>> attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
> >>> on that display (if the software supports that)).
>
> >>> Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
> >>> file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
> >>> analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
> >>> turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
> >>> if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
> >>> between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
> >>> "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
> >>> in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
> >>> suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
> >>> log file.
>
> >>> I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
> >>> require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
> >>> transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
> >>> trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
> >>> tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
> >>> implies.
>
> >>> Darryl
>
> >> Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
> >> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
> >> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
> >> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>
> >> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
> >> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
> > the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
> > anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
> > collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
> > being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
> > details on what these product features are?
>
> > I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
> > as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
> > world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
> > about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
> > areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
> > transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
> > community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
> > GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
> > products that solve these real world problems.
>
> > Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
> > a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
> > issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
> > damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
> > contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
> > I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
> > definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
> > sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
> > provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
> > traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
> > perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
> > allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
> > contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
> > restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
> > receiver side).
>
> > BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
> > have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
> > they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
> > (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
> > "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
> > devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
> > issues.
>
> > ---
>
> > Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
> > avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
> > provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
> > like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
> > the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
> > important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
> > official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
> > that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
> > recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
> > examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.
>
> > You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
> > (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
> > some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
> > stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
> > products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
> > again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
> > is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
> > reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
> > downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
> > any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
> > position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
> > inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
> > single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
> > the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
> > display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
> > market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
> > creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
> > threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
> > differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
> > willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
> > many of the things Flarm has already done.
>
> > For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
> > stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
> > direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
> > or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
> > is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
> > reduce leeching concerns.
>
> > Darryl
>
> The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
> visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
> advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
> The number one focus should be safety. *Knowing the exact location of
> every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
> 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.
>
> There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
> can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. *If that gives
> someone an advantage, that is a good thing; *it will encourage everyone
> else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.
>
> Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
> flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
> tricks the race leader is using to win.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Hi, Mike,

the issue is not so much knowing where the other planes are, as much
as knowing how well they're climbing. If you know someone has a great
thermal somewhere in particular (especially at a considerable
distance)
you have an advantage over someone without that knowledge. The
current
method of visually seeing the climb of a competitor in a nearby
thermal is
part of the game (you can only roughly estimate his climb rate).
Knowing
the climb rate of thermals ahead to the nearest 0.1m/s is not
sporting.
Knowing that someone is on a collision course with you is safety, and
that's what the so-called "stealth" mode still will warn you about.

-- Matt

On Aug 19, 6:38*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
> >>>>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
> >>>>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
> >>>>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>
> >>>> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
> >>>> with and a separate one to leach with?
>
> >>>> -Paul
>
> >>> You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
> >>> if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
> >>> devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
> >>> warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g..
> >>> I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
> >>> even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
> >>> traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
> >>> attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
> >>> on that display (if the software supports that)).
>
> >>> Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
> >>> file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
> >>> analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
> >>> turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
> >>> if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
> >>> between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
> >>> "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
> >>> in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
> >>> suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
> >>> log file.
>
> >>> I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
> >>> require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
> >>> transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
> >>> trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
> >>> tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
> >>> implies.
>
> >>> Darryl
>
> >> Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
> >> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
> >> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
> >> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>
> >> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
> >> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
> > the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
> > anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
> > collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
> > being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
> > details on what these product features are?
>
> > I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
> > as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
> > world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
> > about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
> > areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
> > transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
> > community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
> > GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
> > products that solve these real world problems.
>
> > Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
> > a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
> > issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
> > damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
> > contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
> > I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
> > definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
> > sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
> > provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
> > traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
> > perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
> > allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
> > contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
> > restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
> > receiver side).
>
> > BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
> > have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
> > they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
> > (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
> > "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
> > devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
> > issues.
>
> > ---
>
> > Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
> > avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
> > provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
> > like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
> > the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
> > important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
> > official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
> > that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
> > recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
> > examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.
>
> > You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
> > (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
> > some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
> > stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
> > products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
> > again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
> > is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
> > reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
> > downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
> > any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
> > position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
> > inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
> > single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
> > the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
> > display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
> > market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
> > creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
> > threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
> > differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
> > willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
> > many of the things Flarm has already done.
>
> > For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
> > stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
> > direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
> > or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
> > is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
> > reduce leeching concerns.
>
> > Darryl
>
> The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
> visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
> advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
> The number one focus should be safety. *Knowing the exact location of
> every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
> 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.
>
> There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
> can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. *If that gives
> someone an advantage, that is a good thing; *it will encourage everyone
> else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.
>
> Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
> flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
> tricks the race leader is using to win.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

I am not suggesting turning off Flarm. It has stealth mode
specifically for contest. I am suggesting that if other technology
does not have the equivalent then that may not be acceptable. That
this might be an issue should not be a surprise to anybody who thinks
about the contest environment. Now the contest folks may well decide
that they actually are able to live with the leeching concerns some
pilots have.

There are lots of human factors here. What I hope the contest
community focuses on is using something that works at reducing the
risk of mid-air collisions, including in crowded contest environments.
In those environments I am just not sure at all you want or need an
accurate display of all traffic within some large volume. ADS-B
potntial volumes start getting very large.

But have you actually bothered to look at what Flarm stealth mode
provides? Like it actually meets your 1-2 mile requirement (with other
restrictions that make sense).

Darryl

On Aug 19, 6:19*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:19*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
[snip]

> BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
> have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
> they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
> (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
> "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
> devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
> issues.

Well darn I did get myself well sidetracked by typing this too fast. I
meant to say that I think actual interpretation of the USA contest
rules are strictly ambiguous. e.g. allowing two-way communication
products that report position but not being clear whether that means
reporting position our of the glider or into the glider or both. And
an ADS-B receiver to use ADS-B direct data from other aircraft is
currently allowed since it is not a two-way communication device.
Anyhow clear that the contest rules folks need to work on cleaning up
the rues whatever the future intent is.
[snip]
>
> Darryl

On 8/19/2010 9:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:38 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 19, 12:10 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
>>>>>>> the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
>>>>>>> weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
>>>>>>> existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.
>>
>>>>>> Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
>>>>>> with and a separate one to leach with?
>>
>>>>>> -Paul
>>
>>>>> You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
>>>>> if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
>>>>> devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
>>>>> warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
>>>>> I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
>>>>> even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
>>>>> traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
>>>>> attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
>>>>> on that display (if the software supports that)).
>>
>>>>> Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
>>>>> file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
>>>>> analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
>>>>> turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
>>>>> if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
>>>>> between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
>>>>> "official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
>>>>> in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
>>>>> suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
>>>>> log file.
>>
>>>>> I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
>>>>> require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
>>>>> transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
>>>>> trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
>>>>> tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
>>>>> implies.
>>
>>>>> Darryl
>>
>>>> Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety
>>>> of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
>>>> guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
>>>> out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????
>>
>>>> Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
>>>> (even inside) of our small insular world???
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
>>> the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
>>> anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
>>> collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
>>> being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
>>> details on what these product features are?
>>
>>> I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
>>> as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
>>> world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
>>> about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
>>> areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
>>> transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
>>> community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
>>> GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
>>> products that solve these real world problems.
>>
>>> Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
>>> a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
>>> issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
>>> damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
>>> contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
>>> I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
>>> definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
>>> sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
>>> provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
>>> traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
>>> perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
>>> allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
>>> contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
>>> restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
>>> receiver side).
>>
>>> BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
>>> have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
>>> they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
>>> (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
>>> "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
>>> devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
>>> issues.
>>
>>> ---
>>
>>> Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
>>> avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
>>> provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
>>> like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
>>> the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
>>> important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
>>> official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
>>> that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
>>> recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
>>> examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.
>>
>>> You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
>>> (and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
>>> some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
>>> stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
>>> products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
>>> again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
>>> is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
>>> reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
>>> downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
>>> any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
>>> position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
>>> inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
>>> single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
>>> the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
>>> display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
>>> market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
>>> creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
>>> threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
>>> differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
>>> willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
>>> many of the things Flarm has already done.
>>
>>> For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
>>> stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
>>> direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
>>> or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
>>> is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
>>> reduce leeching concerns.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
>> visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
>> advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
>> The number one focus should be safety. Knowing the exact location of
>> every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
>> 1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.
>>
>> There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
>> can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. If that gives
>> someone an advantage, that is a good thing; it will encourage everyone
>> else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.
>>
>> Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
>> flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
>> tricks the race leader is using to win.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> I am not suggesting turning off Flarm. It has stealth mode
> specifically for contest. I am suggesting that if other technology
> does not have the equivalent then that may not be acceptable. That
> this might be an issue should not be a surprise to anybody who thinks
> about the contest environment. Now the contest folks may well decide
> that they actually are able to live with the leeching concerns some
> pilots have.
>
> There are lots of human factors here. What I hope the contest
> community focuses on is using something that works at reducing the
> risk of mid-air collisions, including in crowded contest environments.
> In those environments I am just not sure at all you want or need an
> accurate display of all traffic within some large volume. ADS-B
> potntial volumes start getting very large.
>
> But have you actually bothered to look at what Flarm stealth mode
> provides? Like it actually meets your 1-2 mile requirement (with other
> restrictions that make sense).
>
> Darryl

Every sport has leeching. In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
bumper to reduce drag. There's no problem as long it's a level playing
field and everyone has the same options.

We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
needs to be customized for the soaring community. Anti-collision
hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. Granted,
we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.

That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.

Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.

Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 20, 6:20*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:22*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > I would like to see the rule permitting that!
>
> > See the FAR Basic VFR Minimums:http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/janqtr/14cfr91.155.htm
>
> > "Clear of Clouds" is clearly spelled out. :-)
>
> This has been beaten to death before. Instrument flying in class G
> airscape is permitted with no flight plan if the plot is rated and the
> aircraft is properly equipped.
>
> VFR minima have no significance when flying IFR except that they stop
> a VFR pilot from entering cloud and colliding with a pilot legally
> flying on instruments.

What prevents two such pilots legally flying on instruments from
colliding in the cloud?

On 8/19/2010 8:13 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>
> Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
> vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a
> threat. As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to
> an imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2
> miles out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
> situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
> in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.
It sounds like you've never flown in a contest, and have no idea of what
contest flying is like. True statement?

My thinking, as someone who flew about 60 contests over 30 years, is
much different than yours. I can't even imagine what you mean by
assessing an "uncomfortable situation" that's 1-2 miles away, and I sure
don't see how a 3 D picture of a 15 glider gaggle is going to improve my
safety when I can already look outside and see what's going on as I
approach it.

I've never used Flarm, but it's been tested in many contests over
several years, the pilots like it VERY much, and it's ridiculous to keep
suggesting it can't do the job, and so we also need ADS-B.

>
> Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
> over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
> time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
> equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
> wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
> skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
> our legal system.
You are just guessing about all that, right? No legal expertise at all,
right? No research into the liability of a company like Zaon, for
example, right? Instead of being "surprised" by the Flarm developers
lack of foresight, you should first discuss the situation with them.
I've talked to Urs Rothacher a number of times, and he isn't a naive
programmer glider geek. You would be a much better advocate for safety
with some real facts, instead of guessing and making stuff up.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

> What prevents two such pilots legally flying on instruments from
> colliding in the cloud?

Nothing prevents it, which is why it is generally a bad idea to do so,
even though it is legal to do so.

Brian

On Aug 19, 8:13*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
[snip]
> Every sport has leeching. *In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
> bumper to reduce drag. *There's no problem as long it's a level playing
> field and everyone has the same options.
>
> We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
> needs to be customized for the soaring community. *Anti-collision
> hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. *Granted,
> we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
> in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.
>
> That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
> sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
> TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
> characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.
>
> Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
> vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
> * As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
> imminent collision. *I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
> out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
> situation. *If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
> in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.
>
> Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
> over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
> time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
> equipped with this kind of equipment. *It's surprising that this
> wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
> skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
> our legal system.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?

All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
asking them what is worthwhile.

And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?

No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
is intended to do).

Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
SSA believe this as well?


Darryl

On Aug 19, 10:18*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:13*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> > Every sport has leeching. *In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
> > bumper to reduce drag. *There's no problem as long it's a level playing
> > field and everyone has the same options.
>
> > We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
> > needs to be customized for the soaring community. *Anti-collision
> > hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. *Granted,
> > we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
> > in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.
>
> > That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
> > sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
> > TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
> > characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.
>
> > Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
> > vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
> > * As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
> > imminent collision. *I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
> > out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
> > situation. *If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
> > in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.
>
> > Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
> > over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
> > time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
> > equipped with this kind of equipment. *It's surprising that this
> > wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
> > skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
> > our legal system.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
> of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
> stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?
>
> All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
> understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
> the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
> pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
> technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
> around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
> space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
> asking them what is worthwhile.
>
> And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
> is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
> particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
> particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
> because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
> instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
> a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
> general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
> possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?
>
> No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
> for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
> it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
> part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
> is intended to do).
>
> Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
> the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
> market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
> solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
> really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
> thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
> glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
> from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
> doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
> if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
> requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
> not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
> SSA believe this as well?
>
> Darryl


I believe Mike has made the perfect argument for why the Soaring
community should standardize on PowerFlarm. His scale economies
argument fails as UAT transceivers are at least as expensive as
PowerFlarm for less functionality (the Mitre unit has no display, no
PCAS). The argument that trial lawyers would flock to sue contest
organizers if they required collision units to be turned off argues
strongly for PowerFlarm to be mandated since the lack of ADS-B
standards argues for a single standard. Plus imagine the field day the
lawyers would have if they knew that a soaring-specific technology was
available that solved for the highest probability threat and failed to
act on it - a clear case for negligence.

I have grown weary of the UAT spin - and to think that I used to be a
supporter.

9B

On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:13 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Every sport has leeching. In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
>> bumper to reduce drag. There's no problem as long it's a level playing
>> field and everyone has the same options.
>>
>> We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
>> needs to be customized for the soaring community. Anti-collision
>> hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. Granted,
>> we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
>> in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.
>>
>> That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
>> sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
>> TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
>> characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.
>>
>> Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
>> vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
>> As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
>> imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
>> out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
>> situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
>> in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.
>>
>> Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
>> over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
>> time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
>> equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
>> wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
>> skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
>> our legal system.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
> of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
> stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?
>
> All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
> understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
> the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
> pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
> technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
> around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
> space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
> asking them what is worthwhile.
>
> And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
> is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
> particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
> particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
> because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
> instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
> a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
> general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
> possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?
>
> No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
> for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
> it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
> part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
> is intended to do).
>
> Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
> the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
> market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
> solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
> really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
> thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
> glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
> from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
> doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
> if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
> requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
> not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
> SSA believe this as well?
>
>
> Darryl

I am speaking only for myself, a non-contest flying glider pilot and
commercial airline passenger.

Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM). The issue is
that see and avoid is not a reliable way to avoid collisions between
airplanes.

The problem is not just contests. Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.
A major irony and tragedy was the mid-air that killed Chris
O’Callaghan, who was an enthusiastic participant in this demonstration
project.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. That is a
legitimate goal.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. I do have a legal background.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:19:24 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have
> not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they
> do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it
> is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way
> communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices.
>
I'm realising there is another passive collision warning system that we
use in the UK but I think may not be used as such in the USA - NOTAMS.

Whenever there's something happening here that raises a significant
collision risk such as a balloon festival, gliding competition or
microlite rally it will be NOTAMed, giving the base airfield, number of
participants and the area where significant numbers of participating
aircraft may be found. This at least warns other pilots to be more
vigilant in that area.

I've noticed that NOTAMs seem to be much less used in the USA than they
are here, so I'm wondering if your Regionals and national competitions
are routinely NOTAMed.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
> system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

> The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
> between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
> PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
> never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

> You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
> are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
> have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
> to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
> and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

> This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
> in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
> transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

> It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
> leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
> around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

True - it's further evidence of how hard it is to get bureaucracies
with diverse interests to align. It gives strength to the argument
that a blanket approach is highly unlikely to end up producing a
superior solution to PowerFlarm and its successors.

> The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
> aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
> should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. *That visibility
> should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
> own comfort level. *The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
> going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
> than a glider pilot participating in a contest. *A jet is going to want
> to have an even wider safety margin.

Ultimate goals are nice but having a solution that works before 2020
would be better. For 2011 that is likely PowerFlarm or PowerFlarm plus
a Trig TT21/22 (or similar). The latter seems pretty future-proofed
too. I don't think the Navworx unit does me much good until the ground
infrastructure is built out over the next 10-20 years (particularly in
the remote deserts and ridges where many of us in the west fly). And
with UAT I may never get a solution for jets with 1090ES in those
areas.

> Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
> have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. *If you don't do
> that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. *That is a
> legitimate goal.

It's the highest priority goal for many of us.

> However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
> competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
> certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
> factor to an accident.

You need to look in detail at how contest mode works on PowerFlarm -
it does not turn off collision warnings, it simply makes it harder to
use it to find other gliders who are climbing better than you. Making
it harder for gaggle to form is a significant addition to safety. If
you ignore the human behavioral implications of rules you are left
only with theoretical rules that have limited practical value.

> If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
> this arrangement, there might be a defense. *However, if the accident
> involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
> trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
> involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
> created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
> manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
> helpful without any legitimate justification.

This is how lawyers kill innovation - by making theoretical arguments
about specious causality.

> Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
> any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
> gliders. *What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
> to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
> comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

I think the proposal on the table was to do just the opposite - drive
widespread adoption of PowerFlarm in the US rather than wait for UAT,
which is of more questionable value in glider-glider scenarios,
doesn't yet have the critical ground stations to make it work, and may
never work in seeing 1090ES jets in remote locations.

> --
> Mike Schumann
>
> P.S. *I do have a legal background.

You style of argument is consistent with that Mike. Are you sure you
don't have a financial interest in UAT adoption?

On Aug 20, 7:14*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
> > On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
> > system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).
>
> Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.
>
> > The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
> > between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
> > PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
> > never see.
>
> PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
> PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
> can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
> ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
> equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
> built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?
>
> > You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
> > are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
> > have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
> > to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
> > and glider world.
>
> I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
> a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
> scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
> in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
> in it. *For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
> more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
> display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
> gliders. *We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
> want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
> - a look at what they are producing confirms that.
>
> > This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
> > in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
> > transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions..
>
> Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
> products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
> because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
> solution.
>
> > It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
> > leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
> > around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.
>
> True - it's further evidence of how hard it is to get bureaucracies
> with diverse interests to align. It gives strength to the argument
> that a blanket approach is highly unlikely to end up producing a
> superior solution to PowerFlarm and its successors.
>
> > The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
> > aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
> > should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. *That visibility
> > should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
> > own comfort level. *The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
> > going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
> > than a glider pilot participating in a contest. *A jet is going to want
> > to have an even wider safety margin.
>
> Ultimate goals are nice but having a solution that works before 2020
> would be better. For 2011 that is likely PowerFlarm or PowerFlarm plus
> a Trig TT21/22 (or similar). The latter seems pretty future-proofed
> too. I don't think the Navworx unit does me much good until the ground
> infrastructure is built out over the next 10-20 years (particularly in
> the remote deserts and ridges where many of us in the west fly). And
> with UAT I may never get a solution for jets with 1090ES in those
> areas.
>
> > Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
> > have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. *If you don't do
> > that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. *That is a
> > legitimate goal.
>
> It's the highest priority goal for many of us.
>
> > However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
> > competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
> > certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
> > factor to an accident.
>
> You need to look in detail at how contest mode works on PowerFlarm -
> it does not turn off collision warnings, it simply makes it harder to
> use it to find other gliders who are climbing better than you. Making
> it harder for gaggle to form is a significant addition to safety. *If
> you ignore the human behavioral implications of rules you are left
> only with theoretical rules that have limited practical value.
>
> > If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
> > this arrangement, there might be a defense. *However, if the accident
> > involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
> > trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
> > involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
> > created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
> > manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
> > helpful without any legitimate justification.
>
> This is how lawyers kill innovation - by making theoretical arguments
> about specious causality.
>
> > Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
> > any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
> > gliders. *What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
> > to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
> > comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.
>
> I think the proposal on the table was to do just the opposite - drive
> widespread adoption of PowerFlarm in the US rather than wait for UAT,
> which is of more questionable value in glider-glider scenarios,
> doesn't yet have the critical ground stations to make it work, and may
> never work in seeing 1090ES jets in remote locations.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> > P.S. *I do have a legal background.
>
> You style of argument is consistent with that Mike. *Are you sure you
> don't have a financial interest in UAT adoption?

First off, thanks to the people who actually answered the original
question posed in the first post of this thread. Second, thanks to
those who fired up the PCAS, Flarm, PowerFlarm, UAT, 1090ES, and ADS-B
debate. I am VASTLY better informed now than when I started looking
into the whole transponder thing*. After reading every post in this
thread, and most of those in a couple other threads, here's MY take:
Flarm and PowerFlarm appears to be the only NEAR TERM solution to
glider on glider. Power requirements and cost fall within the range of
acceptance for glider pilots who fly in GLIDER congested areas.
UAT may serve well - in the future, but doesn't appear suited for the
soaring contest glider-on-glider scenario. Power requirements are on
the extreme upper edge of acceptable. Cost is also a factor, since it
will require a different transmitter. Oh, and another antenna.
1090ES ADS-B, etc. 2020 will arrive in 9 years and 4 months. From my
understanding, that's when the requirement for a 'certified' GPS feed
becomes mandatory. REALLY?? NINE YEARS!! Whatever 'requirement' is
written now, WILL be obsolete in nine years. Unfortunately, if past
experience is any indicator, the gummint folks who wrote the
'requirement' will have inadvertantly written it is such a way as to
legally demand use of the outdated technology, at a vastly higher cost
than using what will (in 2020) be current, superior technology.
Me, I just want the airliners to be aware of me, and the Trig is the
lowest power draw, least expensive solution to THAT problem.



*of course, starting at zero knowledge, anything gained is a vast
improvement!

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:

> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v

I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?

--
Alex

The ADS-B Ground Station roll-out is moving forward at an accelerating
rate and should be completed Nation Wide by the end of 2012. It is
fully funded and all the necessary contracts are in place.

The vast majority of the country will have coverage above 1,800 ft. See
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/coverage/

I have no financial interest in any of this.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 20, 11:33*am, Alex Potter > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> > draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> --
> Alex

I run my whole panel on less than 0.8 amp average. PDA, logger,
vario, radio. I use a 14 AH battery, useful capacity about 10 AH,
adding 0.8 amp would take me down to about 6 hours duration. I'd have
to add another battery somewhere to get my target 10 hour capacity.
Solar would be an option... but dang those things are ugly on a pretty
glider.

0.8 amps isn't a deal breaker for me... but less is better.

The Navworx product isn't generating any interest here because there
is at present no way to build a complete system out of the thing that
will work in a glider flown in proximity to other gliders. Possibly
someone like Flarm could do this... but the price point is going to be
difficult, $2500 transceiver, plus whatever additional for a display
and software... I don't see that catching on.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

It's a no-brainer. Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
needs to get a PowerFlarm. Everyone who shares airspace with
airliners needs to get a transponder. It's just that simple.

The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests so that the Flarm folks
understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.
Let's not have any more mid-airs -- they are ruining the fun.

A big thank you to Darryl for his extrodinarily clear explainations of
a complex subject.

On Aug 20, 8:33*am, Alex Potter > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> > draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> --
> Alex

On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex Potter > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> > draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> --
> Alex

With gliders we fly you cannot easily stick solar panels over large
areas of the glider because of cost and critical aerodynamic concerns
and concerns about solar heating the underlying composite structure.
There are specialized solar project exceptions. The manufacturer who
dominates solar panels for gliders today is Strobl (http://www.strobl-
solar.de ) and their panels are available preinsalled from all leading
glider manufacturers or as add-on for a large number of gliders. See
my blog at http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2007/01/strobl-solar-panels-for-sailplanes/
for what a retrofit kit looks like.

They typically deliver 15-30 watt maximum for several thousand dollars
outlay. The Stobl systems use crystalline wafers in a semi-flexible
ETFE (hey that what is used on Trefzel wire, oops another thread...)
type plastic encapsulation. Likely all hand-built. The panels are
attached with 3M ultra-high-bond double sided tape. Some installations
will have molded in recesses for the panels some use hand applied
filleting, some wedge trim strips around the panels. The crystalline
cells give relatively high efficiency even with only partial fill
factor on the panels. Other options emerging might be to use amorphous
thin film panels but you are typical starting with low efficiency. I
have the larges set of Strobl panels I can get on my ASH-26E engine
bay doors that gives a peak spec of 30W (2.5A @ 12V). The actual
delivered power is *much* lower. And you should rely not plan on solar
panels to significantly boost battery capacity for a single flight as
output drops dramatically under cloud streets, overcast sky etc. I
really like the Strobl panels but it may be more useful/safer to think
of them for use for ground charging of a tied down glider (e.g. some
airports have issues with separate panels near the aircraft when tied
down) and as a way of stretching capacity over several days when usual
ground charging infrastructure is not available.

Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a
PDA, and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in
the glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time
available from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal
"Ah capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use
the discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the
available run time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA
batteries are close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for
a similar sized battery).

Transponders (and their encoders) used to be considered a large power
hog. And in the days of horse drawn buggies, steam locomotives and
traveling wave tube amplifiers etc. they were. While they are much
more efficient nowadays, you do need to make sure they fit within a
ships power budget. Modern transponders range in power consumption
from ~0.5A for a Becker 4401 175W and ACK A30 encoder to around ~0.3A
for a Trig TT21 (with built in encoder). Transponder power consumption
will vary depending on interrogation rates and temperature (for the
encoder heater). i.e. The Trig TT21 uses less power than large PDAs
like the iPAQ 4700. The numbers here are realistic for typical glider
operations.

The NavWorx ADS600-B specs implies it consumes 0.8A at 12V. I have no
idea if this is accurate or not, it may be less in practice. Today you
need a separate display with third party software to get traffic
information/warnings from the device, so guess around 0.45A (e.g. for
a iPAQ 4700 PDA dedicated to the UAT data display).

Most gliders have some combination of one or more "7Ah" or "12Ah" VRLA
batteries. So to give a rough idea of maximum run time from typical
single batteries ... (These number are very rough, I don't have my
discharge spreadsheet handy that will do this properly, but they give
the flavor.)

2.0A load = guess of typical glider load + NavWorx ADS-600B + iPAQ
4700 for UAT traffic display
@2.0Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.7 hours
@2.0Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery ~ 5.2 hours

---

Since one scenario is people with Mode C might go UAT vs. buy a new
Mode S/1090ES capable transponder. A UAT is does not make a glider
visible on TCAS, so if you fly near airliners or fast jets that
transponder is a good idea. If you do not then just look at the
numbers above)

2.5A load = guess of typical glider load + Becker Mode C + ACK30 +
NavWorx ADS600-B + iPAQ 4700 for UAT traffic display
@2.5Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.2 hours
@2.5Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery ~ 4.1 hours

---

All these are numbers are for effectively fully discharging the
battery, you should really not plan on running down batteries this
much on typical flights and having no safety margin. Some fudge (20%)
should be deducted from these numbers for typical battery aging. For
very cold flights (e.g. wave) then maybe halve these run times. And
again do the real calculations for your actual setup.

How much battery capacity do you need? My longest flight was 8-9 hours
(in my old glider with no solar panel). A typical "serious" XC flight
for me is around 5-6 hours.

This all assumes the the NavWorx ADS600-B nominal 0.7A spec at 14VDC
nominal (i.e. 0.8A at 12VDC) is correct. It could be lower in
practice. I'm not even sure why we are down this rat hole. None of
this is not a slight on NavWorx, their UAT transceiver was not
designed for the glider market, NavWorx does not claim it is intended
for the glider market, or target any marketing to the glider market
AFAIK. And issues with incompatibility with all existing (Flarm serial
display protocol based) glider traffic display/software, lack of any
third party traffic display/warning product tuned for glider specific
type environments (esp. gaggles), lack of traffic collision/alert
warning from the receiver box etc. are also issues for use in the
glider market. I am convinced that a company who wanted to target the
USA glider marker with a UAT product would have no deep technical
issues addressing these items, or reducing the power consumption
significantly today. The issue is justifying a business case for a
company to do that for the intersection of the relatively small USA
UAT market and the much smaller USA glider market.

BTW some older slides and spreadsheets on glider batteries at
http://www.darryl-ramm.com/glider-batteries/ but I don't think these
make much sense unless you've seen me present them. I originally made
that presentation because of confusion around batteries and
transponders. That confusion went both ways, people way under capacity
for their loads (BTW interestingly often with PDAs and ClearNav type
devices not just transponders) and people thinking they could never
use a transponder, often based on out of date info on transponder
power requirements.

Darryl

On Aug 20, 11:09*am, Steve Koerner > wrote:
> It's a no-brainer. *Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
> needs to get a PowerFlarm. *

I, for one, don't think it is that simple.

I agree that FLARM is the best available technology for glider on
glider collision avoidance. That part is the no brainer.

The situation as I understand it is that one manufacturer of devices
that uses FLARM technology has expressed an intention to launch a
product (PowerFLARM) in USA. If this produduct is FLARM compatible it
must mean that the company holding the rights to the FLARM technology
has authorized the use of it in USA. That is something that they
have, in the past, prohibited.

PowerFLARM includes features that are not included by other
manufacturers of equipment using FLARM technology. There is no
indication in the specifications, or elsewhere on their website, how
these additional features will be integrated with the well proven
FLARM functionality.

If the holder of the rights to the FLARM technology has authorized its
use in USA what is to stop other companies launching a FLARM product
to the US market. Perhaps such a product would not have the
additional features of the Power FLARM unit but would support only the
basic FLARM functionality that has a proven track record. Perhaps that
device, or family of devices, would be far less expensive than
PowerFLARM. Perhaps these devices already exist and just need a
firmware change to assign the correct frequencies for use in USA.

>The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
>PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests

No rule should require the use of a particular manufacturer's
product. The rule that should be considered is one that requires the
use of a FLARM compatible device.

>so that the Flarm folks
>understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.

Who are the FLARM folks that you refer to? In an earlier post you
said "Andy -- have some faith. The Flarm designers are glider pilots
and have been at this for years. The track record is that of
remarkable
success". Do you mean the manufacturer of PowerFLARM, or perhaps the
holder of the FLARM rights. To the best of my knowledge these are not
the same company. (Maybe someone that knows the relationship between
the various companies and the people involved could comment)


Andy

On Aug 20, 12:15*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 11:09*am, Steve Koerner > wrote:
>
> > It's a no-brainer. *Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
> > needs to get a PowerFlarm. *
>
> I, for one, don't think it is that simple.
>
> I agree that FLARM is the best available technology for glider on
> glider collision avoidance. *That part is the no brainer.
>
> The situation as I understand it is that one manufacturer of devices
> that uses FLARM technology has expressed an intention to launch a
> product (PowerFLARM) in USA. *If this produduct is FLARM compatible it
> must mean that the company holding the rights to the FLARM technology
> has authorized the use of it in USA. *That is something that they
> have, in the past, prohibited.
>
> PowerFLARM includes features that are not included by other
> manufacturers of equipment using FLARM technology. *There is no
> indication in the specifications, or elsewhere on their website, how
> these additional features will be integrated with the well proven
> FLARM functionality.
>
> If the holder of the rights to the FLARM technology has authorized its
> use in USA what is to stop other companies launching a FLARM product
> to the US market. *Perhaps such a product would not have the
> additional features of the Power FLARM unit but would support only the
> basic FLARM functionality that has a proven track record. Perhaps that
> device, or family of devices, would be far less expensive than
> PowerFLARM. *Perhaps these devices already exist and just need a
> firmware change to assign the correct frequencies for use in USA.
>
> >The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
> >PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests
>
> No rule should require the use of a particular manufacturer's
> product. *The rule that should be considered is one that requires the
> use of a FLARM compatible device.
>
> >so that the Flarm folks
> >understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.
>
> Who are the FLARM folks that you refer to? *In an earlier post you
> said "Andy -- have some faith. * The Flarm designers are glider pilots
> and have been at this for years. *The track record is that of
> remarkable
> success". *Do you mean the manufacturer of PowerFLARM, or perhaps the
> holder of the FLARM rights. *To the best of my knowledge these are not
> the same company. *(Maybe someone that knows the relationship between
> the various companies and the people involved could comment)
>
> Andy

Flarm and Butterfly (the actual manufacturer of PowerFLARM) are
cooperating very closely to bring this first Flarm based product to
the USA market. As with all other Flarm products the core technology
is developed by Flarm. Urs Rothacher the guy posting on r.a.s in these
threads is the CEO and one of the founders of of Flarm and is very
technical. He is clearly buried working to get the PowerFLARM out.

No existing Flarm devices are FCC approved in the USA and therefore
none of them can be legally sold. Unfortunately there is confusing
information put up on some web sites (yes you Paul Remde :-)) implying
some Flarm devices are available in the USA, there just are no FCC
approvals AFAIK. Some of us have had conversations with Urs about this
and one of the things that Flarm is working on in this whole project
is really clean FCC approval of the new generation hardware inside the
PowerFLARM product. That takes time, effort and $$$.

I also see no reason to specify a "powerFLARM" device for USA contest
rules. Specifying "Flarm" based product or similar likely achieves
what may be desired. And I tend to believe that is what USA rules
folks might do in any language that allowed/required etc. this
technology.

Darryl

Andy:

I agree. It should be a "Flarm compatible device" that is mandated
for 2011 contests not PowerFlarm per se.

I don't understand the nit picking about rights holders vs
manufacturers.

On Aug 20, 12:44*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:

> I don't understand the nit picking about rights holders vs
> manufacturers.

It's a question of what flexibility a manufacturer has to modify the
core technology/firmware to make it compatible with new features that
are not supported by other FLARM products. The new features need to be
integrated not just stuffed in the same box.

If, as Darrly says, the holder of the rights and the manufacturer are
working together on PowerFLARM then I agree it should be a non
issue.


Andy

On Aug 20, 8:05*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 7:14*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
> > > system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).
>
> > Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.
>
> > > The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
> > > between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
> > > PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
> > > never see.
>
> > PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
> > PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
> > can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
> > ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
> > equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
> > built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?
>
> > > You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
> > > are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
> > > have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
> > > to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
> > > and glider world.
>
> > I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
> > a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
> > scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
> > in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
> > in it. *For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
> > more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
> > display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
> > gliders. *We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
> > want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
> > - a look at what they are producing confirms that.
>
> > > This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
> > > in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
> > > transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.
>
> > Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
> > products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
> > because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
> > solution.
>
> > > It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
> > > leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
> > > around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:11:21 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

[ much snippage of useful and interesting post ]

Thanks for that, Darryl. Still not too much progress then....

--
Alex

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:11:21 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
> for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
> for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a PDA,
> and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in the
> glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time available
> from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal "Ah
> capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use the
> discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the available run
> time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA batteries are
> close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for a similar sized
> battery).
>
I'd seriously suggest a visit to your local RC model shop to look at
battery chargers. $60 - $100 gets you a cycling charger that can not only
peak charge a partially discharged SLA battery without harming it, but
can measure its capacity. Record the measured capacity every year and bin
the battery when it shows a 30% drop and you may even save money.

Slinging an SLA battery every three years is common wisdom here, yet last
winter my three year old batteries still had 90% of their nominal
capacity. Bin them? I think not!

FWIW these batteries have always been charged with a peak charger.

PS; sorry for hi-jacking the thread, but it seemed appropriate.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On 8/20/2010 5:48 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> I'd seriously suggest a visit to your local RC model shop to look at
> battery chargers. $60 - $100 gets you a cycling charger that can not only
> peak charge a partially discharged SLA battery without harming it, but
> can measure its capacity. Record the measured capacity every year and bin
> the battery when it shows a 30% drop and you may even save money.
>
>
What units do you suggest? The ones in that price range I'm familiar
with (like the LN5014 Multiplex) discharge at a low rate (~0.4 amps) and
charge at only 14.0 volts, not really a peak charger, which should use
14.6 at least.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/20/2010 9:25 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> The ADS-B Ground Station roll-out is moving forward at an accelerating
> rate and should be completed Nation Wide by the end of 2012. It is
> fully funded and all the necessary contracts are in place.
>
> The vast majority of the country will have coverage above 1,800 ft.
> See
> http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/coverage/
>
>
> I have no financial interest in any of this.
>
Mike, with the way my newsreader works, it would be a lot easier to
follow the meaning of your posts if you included at least a paragraph of
the posting you are replying to. Thanks!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/20/2010 8:04 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:19:24 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>> BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have
>> not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they
>> do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it
>> is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way
>> communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices.
>>
> I'm realising there is another passive collision warning system that we
> use in the UK but I think may not be used as such in the USA - NOTAMS.
>
> Whenever there's something happening here that raises a significant
> collision risk such as a balloon festival, gliding competition or
> microlite rally it will be NOTAMed, giving the base airfield, number of
> participants and the area where significant numbers of participating
> aircraft may be found. This at least warns other pilots to be more
> vigilant in that area.
>
> I've noticed that NOTAMs seem to be much less used in the USA than they
> are here, so I'm wondering if your Regionals and national competitions
> are routinely NOTAMed.
>
>
Anecdotally....a preliminary flight plan I did a month or two ago for
Corpus Christi from Altus (SW Oklahoma) as depicted on sectionals using
that handy service fltplan.com showed up with a flag because it crossed
close by an airfield south of Dallas marked for an air display via a NOTAM.

This approach beats paper modems easily - the planning service shows
only NOTAMS relevant to the track...

Brian W

On 8/20/2010 2:11 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex > wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
>>> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>>
>> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
>> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
>> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>
> On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex > wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
>>> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>>
>> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
>> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
>> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>
> With gliders we fly you cannot easily stick solar panels over large
> areas of the glider because of cost and critical aerodynamic concerns
> and concerns about solar heating the underlying composite structure.
> There are specialized solar project exceptions. The manufacturer who
> dominates solar panels for gliders today is Strobl (http://www.strobl-
> solar.de ) and their panels are available preinsalled from all leading
> glider manufacturers or as add-on for a large number of gliders. See
> my blog at http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2007/01/strobl-solar-panels-for-sailplanes/
> for what a retrofit kit looks like.
>
> They typically deliver 15-30 watt maximum for several thousand dollars
> outlay. The Stobl systems use crystalline wafers in a semi-flexible
> ETFE (hey that what is used on Trefzel wire, oops another thread...)
> type plastic encapsulation. Likely all hand-built. The panels are
> attached with 3M ultra-high-bond double sided tape. Some installations
> will have molded in recesses for the panels some use hand applied
> filleting, some wedge trim strips around the panels. The crystalline
> cells give relatively high efficiency even with only partial fill
> factor on the panels. Other options emerging might be to use amorphous
> thin film panels but you are typical starting with low efficiency. I
> have the larges set of Strobl panels I can get on my ASH-26E engine
> bay doors that gives a peak spec of 30W (2.5A @ 12V). The actual
> delivered power is *much* lower. And you should rely not plan on solar
> panels to significantly boost battery capacity for a single flight as
> output drops dramatically under cloud streets, overcast sky etc. I
> really like the Strobl panels but it may be more useful/safer to think
> of them for use for ground charging of a tied down glider (e.g. some
> airports have issues with separate panels near the aircraft when tied
> down) and as a way of stretching capacity over several days when usual
> ground charging infrastructure is not available.
>
> Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
> for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
> for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a
> PDA, and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in
> the glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time
> available from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal
> "Ah capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use
> the discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the
> available run time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA
> batteries are close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for
> a similar sized battery).
>
> Transponders (and their encoders) used to be considered a large power
> hog. And in the days of horse drawn buggies, steam locomotives and
> traveling wave tube amplifiers etc. they were. While they are much
> more efficient nowadays, you do need to make sure they fit within a
> ships power budget. Modern transponders range in power consumption
> from ~0.5A for a Becker 4401 175W and ACK A30 encoder to around ~0.3A
> for a Trig TT21 (with built in encoder). Transponder power consumption
> will vary depending on interrogation rates and temperature (for the
> encoder heater). i.e. The Trig TT21 uses less power than large PDAs
> like the iPAQ 4700. The numbers here are realistic for typical glider
> operations.
>
> The NavWorx ADS600-B specs implies it consumes 0.8A at 12V. I have no
> idea if this is accurate or not, it may be less in practice. Today you
> need a separate display with third party software to get traffic
> information/warnings from the device, so guess around 0.45A (e.g. for
> a iPAQ 4700 PDA dedicated to the UAT data display).
>
> Most gliders have some combination of one or more "7Ah" or "12Ah" VRLA
> batteries. So to give a rough idea of maximum run time from typical
> single batteries ... (These number are very rough, I don't have my
> discharge spreadsheet handy that will do this properly, but they give
> the flavor.)
>
> 2.0A load = guess of typical glider load + NavWorx ADS-600B + iPAQ
> 4700 for UAT traffic display
> @2.0Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.7 hours
> @2.0Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery ~ 5.2 hours
>
> ---
>
> Since one scenario is people with Mode C might go UAT vs. buy a new
> Mode S/1090ES capable transponder. A UAT is does not make a glider
> visible on TCAS, so if you fly near airliners or fast jets that
> transponder is a good idea. If you do not then just look at the
> numbers above)
>
> 2.5A load = guess of typical glider load + Becker Mode C + ACK30 +
> NavWorx ADS600-B + iPAQ 4700 for UAT traffic display
> @2.5Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.2 hours
> @2.5Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery ~ 4.1 hours
>
> ---
>
> All these are numbers are for effectively fully discharging the
> battery, you should really not plan on running down batteries this
> much on typical flights and having no safety margin. Some fudge (20%)
> should be deducted from these numbers for typical battery aging. For
> very cold flights (e.g. wave) then maybe halve these run times. And
> again do the real calculations for your actual setup.
>
> How much battery capacity do you need? My longest flight was 8-9 hours
> (in my old glider with no solar panel). A typical "serious" XC flight
> for me is around 5-6 hours.
>
> This all assumes the the NavWorx ADS600-B nominal 0.7A spec at 14VDC
> nominal (i.e. 0.8A at 12VDC) is correct. It could be lower in
> practice. I'm not even sure why we are down this rat hole. None of
> this is not a slight on NavWorx, their UAT transceiver was not
> designed for the glider market, NavWorx does not claim it is intended
> for the glider market, or target any marketing to the glider market
> AFAIK. And issues with incompatibility with all existing (Flarm serial
> display protocol based) glider traffic display/software, lack of any
> third party traffic display/warning product tuned for glider specific
> type environments (esp. gaggles), lack of traffic collision/alert
> warning from the receiver box etc. are also issues for use in the
> glider market. I am convinced that a company who wanted to target the
> USA glider marker with a UAT product would have no deep technical
> issues addressing these items, or reducing the power consumption
> significantly today. The issue is justifying a business case for a
> company to do that for the intersection of the relatively small USA
> UAT market and the much smaller USA glider market.
>
> BTW some older slides and spreadsheets on glider batteries at
> http://www.darryl-ramm.com/glider-batteries/ but I don't think these
> make much sense unless you've seen me present them. I originally made
> that presentation because of confusion around batteries and
> transponders. That confusion went both ways, people way under capacity
> for their loads (BTW interestingly often with PDAs and ClearNav type
> devices not just transponders) and people thinking they could never
> use a transponder, often based on out of date info on transponder
> power requirements.
>
> Darryl

Has anyone thought about using a very small ram air turbine to provide
power in a glider? How big would such a turbine have to be to generate
10 watts? How much would this reduce L/D?

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 20, 5:48*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:11:21 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
> > for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
> > for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a PDA,
> > and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in the
> > glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time available
> > from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal "Ah
> > capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use the
> > discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the available run
> > time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA batteries are
> > close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for a similar sized
> > battery).
>
> I'd seriously suggest a visit to your local RC model shop to look at
> battery chargers. $60 - $100 gets you a cycling charger that can not only
> peak charge a partially discharged SLA battery without harming it, but
> can measure its capacity. Record the measured capacity every year and bin
> the battery when it shows a 30% drop and you may even save money.
>
> Slinging an SLA battery every three years is common wisdom here, yet last
> winter my three year old batteries still had 90% of their nominal
> capacity. Bin them? I think not!
>
> FWIW these batteries have always been charged with a peak charger.
>
> PS; sorry for hi-jacking the thread, but it seemed appropriate.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I'm not sure what "peak charge" means in the context of a VRLA
battery. Peak charge/delta-peak/delta-V relies on effects usually seen
in other battery chemistries not in the lead-acid family. A multiple
battery type charger might be labeled delta-whatever but not use that
charge method for lead acid batteries.

The main thing you want to do is pick a charge specifically designed
for VRLA (valve regulated lead acid) aka SLA (sealed lead acid)
battery. The battery charger should be sized so it's bulk charge amp
specs is around C/10 to C/5 (no more) where C is the capacity in amp-
hours of the battery. The charger should support three charge phases
bulk/absorbtion/float but sometimes the documentation does not mention
absorbtion or three stages only to even if the charger really does
this properly.Charge the batteries in a cool environment. If the
charger does not float the batteries at between 13.5 to 13.8V after
the first two phases do not leave the battery connected to it for long
periods (a common cause of death of VRLA batteries by evaporating the
electrolyte out the vent valves) -- some RC model chargers
specifically do *not* do this right. My favorite AC charger is a
Xenotronix HPX series but others are good as well.

I (and I know Eric does as well) recommend the CBA III as a battery
discharge tester (http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA.htm). It has
the benefit of being able to charge monitor, so you can watch a
charger step though the charge phases on a battery. Handy for checking
out chargers and suspect batteries. A great purchase for a club, FBO
or individual pilot.


Darryl

On 8/20/2010 9:46 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 8/20/2010 9:25 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>> The ADS-B Ground Station roll-out is moving forward at an accelerating
>> rate and should be completed Nation Wide by the end of 2012. It is
>> fully funded and all the necessary contracts are in place.
>>
>> The vast majority of the country will have coverage above 1,800 ft.
>> See
>> http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/coverage/
>>
>>
>> I have no financial interest in any of this.
>>
> Mike, with the way my newsreader works, it would be a lot easier to
> follow the meaning of your posts if you included at least a paragraph of
> the posting you are replying to. Thanks!
>
Sorry. This was in response to Andy's post claiming that the ADS-B
ground station roll-out would take 10-20 years and wasn't even funded yet.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 20, 8:38*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/20/2010 9:46 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/20/2010 9:25 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> >> The ADS-B Ground Station roll-out is moving forward at an accelerating
> >> rate and should be completed Nation Wide by the end of 2012. It is
> >> fully funded and all the necessary contracts are in place.
>
> >> The vast majority of the country will have coverage above 1,800 ft.
> >> See
> >>http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_....
>
> >> I have no financial interest in any of this.
>
> > Mike, with the way my newsreader works, it would be a lot easier to
> > follow the meaning of your posts if you included at least a paragraph of
> > the posting you are replying to. Thanks!
>
> Sorry. *This was in response to Andy's post claiming that the ADS-B
> ground station roll-out would take 10-20 years and wasn't even funded yet..
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Thanks for the map - pity they only intend to cover many of the places
I fly in the west at above 18,000'. I remain skeptical that it'll be
done in 2 years, but we'll see.

How's the coverage down low on the White Mountains, where there is a
big converging traffic issue? Is it line of sight or can it get around
mountain ranges?

9B

On Aug 20, 8:32*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/20/2010 2:11 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex > *wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> >>> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> >> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> >> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> >> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> >> --
> >> Alex
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex > *wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> >>> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> >> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> >> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> >> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> >> --
> >> Alex
>
> > With gliders we fly you cannot easily stick solar panels over large
> > areas of the glider because of cost and critical aerodynamic concerns
> > and concerns about solar heating the underlying composite structure.
> > There are specialized solar project exceptions. The manufacturer who
> > dominates solar panels for gliders today is Strobl (http://www.strobl-
> > solar.de ) and their panels are available preinsalled from all leading
> > glider manufacturers or as add-on for a large number of gliders. See
> > my blog athttp://www.darryl-ramm.com/2007/01/strobl-solar-panels-for-sailplanes/
> > for what a retrofit kit looks like.
>
> > They typically deliver 15-30 watt maximum for several thousand dollars
> > outlay. The Stobl systems use crystalline wafers in a semi-flexible
> > ETFE (hey that what is used on Trefzel wire, oops another thread...)
> > type plastic encapsulation. Likely all hand-built. The panels are
> > attached with 3M ultra-high-bond double sided tape. Some installations
> > will have molded in recesses for the panels some use hand applied
> > filleting, some wedge trim strips around the panels. The crystalline
> > cells give relatively high efficiency even with only partial fill
> > factor on the panels. Other options emerging might be to use amorphous
> > thin film panels but you are typical starting with low efficiency. I
> > have the larges set of Strobl panels I can get on my ASH-26E engine
> > bay doors that gives a peak spec of 30W (2.5A @ 12V). The actual
> > delivered power is *much* lower. And you should rely not plan on solar
> > panels to significantly boost battery capacity for a single flight as
> > output drops dramatically under cloud streets, overcast sky etc. I
> > really like the Strobl panels but it may be more useful/safer to think
> > of them for use for ground charging of a tied down glider (e.g. some
> > airports have issues with separate panels near the aircraft when tied
> > down) and as a way of stretching capacity over several days when usual
> > ground charging infrastructure is not available.
>
> > Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
> > for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
> > for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a
> > PDA, and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in
> > the glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time
> > available from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal
> > "Ah capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use
> > the discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the
> > available run time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA
> > batteries are close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for
> > a similar sized battery).
>
> > Transponders (and their encoders) used to be considered a large power
> > hog. And in the days of horse drawn buggies, steam locomotives and
> > traveling wave tube amplifiers etc. they were. While they are much
> > more efficient nowadays, you do need to make sure they fit within a
> > ships power budget. Modern transponders range in power consumption
> > from ~0.5A for a Becker 4401 175W and ACK A30 encoder to around ~0.3A
> > for a Trig TT21 (with built in encoder). Transponder power consumption
> > will vary depending on interrogation rates and temperature (for the
> > encoder heater). i.e. The Trig TT21 uses less power than large PDAs
> > like the iPAQ 4700. The numbers here are realistic for typical glider
> > operations.
>
> > The NavWorx ADS600-B specs implies it consumes 0.8A at 12V. I have no
> > idea if this is accurate or not, it may be less in practice. Today you
> > need a separate display with third party software to get traffic
> > information/warnings from the device, so guess around 0.45A (e.g. for
> > a iPAQ 4700 PDA dedicated to the UAT data display).
>
> > Most gliders have some combination of one or more "7Ah" or "12Ah" VRLA
> > batteries. So to give a rough idea of maximum run time from typical
> > single batteries ... (These number are very rough, I don't have my
> > discharge spreadsheet handy that will do this properly, but they give
> > the flavor.)
>
> > 2.0A load = guess of typical glider load + NavWorx ADS-600B + iPAQ
> > 4700 for UAT traffic display
> > @2.0Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.7 hours
> > @2.0Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery ~ 5.2 hours
>
> > ---
>
> > Since one scenario is people with Mode C might go UAT vs. buy a new
> > Mode S/1090ES capable transponder. A UAT is does not make a glider
> > visible on TCAS, so if you fly near airliners or fast jets that
> > transponder is a good idea. If you do not then just look at the
> > numbers above)
>
> > 2.5A load = guess of typical glider load + Becker Mode C + ACK30 +
> > NavWorx ADS600-B + iPAQ 4700 for UAT traffic display
> > @2.5Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.2 hours
> > @2.5Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery *~ 4.1 hours
>
> > ---
>
> > All these are numbers are for effectively fully discharging the
> > battery, you should really not plan on running down batteries this
> > much on typical flights and having no safety margin. Some fudge (20%)
> > should be deducted from these numbers for typical battery aging. For
> > very cold flights (e.g. wave) then maybe halve these run times. And
> > again do the real calculations for your actual setup.
>
> > How much battery capacity do you need? My longest flight was 8-9 hours
> > (in my old glider with no solar panel). A typical "serious" XC flight
> > for me is around 5-6 hours.
>
> > This all assumes the the NavWorx ADS600-B nominal 0.7A spec at 14VDC
> > nominal (i.e. 0.8A at 12VDC) is *correct. It could be lower in
> > practice. I'm not even sure why we are down this rat hole. None of
> > this is not a slight on NavWorx, their UAT transceiver was not
> > designed for the glider market, NavWorx does not claim it is intended
> > for the glider market, or target any marketing to the glider market
> > AFAIK. And issues with incompatibility with all existing (Flarm serial
> > display protocol based) glider traffic display/software, lack of any
> > third party traffic display/warning product tuned for glider specific
> > type environments (esp. gaggles), lack of traffic collision/alert
> > warning from the receiver box etc. are also issues for use in the
> > glider market. I am convinced that a company who wanted to target the
> > USA glider marker with a UAT product would have no deep technical
> > issues addressing these items, or reducing the power consumption
> > significantly today. The issue is justifying a business case for a
> > company to do that for the intersection of the relatively small USA
> > UAT market and the much smaller USA glider market.
>
> > BTW some older slides and spreadsheets on glider batteries at
> >http://www.darryl-ramm.com/glider-batteries/but I don't think these
> > make much sense unless you've seen me present them. I originally made
> > that presentation because of confusion around batteries and
> > transponders. That confusion went both ways, people way under capacity
> > for their loads (BTW interestingly often with PDAs and ClearNav type
> > devices not just transponders) and people thinking they could never
> > use a transponder, often based on out of date info on transponder
> > power requirements.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Has anyone thought about using a very small ram air turbine to provide
> power in a glider? *How big would such a turbine have to be to generate
> 10 watts? *How much would this reduce L/D?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Probably not a great idea. The loss would be equal to the power
extracted divided by the efficiency of the turbine and less the form
drag of whatever hangs out in the breeze. Better batteries and lower
power electronics are the better options - or solar if you can get a
clean installation.

I do wonder whether the PowerFlarm guys might ever have 1090ES-out in
the product roadmap, even as an add-on. That would pretty much settle
things once you got to 2020 wouldn't it?

9B

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
(a common cause of death of VRLA batteries by evaporating the
electrolyte out the vent valves)

Amen! More glider batteries are ruined by over charging and any other cause.
If you tend to connect your battery to a charger and then forget it until days
later (isn't that most of us?) then you need a float-type multi-stage automatic
charger. I am sure that there are many in the RC world, but I like the products
of this company. http://batterytender.com/

Vaughn

On Aug 20, 10:20*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:32*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/20/2010 2:11 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex > *wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> > >>> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> > >> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> > >> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> > >> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> > >> --
> > >> Alex
>
> > > On Aug 20, 8:33 am, Alex > *wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
> > >>> draws 0.8 amps @ 12v
>
> > >> I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
> > >> advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
> > >> glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?
>
> > >> --
> > >> Alex
>
> > > With gliders we fly you cannot easily stick solar panels over large
> > > areas of the glider because of cost and critical aerodynamic concerns
> > > and concerns about solar heating the underlying composite structure.
> > > There are specialized solar project exceptions. The manufacturer who
> > > dominates solar panels for gliders today is Strobl (http://www.strobl-
> > > solar.de ) and their panels are available preinsalled from all leading
> > > glider manufacturers or as add-on for a large number of gliders. See
> > > my blog athttp://www.darryl-ramm.com/2007/01/strobl-solar-panels-for-sailplanes/
> > > for what a retrofit kit looks like.
>
> > > They typically deliver 15-30 watt maximum for several thousand dollars
> > > outlay. The Stobl systems use crystalline wafers in a semi-flexible
> > > ETFE (hey that what is used on Trefzel wire, oops another thread...)
> > > type plastic encapsulation. Likely all hand-built. The panels are
> > > attached with 3M ultra-high-bond double sided tape. Some installations
> > > will have molded in recesses for the panels some use hand applied
> > > filleting, some wedge trim strips around the panels. The crystalline
> > > cells give relatively high efficiency even with only partial fill
> > > factor on the panels. Other options emerging might be to use amorphous
> > > thin film panels but you are typical starting with low efficiency. I
> > > have the larges set of Strobl panels I can get on my ASH-26E engine
> > > bay doors that gives a peak spec of 30W (2.5A @ 12V). The actual
> > > delivered power is *much* lower. And you should rely not plan on solar
> > > panels to significantly boost battery capacity for a single flight as
> > > output drops dramatically under cloud streets, overcast sky etc. I
> > > really like the Strobl panels but it may be more useful/safer to think
> > > of them for use for ground charging of a tied down glider (e.g. some
> > > airports have issues with separate panels near the aircraft when tied
> > > down) and as a way of stretching capacity over several days when usual
> > > ground charging infrastructure is not available.
>
> > > Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
> > > for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
> > > for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a
> > > PDA, and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in
> > > the glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time
> > > available from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal
> > > "Ah capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use
> > > the discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the
> > > available run time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA
> > > batteries are close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for
> > > a similar sized battery).
>
> > > Transponders (and their encoders) used to be considered a large power
> > > hog. And in the days of horse drawn buggies, steam locomotives and
> > > traveling wave tube amplifiers etc. they were. While they are much
> > > more efficient nowadays, you do need to make sure they fit within a
> > > ships power budget. Modern transponders range in power consumption
> > > from ~0.5A for a Becker 4401 175W and ACK A30 encoder to around ~0.3A
> > > for a Trig TT21 (with built in encoder). Transponder power consumption
> > > will vary depending on interrogation rates and temperature (for the
> > > encoder heater). i.e. The Trig TT21 uses less power than large PDAs
> > > like the iPAQ 4700. The numbers here are realistic for typical glider
> > > operations.
>
> > > The NavWorx ADS600-B specs implies it consumes 0.8A at 12V. I have no
> > > idea if this is accurate or not, it may be less in practice. Today you
> > > need a separate display with third party software to get traffic
> > > information/warnings from the device, so guess around 0.45A (e.g. for
> > > a iPAQ 4700 PDA dedicated to the UAT data display).
>
> > > Most gliders have some combination of one or more "7Ah" or "12Ah" VRLA
> > > batteries. So to give a rough idea of maximum run time from typical
> > > single batteries ... (These number are very rough, I don't have my
> > > discharge spreadsheet handy that will do this properly, but they give
> > > the flavor.)
>
> > > 2.0A load = guess of typical glider load + NavWorx ADS-600B + iPAQ
> > > 4700 for UAT traffic display
> > > @2.0Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.7 hours
> > > @2.0Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery ~ 5.2 hours
>
> > > ---
>
> > > Since one scenario is people with Mode C might go UAT vs. buy a new
> > > Mode S/1090ES capable transponder. A UAT is does not make a glider
> > > visible on TCAS, so if you fly near airliners or fast jets that
> > > transponder is a good idea. If you do not then just look at the
> > > numbers above)
>
> > > 2.5A load = guess of typical glider load + Becker Mode C + ACK30 +
> > > NavWorx ADS600-B + iPAQ 4700 for UAT traffic display
> > > @2.5Ah load a typical "7Ah" VRLA battery ~ 2.2 hours
> > > @2.5Ah load a typical "12Ah" VRLA battery *~ 4.1 hours
>
> > > ---
>
> > > All these are numbers are for effectively fully discharging the
> > > battery, you should really not plan on running down batteries this
> > > much on typical flights and having no safety margin. Some fudge (20%)
> > > should be deducted from these numbers for typical battery aging. For
> > > very cold flights (e.g. wave) then maybe halve these run times. And
> > > again do the real calculations for your actual setup.
>
> > > How much battery capacity do you need? My longest flight was 8-9 hours
> > > (in my old glider with no solar panel). A typical "serious" XC flight
> > > for me is around 5-6 hours.
>
> > > This all assumes the the NavWorx ADS600-B nominal 0.7A spec at 14VDC
> > > nominal (i.e. 0.8A at 12VDC) is *correct. It could be lower in
> > > practice. I'm not even sure why we are down this rat hole. None of
> > > this is not a slight on NavWorx, their UAT transceiver was not
> > > designed for the glider market, NavWorx does not claim it is intended
> > > for the glider market, or target any marketing to the glider market
> > > AFAIK. And issues with incompatibility with all existing (Flarm serial
> > > display protocol based) glider traffic display/software, lack of any
> > > third party traffic display/warning product tuned for glider specific
> > > type environments (esp. gaggles), lack of traffic collision/alert
> > > warning from the receiver box etc. are also issues for use in the
> > > glider market. I am convinced that a company who wanted to target the
> > > USA glider marker with a UAT product would have no deep technical
> > > issues addressing these items, or reducing the power consumption
> > > significantly today. The issue is justifying a business case for a
> > > company to do that for the intersection of the relatively small USA
> > > UAT market and the much smaller USA glider market.
>
> > > BTW some older slides and spreadsheets on glider batteries at
> > >http://www.darryl-ramm.com/glider-batteries/butI don't think these
> > > make much sense unless you've seen me present them. I originally made
> > > that presentation because of confusion around batteries and
> > > transponders. That confusion went both ways, people way under capacity
> > > for their loads (BTW interestingly often with PDAs and ClearNav type
> > > devices not just transponders) and people thinking they could never
> > > use a transponder, often based on out of date info on transponder
> > > power requirements.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Has anyone thought about using a very small ram air turbine to provide
> > power in a glider? *How big would such a turbine have to be to generate
> > 10 watts? *How much would this reduce L/D?
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Probably not a great idea. The loss would be equal to the power
> extracted divided by the efficiency of the turbine and less the form
> drag of whatever hangs out in the breeze. *Better batteries and lower
> power electronics are the better options - or solar if you can get a
> clean installation.
>
> I do wonder whether the PowerFlarm guys might ever have 1090ES-out in
> the product roadmap, even as an add-on. That would pretty much settle
> things once you got to 2020 wouldn't it?
>
> 9B

A 1090ES data-out only devices as opposed to a full Mode S transponder
with 1090ES is in-principle possible but would have -
- no visibility to traditional SSR radar (needed now in some places
we fly, and in future as a backup for ADS-B)
- no visibility to TCAS systems mandated in all large airliners, etc.
and widely used in military transport, fast jets etc., existing TCAD/
TAS (active interrogators used in some GA traffic systems) and today's
PCAS systems.

Aircraft will need to equip with ADS-B-data-in and CDTI (or an
certified traffic display) to see a 1090ES-data-out only threat, they
will over time but there is requiremnt today for them to do so. Not a
requiremnt with airliners etc. like TCAS is, and not a part of the FAA
2020 ADS-B data-out mandate.

In Europe (powered) aircraft are widely required to be Mode S
equipped, the USA powered aircraft are also required to be transponder
equipped in the same areas they will be required to be ADS-B out
equipped. ADS-B data-out does not have the compelling GBT
interactivity issues it has here in the USA and there is not a wide
ADS-B mandate in Europe that will lead lots of GA traffic to want to
equip with ADS-B for a while. So the market for 1090ES data-out
devices that are not also transponders starts looking smaller and
smaller - and products like those from Trig already does Mode S with
1090ES capability for street prices starting at a bit above ~$2,000.
By the time you ship an empty box, deal with making it DO260B/1090ES
compatible, get that transmitter FCC certified, etc.... I suspect most
companies would make the produce a real Mode S transponder with 1090ES
capability and be able to sell it to a significantly larger potential
market - especially a market that is forced by regulations to deploy
that technology (USA ADS-B mandate and Europe Mode S Mandate, etc.).
Especially given the actual BOM cost may not be much different, yes a
transponder does add a 1030MHz receiver but a lot of the rest of this
is software and FPGA firmware.

My comments only, I have no insight into any future products from any
of these companies.

Darryl

On Aug 22, 11:34*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> Aircraft will need to equip with ADS-B-data-in and CDTI (or an
> certified traffic display) to see a 1090ES-data-out only threat...

Sigh, I meant to say aircraft will need to equip with ADS-B-data-in
and CDTI (or an
*un*-certified traffic display) to see a 1090ES-data-out only
threat...

--

CDTI == cockpit display of traffic information and usually used to
mean a certified product meeting RTCA CDTI specs. Hence the correction
to my typo above.

(and remember here I was discussing the theoretical case of a 1090ES
data-out device is *not* also a Mode S transponder)

Darryl

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:19:56 -0500, brian whatcott wrote:

> On 8/20/2010 8:04 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:19:24 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
>>> have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
>>> they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
>>> (since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
>>> "two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
>>> devices.
>>>
>> I'm realising there is another passive collision warning system that we
>> use in the UK but I think may not be used as such in the USA - NOTAMS.
>>
>> Whenever there's something happening here that raises a significant
>> collision risk such as a balloon festival, gliding competition or
>> microlite rally it will be NOTAMed, giving the base airfield, number of
>> participants and the area where significant numbers of participating
>> aircraft may be found. This at least warns other pilots to be more
>> vigilant in that area.
>>
>> I've noticed that NOTAMs seem to be much less used in the USA than they
>> are here, so I'm wondering if your Regionals and national competitions
>> are routinely NOTAMed.
>>
>>
> Anecdotally....a preliminary flight plan I did a month or two ago for
> Corpus Christi from Altus (SW Oklahoma) as depicted on sectionals using
> that handy service fltplan.com showed up with a flag because it crossed
> close by an airfield south of Dallas marked for an air display via a
> NOTAM.
>
> This approach beats paper modems easily - the planning service shows
> only NOTAMS relevant to the track...
>
Fighting through a wad of paper is a nightmare. I'd be lost without my
copy of NOTAMplot though I still have to read the unplottable ones. These
days AIS, our official NOTAM source, manages to weed the stack to a
mangeable size, but still doesn't plot them, and in consequence doesn't
really help us glider drivers because you can only anchor its route
briefings to licensed airfields, when we really need something like
NOTAMplot, which understands turnpoints.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On 8/22/2010 5:29 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:43:51 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> On 8/20/2010 5:48 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>>> I'd seriously suggest a visit to your local RC model shop to look at
>>> battery chargers. $60 - $100 gets you a cycling charger that can not
>>> only peak charge a partially discharged SLA battery without harming it,
>>> but can measure its capacity. Record the measured capacity every year
>>> and bin the battery when it shows a 30% drop and you may even save
>>> money.
>>>
>> What units do you suggest? The ones in that price range I'm familiar
>> with (like the LN5014 Multiplex) discharge at a low rate (~0.4 amps) and
>> charge at only 14.0 volts, not really a peak charger, which should use
>> 14.6 at least.
>>
> snip
>
> More recently (5 years ago) I bought a Pro-Peak Prodigy II charger for
> cycling and measuring bigger batteries than my Vencon can handle (mine
> was built for accurate operation on smaller batteries), such as those
> used in electrically powered models. I currently use it at least once a
> year to cycle and check my SLAs and to charge the AA cells my camera
> uses. It has separate programs to deal with lead-acid, NiCd/NiMH and Li-
> poly batteries and is capable of charging up to 18 NiMH cells in series
> off a 12v DC supply: consequently I can run it off one SLA while its
> cycling another: I know that sounds like perpetual motion and ought not
> to work but it does, honest! It can charge and discharge at up to 5 amps:
> you set the charge and discharge currents before starting the run. It
> shows what's happening while running and beeps when the run is ended. You
> can read off the capacities before turning it off or starting another
> run.
>
The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for
one that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0,
and would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.

Maybe someone has another recommendation?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:04:35 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
> already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
> is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for
> one that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0,
> and would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.
>
That last sentence makes it unlikely that they are identical - the Pro-
Peak has a max. discharge rate of 1.0 A. I don't think I ever turned it
up that far, but I've certainly run discharges at 0.5A and know I could
have set it higher.

Its branded and distributed by Ripmax, a UK model supplies distributor,
but its almost certainly an OEM device. Sez on the box that it was made
in Korea but all addresses, etc. are in the UK.

> Maybe someone has another recommendation?
>
There are considerably better chargers on the market, but you'll pay the
difference. Ask your local friendly electric RC competition flyer if you
want that sort of kit or, if you can't find one, contacting the AMA,
http://www.modelaircraft.org/ and asking them for names might be useful.
Likely a better bet than talking to an RC sport flyer, anyway.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I have a Triton (first generation) multi-mode charger that will charge
NiCad, NiMH, LiPoly and SLA. It will cycle and record capacity and
both the charge and discharge rates can be adjusted.

In the US it is distributed by Great Planes hobby company. Their
products are carried in most hobby shops. The URL for the most
current version, Triton2 is here:

http://www.electrifly.com/chargers/gpmm3153.html

Most modelers use the same 8AH size SLA that are found in sailplanes
and this charger is used to keep them charged.

Mike

SoaringXCellence wrote:
> I have a Triton (first generation) multi-mode charger that will charge
> NiCad, NiMH, LiPoly and SLA. It will cycle and record capacity and
> both the charge and discharge rates can be adjusted.


I'll throw my 2 cents in. Ive been using the Accumate charger
(http://www.accumate.com/612/) for the last 9 years. Hook up the battery
and forget about it until you need it. I cycle though 2 batteries -
bring a fresh one to the field, return with the other to recharge.

What I would like is an effective way to measure battery capacity - that
doesn't cost more than the charger.

Tony "6N"

On 8/23/2010 3:43 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:04:35 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>> The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
>> already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
>> is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for
>> one that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0,
>> and would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.
>>
>>
> That last sentence makes it unlikely that they are identical - the Pro-
> Peak has a max. discharge rate of 1.0 A. I don't think I ever turned it
> up that far, but I've certainly run discharges at 0.5A and know I could
> have set it higher.
>
The Multiplex will discharge up to 1 amp, but it also has a 5 watt
discharge limit. At 12 volts, that means a current of 0.4 amps. I can
set it for a 1 amp discharge, but it won't exceed that 5 watt limit,
automatically using only a 0.4 amp discharge.

It would be great if the Pro-Peak can discharge 12 volt batteries at one
amp. Can you check your manual for the watt limit? Or try to discharge a
12 volt battery at 1 amp? If it will do the 1 amp, let it run for a
couple of hours to see if it survives. My interest in the discharge rate
comes from having 18 ah and 36 ah batteries in my motorglider, so a 0.4
amp discharge rate takes forever (two full days for just the 18 ah battery)!
> Its branded and distributed by Ripmax, a UK model supplies distributor,
> but its almost certainly an OEM device. Sez on the box that it was made
> in Korea but all addresses, etc. are in the UK.
>
They don't seem to offer it any more, and I can't find a manual for it,
so maybe it's moot. They do offer the Imax B5, which is functionally
identical to the Multiplex, so it's not any help.

About a year ago, I did do some searching and asking around about 12 vdc
input chargers, but the units I found were expensive (>$200) and
complicated, not the kind of thing I'd recommend to average pilot who
just wants to charge and test his batteries, not develop a new hobby!

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/23/2010 5:04 PM, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> I have a Triton (first generation) multi-mode charger that will charge
> NiCad, NiMH, LiPoly and SLA. It will cycle and record capacity and
> both the charge and discharge rates can be adjusted.
>
> In the US it is distributed by Great Planes hobby company. Their
> products are carried in most hobby shops. The URL for the most
> current version, Triton2 is here:
>
> http://www.electrifly.com/chargers/gpmm3153.html
>
This looks like a better choice to me than the Multiplex, based on it's
20 watt/1.6 amp@12volt discharge capability. The only quibble so far
seems to be the 90 ma shut-off point is rather low for my 18 and 36 ah
batteries, but the shut-off timer might be adequate instead.

Do you know what voltage it uses to charge a 12 volt battery? The manual
didn't seem to specify the voltage.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/23/2010 5:38 PM, Tony V wrote:
>
> What I would like is an effective way to measure battery capacity -
> that doesn't cost more than the charger.
I like the CBA for discharge tests (westmountainradio.com), but it's
$150 price may be too high if you don't want to be a battery geek. The
Triton2 that SoaringXcellence suggested would do a good job, and it's
only $100 from Tower Hobbies. The Multiplex LN5014 is $75 from Tower,
good if the 0.4 amp discharge rate is OK for you.

The CBA is discharge testing only, but the other two will also
charge/discharge four types of batteries. They are powered from from a
12 volt source, like a battery or an AC input, 12 volt DC output supply.
There may be cheaper discharge testing units, but I don't know of any.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Aug 23, 5:38*pm, Tony V > wrote:

> What I would like is an effective way to measure battery capacity - that
> doesn't cost more than the charger.

My experience says that's a waste of time and money. About 20 years
ago I invested a lot of time in measuring SLA discharge
characteristics in the hope I could predict the failure of the glider
battery. What I found was that most failures were caused by one cell
going bad and that it was not predictable. The battery keeps looking
good with only a slow decay in capacity until the flight where one
cell goes bad and there is very obvious fall off in performance.

Maybe measurement techniques are better now. I loaded the batteries
to sink about 1 amp and continuously sampled voltage and current using
the game port of my Beeb computer. The software stored off the values
and plotted the results in real time All the results were saved to a
data file and periodic testing and comparison of the discharge plots
showed how the battery was holding up. Despite all the data I was
never able to to predict the cell failure that rendered the battery
useless.

My solution was to buy a new glider that had room for 2 batteries.

Andy (GY)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:04:39 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> The Multiplex will discharge up to 1 amp, but it also has a 5 watt
> discharge limit. At 12 volts, that means a current of 0.4 amps. I can
> set it for a 1 amp discharge, but it won't exceed that 5 watt limit,
> automatically using only a 0.4 amp discharge.
>
Reversing myself - I think the Pro-Peak is functionally identical and
probably the same OEM kit as the Multiplex. I just started a discharge of
a 12v SLA at 1v. When I started the run it immediately dropped the rate
to 0.39A and now, 22mAh later its running at 0.4A and 12.6V.

Just to see if we're talking about the same machine, mine is:
- a rectangluar metal box 110 x 76 x 25 mm
- ventilating slots on the left front edge and the right rear edge,
front of the left edge and rear of the right edge
- power inlet cable through a grommet on the left side
- outlet is two banana plugs on the right side
- two line yellow backlit LCD display center rear of the top surface
- four push buttons center front of the top surface labelled
Batt type, dec, inc, enter/start/stop

> It would be great if the Pro-Peak can discharge 12 volt batteries at one
> amp. Can you check your manual for the watt limit?
>
Blasted manual doesn't mention a 5 watt limit or anything about limiting
the discharge rate it 5 watts.
>
> They don't seem to offer it any more, and I can't find a manual for it,
> so maybe it's moot. They do offer the Imax B5, which is functionally
> identical to the Multiplex, so it's not any help.
>
I'd have said the Pro-Peak Gallant is the replacement to to Prodigy II
and that the IMAX B5 is the same OEM guts in a different case.

If I was after a new charger or an small upgrade for the Prodigy II, I'd
probably be following SoaringXcellence's advice and going for the
Triton2. I see that Tower Hobbies and Amazon are both selling it for
$99.98 or thereabouts.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote

> The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
> already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
> is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for one
> that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0, and
> would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.
>
> Maybe someone has another recommendation?

MMmmmm. I am not so sure why you would want to go for more charge voltage.
From what I read, that higher voltage is very harmful to SLA batteries.
Same reading says not to use a charger meant for car batteries (flooded lead
acid) because of the higher voltage hurting the sealed versions.

I have never used a multi stage charger. I only use a small float charger,
which I normally charge and leave on floating for 3 or so days, then remove
it until a month later, then charge with the float charger again for one
day.

The thing I have found that kills SLA quicker than crap, is leaving them
sitting around in a low charge state. That, and do not use an adapter or
jumpers to charge it from a running car electrical system. I once destroyed
a battery in one weekend, using that idea. After that, I read about the
higher charge being a "bad thing" and now I believe it.
--
Jim in NC

"Tony V" > wrote in message
...
> SoaringXCellence wrote:
>> I have a Triton (first generation) multi-mode charger that will charge
>> NiCad, NiMH, LiPoly and SLA. It will cycle and record capacity and
>> both the charge and discharge rates can be adjusted.
>
>
> I'll throw my 2 cents in. Ive been using the Accumate charger
> (http://www.accumate.com/612/) for the last 9 years. Hook up the battery
> and forget about it until you need it. I cycle though 2 batteries - bring
> a fresh one to the field, return with the other to recharge.
>
> What I would like is an effective way to measure battery capacity - that
> doesn't cost more than the charger.

Here is a very cheap, low tec solution. Make a jumper to tie into your
battery, that has a regular car taillight bulb soldered into the circuit.
Hook it to your battery and measure (inline, of course) the amperage
discharge with a volt ohm meter. Use that reading as the discharge rate,
and hook up the setup while you are sitting around, and take a voltage
reading every 10 minutes, and graph the voltage, time along the horizontal,
and voltage on the vertical. You will see the voltage take a quick nose
dive, at some point. The last reading along your graph before it dives is
you time value you use to figure the capacity. Use some math to figure the
capacity. Like if the drain was one amp, it should take 7 hours to
discharge a 7 amp hour battery.
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 24, 4:11*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote
>
> > The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
> > already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
> > is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for one
> > that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0, and
> > would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.
>
> > Maybe someone has another recommendation?
>
> *MMmmmm. *I am not so sure why you would want to go for more charge voltage.
> From what I read, that higher voltage is very harmful to SLA batteries.
> Same reading says not to use a charger meant for car batteries (flooded lead
> acid) because of the higher voltage hurting the sealed versions.
>
> I have never used a multi stage charger. *I only use a small float charger,
> which I normally charge and leave on floating for 3 or so days, then remove
> it until a month later, then charge with the float charger again for one
> day.
>
> The thing I have found that kills SLA quicker than crap, is leaving them
> sitting around in a low charge state. *That, and do not use an adapter or
> jumpers to charge it from a running car electrical system. *I once destroyed
> a battery in one weekend, using that idea. *After that, I read about the
> higher charge being a "bad thing" and now I believe it.
> --
> Jim in NC

High flat voltage is a bad thing. The right voltage during absorption
charge mode (which Eric is talking about) helps charge the battery in
a minimal time and is not bad - it is the recommended process for
these batteries.

Darryl

On 8/24/2010 4:11 PM, Morgans wrote:
> "Eric > wrote
>
>
>> The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
>> already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
>> is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for one
>> that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0, and
>> would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.
>>
>> Maybe someone has another recommendation?
>>
> MMmmmm. I am not so sure why you would want to go for more charge voltage.
> From what I read, that higher voltage is very harmful to SLA batteries.
> Same reading says not to use a charger meant for car batteries (flooded lead
> acid) because of the higher voltage hurting the sealed versions.
>
Our SLA battery specifications for cyclic charging (the way we use our
glider batteries) typically call for about 14.7 volts that's held until
the current drops to a few percent of the rated capacity. At that point,
the voltage should be dropped to about 13.6 volts, or the charger
removed. It ensures the quickest full charge and maximum battery life.
Flooded batteries usually require a lower voltage for the same
conditions. Older style car chargers tended to overcharge, which the
flooded batteries tolerate well (the water just got lower), but not the
SLAs, and that's likely the reason for the prohibition you read.
> I have never used a multi stage charger. I only use a small float charger,
> which I normally charge and leave on floating for 3 or so days, then remove
> it until a month later, then charge with the float charger again for one
> day.
>
Your system is fine, but a 3 stage charger matched to your battery will
do the job quicker. It sounds like you don't need that, but pilots that
fly several days in a row have to use something faster than a float
charger, and a multi-stage charger does the job. Or, they have to have
several batteries on charge so they can put a fully charged one in the
glider each day.
> The thing I have found that kills SLA quicker than crap, is leaving them
> sitting around in a low charge state.
This is poor practice for any lead-acid battery, but the SLAs are
generally relatively tolerant of it, if you have a good charger. By
"tolerant", I mean you can let it sit for a few weeks ocasionally,
mostly discharged, and it won't affect the life noticeably. A float
charger may not have enough voltage to remove the sulphation that occurs
when sitting around with a low charge, and that is one reason prefer the
~14.7 volt charge.
> That, and do not use an adapter or
> jumpers to charge it from a running car electrical system. I once destroyed
> a battery in one weekend, using that idea. After that, I read about the
> higher charge being a "bad thing" and now I believe it.
>
The car charge regulator is under the hood, adjusting the charge voltage
for the temperatures there (and for a flooded battery with it's lower
voltage requirement), and it might not actually produce enough voltage
to fully charge an SLA that's sitting outside the engine compartment in
cooler temperatures. I suspect your battery had undercharge problems,
not overcharge.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Monday, August 9, 2010 at 12:37:52 PM UTC-4, Grider Pirate wrote:
> There was quite a thread storm 11 months ago here about the TT21
> transponder. I assume some of the 'early adopters' here purchased and
> installed one. Any complaints??

I have a HUGE complaint. When I bought my TT21 it was advertised as "ADS-B out ready", met the TSO's, etc. I paid aroundd $2500 for it.

I have been researching adding the GPS WAAS stuff (also Trig - TN70, I believe) to now find out the TT21 does not meet the US standards.

The 2017 (and previous) Spruce catalog says the TT21 is for sport aircraft, meets the standards, etc. Now in the 2018 catalog they added in bold print "DOES NOT MEET USA STANDARDS."

They tell me that the TT21 can be upgraded to TT22 by MidAmerica Avionics- for an ADDITIONAL $900.

I'll never buy a Trig product again.

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:09:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:

> The 2017 (and previous) Spruce catalog says the TT21 is for sport aircraft, meets the standards, etc. Now in the 2018 catalog they added in bold print "DOES NOT MEET USA STANDARDS."

Don't jump to conclusions. You're overlooking a lot of relevant information. Read some of the more recent RAS threads about ADSB TABS Trig etc..

The TT21 implementing TABS looks just like ADSB-Out to ATC and any plane running ADSB-in and so it works just fine for many glider pilots, maybe not everywhere for all glider pilots... it depends.

Don't ask for clarification in this old thread. Go read the more recent threads first.

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 7:33:29 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:09:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > The 2017 (and previous) Spruce catalog says the TT21 is for sport aircraft, meets the standards, etc. Now in the 2018 catalog they added in bold print "DOES NOT MEET USA STANDARDS."
>
> Don't jump to conclusions. You're overlooking a lot of relevant information. Read some of the more recent RAS threads about ADSB TABS Trig etc..
>
> The TT21 implementing TABS looks just like ADSB-Out to ATC and any plane running ADSB-in and so it works just fine for many glider pilots, maybe not everywhere for all glider pilots... it depends.
>
> Don't ask for clarification in this old thread. Go read the more recent threads first.

Yes, this has been discussed in detail on r.a.s. for a few years now and I'd hope was old news.

Just one point: TABS per-se is likely not visible to ATC, it is not in current deployments of ATC approach/TRACON systems I'm aware of and it's best to assume its not visible. This is at least consistent with the idea that TABS does not give ADS-B Out required airspace privileges. And on the flip side, a TT21 or TT22 transponder with a TN72 TABS GPS Source added to it *is* visible to ATC within plain old SSR coverage... thats still not going to help for any ADS-B Out required airspace flight after January 1, 2020 (Which for gliders with the partial exemption is: Class A, B, C, and above B, and C up to 10,000').

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 4:09:09 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> Just one point: TABS per-se is likely not visible to ATC, it is not in current deployments of ATC approach/TRACON systems I'm aware of and it's best to assume its not visible. <

I asked Trig tech support this question:

"Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator, aka SIL = 1 ?"

They replied:

"The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22.
Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance."

"The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx"

I interpreted this to mean that, a TT21 + TN72 (TABS)
looks exactly the same to ATC as a TT22 + TN70

I understand that TT21 + TN72 (TABS) does not satisfy 2020 ADS-B compliance, but I can be flying in Class E and be visible to ATC and other aircraft equipped with ADS-B In, exactly the same as an aircraft with 2020 ADS-B compliance.

I apologize if this muddies the water.