Mandatory Radios

[JJ Sinclair]

The majority of clubs and FBO's in Region 11 have gone to a mandatory
radio policy after the recent midair where the tow plane and glider
collided turning final. The tow plane was not radio equipped and
therefore didn't know (hear) that the glider was turning final from
the other direction. That makes 4 fatalities in this region caused by
lack of communication between the tow pilot and glider!

Several clubs are using hand-held radios for ships that don't have
radios. I flew last Sunday with a hand-held radio and it took some
getting use to. First off, where do you put it so you can hear the
speaker? Also, I found transmitting combersome................pick it
up with left hand, turn the mike toward you and squeeze key while
flying with right hand. Then I clipped it to the right side of my
collar using the big spring clip on the radio. That worked well as it
was clase enough to hear and simply rotate and press the mike button
to transmit. I believe students would need some guidance like this to
be able to make the required radio calls using a hand-held radio. It
looks like most tow pilots are using helmets with head-sets so they
can hear their radios. Also, a com-check before takeoff is essential
to make sure both radios are on and working, volume up, squelch set
and on the correct frequency. I used the $200 ICOM from Wings & Wheels
and found it quite satisfactory.

We can survive a lot of things in this sport, but running into each
other isn't one of them!
JJ

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 5, 9:16*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> The majority of clubs and FBO's in Region 11 have gone to a mandatory
> radio policy after the recent midair where the tow plane and glider
> collided turning final. The tow plane was not radio equipped and
> therefore didn't know (hear) that the glider was turning final from
> the other direction. That makes 4 fatalities in this region caused by
> lack of communication between the tow pilot and glider!
>
> Several clubs are using hand-held radios for ships that don't have
> radios. I flew last Sunday with a hand-held radio and it took some
> getting use to. First off, where do you put it so you can hear the
> speaker? Also, I found transmitting combersome................pick it
> up with left hand, turn the mike toward you and squeeze key while
> flying with right hand. Then I clipped it to the right side of my
> collar using the big spring clip on the radio. That worked well as it
> was clase enough to hear and simply rotate and press the mike button
> to transmit. I believe students would need some guidance like this to
> be able to make the required radio calls using a hand-held radio. It
> looks like most tow pilots are using helmets with head-sets so they
> can hear their radios. Also, a com-check before takeoff is essential
> to make sure both radios are on and working, volume up, squelch set
> and on the correct frequency. I used the $200 ICOM from Wings & Wheels
> and found it quite satisfactory.
>
> We can survive a lot of things in this sport, but running into each
> other isn't one of them!
> JJ

When I flew with a handheld I had it set up so I could plug a little
Plantronics earpiece/mic into it. It just clipped onto my glasses. I
also set up a little PTT switch for my stick. Of course this was more
of a permanent install than having a club member carry a handheld in
the club glider with them. I found it much less cumbersome. A loose
radio in the cockpit is not just an annoyance but could be a major
safety issue itself. All that said I'm much happier with my panel
mounted Microair 760, but thats a little more money than the handheld
cost me.

[vontresc]

On Feb 5, 9:21*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:16*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The majority of clubs and FBO's in Region 11 have gone to a mandatory
> > radio policy after the recent midair where the tow plane and glider
> > collided turning final. The tow plane was not radio equipped and
> > therefore didn't know (hear) that the glider was turning final from
> > the other direction. That makes 4 fatalities in this region caused by
> > lack of communication between the tow pilot and glider!
>
> > Several clubs are using hand-held radios for ships that don't have
> > radios. I flew last Sunday with a hand-held radio and it took some
> > getting use to. First off, where do you put it so you can hear the
> > speaker? Also, I found transmitting combersome................pick it
> > up with left hand, turn the mike toward you and squeeze key while
> > flying with right hand. Then I clipped it to the right side of my
> > collar using the big spring clip on the radio. That worked well as it
> > was clase enough to hear and simply rotate and press the mike button
> > to transmit. I believe students would need some guidance like this to
> > be able to make the required radio calls using a hand-held radio. It
> > looks like most tow pilots are using helmets with head-sets so they
> > can hear their radios. Also, a com-check before takeoff is essential
> > to make sure both radios are on and working, volume up, squelch set
> > and on the correct frequency. I used the $200 ICOM from Wings & Wheels
> > and found it quite satisfactory.
>
> > We can survive a lot of things in this sport, but running into each
> > other isn't one of them!
> > JJ
>
> When I flew with a handheld I had it set up so I could plug a little
> Plantronics earpiece/mic into it. It just clipped onto my glasses. *I
> also set up a little PTT switch for my stick. *Of course this was more
> of a permanent install than having a club member carry a handheld in
> the club glider with them. *I found it much less cumbersome. *A loose
> radio in the cockpit is not just an annoyance but could be a major
> safety issue itself. *All that said I'm much happier with my panel
> mounted Microair 760, but thats a little more money than the handheld
> cost me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As Tony says a remote mic/speaker on a handheld makes them much easier
to use. I personally have an old Icom A-22. I first used it in the
2-33 without the remote mic, and it was a pain to use during landings.
In order to hear properly I clipped it on the shoulder harness, and
all that bulk was uncomfortable. With the remote speaker/mic you can
just clip the little extender to your collar (just like the cops), and
secure the radio in a much more convenient location.

http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/sep/5499

The handheld is still not as nice as a panel mounted radio, but in my
opinion it is a vital safety tool.

Pete

[vaughn[_2_]]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> First off, where do you put it so you can hear the
> speaker? Also, I found transmitting combersome................pick it
> up with left hand, turn the mike toward you and squeeze key while
> flying with right hand. Then I clipped it to the right side of my
> collar using the big spring clip on the radio. That worked well as it
> was clase enough to hear and simply rotate and press the mike button
> to transmit.

I simply wear mine around my neck on a breakaway lanyard. I can hear it fine,
it is always handy for either hand, and never adrift.

Vaughn

[Todd]

Just a reminder to all those handhelds floating around you cockpit to
have them is a SAFE and SECURE location

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20080606X00809&key=1

Accident occurred Saturday, May 10, 2008 in Gregory, MI
Aircraft: Schleicher AS-K13, registration: N24BS
Injuries: 1 Serious.

The glider pilot reported that before hooking-up to the tow plane he
reviewed the preflight checklist and verified that the flight controls
were connected and unobstructed. The initial takeoff roll was normal
with the glider becoming airborne prior to the tow plane. The glider
pilot applied forward stick pressure to remain in ground effect and in
proper position relative to the tow plane, which was still
accelerating on its takeoff roll. After the tow plane became airborne
the glider began to climb above proper tow position. The glider pilot
stated that he "could not push the stick all the way forward to lower
the nose" and the glider continued to climb out of tow position. The
glider pilot released from the towline when he no longer had the tow
plane in sight. After releasing from the towline, the glider resumed a
level pitch attitude and began to decelerate. The pilot selected full
nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control. The glider
continued to decelerate and subsequently landed hard on the turf
runway. The main landing gear and aft fuselage tubular support
structure was substantially damaged during the hard landing. Both
wingtips were damaged and there were several fabric tears on the left
wing and fuselage. After exiting the glider, the pilot found his
handheld communication radio on the cockpit floor. The pilot said that
during takeoff the radio must have fallen off his seat onto the
cockpit floor, restricting the movement of the control stick. The
pilot reported that the accident might have been prevented if the
glider had a method to secure a handheld radio and the preflight
checklists included a task to identify if there were any unrestrained
items in the cockpit area.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to adequately secure his handheld radio prior to
takeoff, which resulted in a restriction of the flight control stick
and loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the stall/mush
flight condition encountered after the glider released from the
towline.

[Bart[_4_]]

On Feb 5, 10:42 am, Todd > wrote:

> the glider began to climb above proper tow position. The glider pilot
> stated that he "could not push the stick all the way forward to lower
> the nose"

<snip>

> The pilot selected full nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control.

This is off-topic, but... he did the exact opposite of what should
have been done, didn't he?

Bart

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

Yep.

If you have a trim tab, remember: "elevator disconnected - use trim
normally. elevator frozen - use trim backwards."
I haven't thought of a good mnemonic for this, however.

If you don't have a trim tab, never mind.

-Pat


> > The pilot selected full nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control.
>
> This is off-topic, but... he did the exact opposite of what should
> have been done, didn't he?
>
> Bart

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 5, 11:34*am, Pat Russell > wrote:
> Yep.
>
> If you have a trim tab, remember: *"elevator disconnected - use trim
> normally. *elevator frozen - use trim backwards."
> I haven't thought of a good mnemonic for this, however.
>
> If you don't have a trim tab, never mind.
>
> -Pat
>
>
>
> > > The pilot selected full nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control.
>
> > This is off-topic, but... he did the exact opposite of what should
> > have been done, didn't he?
>
> > Bart

trim TAB, not to be confused with spring or bungee trim?

Brad

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Feb 5, 12:39*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:34*am, Pat Russell > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yep.
>
> > If you have a trim tab, remember: *"elevator disconnected - use trim
> > normally. *elevator frozen - use trim backwards."
> > I haven't thought of a good mnemonic for this, however.
>
> > If you don't have a trim tab, never mind.
>
> > -Pat
>
> > > > The pilot selected full nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control.
>
> > > This is off-topic, but... he did the exact opposite of what should
> > > have been done, didn't he?
>
> > > Bart
>
> trim TAB, not to be confused with spring or bungee trim?
>
> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Absolutely. Spring or Bungee will do NOTHING if the stick is stuck.
Trim tab will act as a tiny elevator working OPPOSITE from the trim
function if the stick is stuck. The Twin Astir runs out of elevator in
a steep turn with max pilots weight. You can get significantly more
up elevator by pushing the trim FORWARD.

[lanebush]

On Feb 5, 5:31*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:39*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 11:34*am, Pat Russell > wrote:
>
> > > Yep.
>
> > > If you have a trim tab, remember: *"elevator disconnected - use trim
> > > normally. *elevator frozen - use trim backwards."
> > > I haven't thought of a good mnemonic for this, however.
>
> > > If you don't have a trim tab, never mind.
>
> > > -Pat
>
> > > > > The pilot selected full nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control.
>
> > > > This is off-topic, but... he did the exact opposite of what should
> > > > have been done, didn't he?
>
> > > > Bart
>
> > trim TAB, not to be confused with spring or bungee trim?
>
> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Absolutely. *Spring or Bungee will do NOTHING if the stick is stuck.
> Trim tab will act as a tiny elevator working OPPOSITE from the trim
> function if the stick is stuck. The Twin Astir runs out of elevator in
> a steep turn with max pilots weight. *You can get significantly more
> up elevator by pushing the trim FORWARD.

Getting back on topic. I have a vertex and experienced the same
frustrations. My wife gave me the remote mic/speaker and it freed up
my hands tremendously.

Lane

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/5/2010 6:02 PM, lanebush wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:31 pm, Uncle > wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 12:39 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 11:34 am, Pat > wrote:
>>
>>>> Yep.
>>
>>>> If you have a trim tab, remember: "elevator disconnected - use trim
>>>> normally. elevator frozen - use trim backwards."
>>>> I haven't thought of a good mnemonic for this, however.
>>
>>>> If you don't have a trim tab, never mind.
>>
>>>> -Pat
>>
>>>>>> The pilot selected full nose down trim, in response to his limited pitch control.
>>
>>>>> This is off-topic, but... he did the exact opposite of what should
>>>>> have been done, didn't he?
>>
>>>>> Bart
>>
>>> trim TAB, not to be confused with spring or bungee trim?
>>
>>> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Absolutely. Spring or Bungee will do NOTHING if the stick is stuck.
>> Trim tab will act as a tiny elevator working OPPOSITE from the trim
>> function if the stick is stuck. The Twin Astir runs out of elevator in
>> a steep turn with max pilots weight. You can get significantly more
>> up elevator by pushing the trim FORWARD.
>
> Getting back on topic. I have a vertex and experienced the same
> frustrations. My wife gave me the remote mic/speaker and it freed up
> my hands tremendously.
>
> Lane
Could those of you who have solved this problem with remote mic /
speakers, headsets, etc. post the model numbers or detailed descriptions
of what you use and how you like it, so that the rest of us have some
idea of what we should buy?

Thanks,
Mike Schumann

--
Mike Schumann

[BT[_3_]]

Mandating radios leads to a false sense of security.
If I don't hear someone, no one must be there.

We train people that RADIOS FAIL or get "stepped on" by other transmissions.
Do not rely solely or trust radios.
Batteries can fail or loose charge.

We encourage the use of radio's in all of our equipment.
We fly from a fairly busy uncontrolled GA airport with two parallel runways.
Glider traffic on one side and power (other than tow) on the other.

We only have 1 club glider that does not have an "installed" radio.
People use a club or personal handheld in that glider.
My personal ICOM has a "speaker/mic" that plugs into the headset plugs and I
attach the speaker/mic to the shoulder harness.

The accident tow plane not having a radio can be considered a "contributing
factor", but it is not the underlying cause.
The high wind situation in the accident can be considered a "contributing
factor", but it is not the underlying cause.
The accident glider on a "non-standard" traffic pattern can be considered a
"contributing factor", but it is not the underlying cause.

Both pilots failed in the #1 responsibility during VMC flight, to SEE and
AVOID.

BT

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> The majority of clubs and FBO's in Region 11 have gone to a mandatory
> radio policy after the recent midair where the tow plane and glider
> collided turning final. The tow plane was not radio equipped and
> therefore didn't know (hear) that the glider was turning final from
> the other direction. That makes 4 fatalities in this region caused by
> lack of communication between the tow pilot and glider!
>
> Several clubs are using hand-held radios for ships that don't have
> radios. I flew last Sunday with a hand-held radio and it took some
> getting use to. First off, where do you put it so you can hear the
> speaker? Also, I found transmitting combersome................pick it
> up with left hand, turn the mike toward you and squeeze key while
> flying with right hand. Then I clipped it to the right side of my
> collar using the big spring clip on the radio. That worked well as it
> was clase enough to hear and simply rotate and press the mike button
> to transmit. I believe students would need some guidance like this to
> be able to make the required radio calls using a hand-held radio. It
> looks like most tow pilots are using helmets with head-sets so they
> can hear their radios. Also, a com-check before takeoff is essential
> to make sure both radios are on and working, volume up, squelch set
> and on the correct frequency. I used the $200 ICOM from Wings & Wheels
> and found it quite satisfactory.
>
> We can survive a lot of things in this sport, but running into each
> other isn't one of them!
> JJ

[Brian[_1_]]

I use an older Icom A-3 with the speaker mike. I would think any of
the Icom products with the matching Icom speaker mike would work well.
Not as good as installed system but certainly adequate for training
gliders.
I will admit the Icom Speaker mikes are a bit spendy but worth it IMO.

Brian



>
> Could those of you who have solved this problem with remote mic /
> speakers, headsets, etc. post the model numbers or detailed descriptions
> of what you use and how you like it, so that the rest of us have some
> idea of what we should buy?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Schumann
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Adam]

On Feb 5, 9:05*pm, Brian > wrote:
> I use an older Icom A-3 with the speaker mike. I would think any of
> the Icom products with the matching Icom speaker mike would work well.
> Not as good as installed system but certainly adequate for training
> gliders.
> I will admit the Icom Speaker mikes are a bit spendy but worth it IMO.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> > Could those of you who have solved this problem with remote mic /
> > speakers, headsets, etc. post the model numbers or detailed descriptions
> > of what you use and how you like it, so that the rest of us have some
> > idea of what we should buy?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Mike Schumann
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Mike,

I use a Radio Shack speaker mic into a Delcom 960 that is panel
mounted with a ruvver duck antenna. Two years ago I replaced the very
dead 600 mah nicads with modern 2200 mah nimh batteries in the old
battery housing - they last two flying days be fore recharging. I
charge with a Triton R/C charger. This mod cost $10 using batteries
sourced from Ebay.

The mic works great and priced under $20. The jack plugs right in to
the Delcom and is the type with both male plugs molded into one
connector. I clip it to my harness. Not sure if RS still carries it.
Try here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0035Y9JBY/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1265433896&sr=8-1&condition=all

/Adam

[JJ Sinclair]

On Feb 5, 6:45*pm, "BT" > wrote:
> Mandating radios leads to a false sense of security.
> If I don't hear someone, no one must be there.
>
> We train people that RADIOS FAIL or get "stepped on" by other transmissions.
> Do not rely solely or trust radios.
> Batteries can fail or loose charge.
>
> We encourage the use of radio's in all of our equipment.
> We fly from a fairly busy uncontrolled GA airport with two parallel runways.
> Glider traffic on one side and power (other than tow) on the other.
>
> We only have 1 club glider that does not have an "installed" radio.
> People use a club or personal handheld in that glider.
> My personal ICOM has a "speaker/mic" that plugs into the headset plugs and I
> attach the speaker/mic to the shoulder harness.
>
> The accident tow plane not having a radio can be considered a "contributing
> factor", but it is not the underlying cause.
> The high wind situation in the accident can be considered a "contributing
> factor", but it is not the underlying cause.
> The accident glider on a "non-standard" traffic pattern can be considered a
> "contributing factor", but it is not the underlying cause.
>
> Both pilots failed in the #1 responsibility during VMC flight, to SEE and
> AVOID.
>
> BT
>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > The majority of clubs and FBO's in Region 11 have gone to a mandatory
> > radio policy after the recent midair where the tow plane and glider
> > collided turning final. The tow plane was not radio equipped and
> > therefore didn't know (hear) that the glider was turning final from
> > the other direction. That makes 4 fatalities in this region caused by
> > lack of communication between the tow pilot and glider!
>
> > Several clubs are using hand-held radios for ships that don't have
> > radios. I flew last Sunday with a hand-held radio and it took some
> > getting use to. First off, where do you put it so you can hear the
> > speaker? Also, I found transmitting combersome................pick it
> > up with left hand, turn the mike toward you and squeeze key while
> > flying with right hand. Then I clipped it to the right side of my
> > collar using the big spring clip on the radio. That worked well as it
> > was clase enough to hear and simply rotate and press the mike button
> > to transmit. I believe students would need some guidance like this to
> > be able to make the required radio calls using a hand-held radio. It
> > looks like most tow pilots are using helmets with head-sets so they
> > can hear their radios. Also, a com-check before takeoff is essential
> > to make sure both radios are on and working, volume up, squelch set
> > and on the correct frequency. I used the $200 ICOM from Wings & Wheels
> > and found it quite satisfactory.
>
> > We can survive a lot of things in this sport, but running into each
> > other isn't one of them!
> > JJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The FAA and NTSB both acknowledge that "see and be seen" doesn't
always work, especially at higher speeds. In this case both pilots
attention was riveted on making a difficult landing in high winds with
a cross-wind component. Once they turned final each was in the others
blind spot as both aircraft were belly to belly. I believe this
accident would not have happened if either pilot knew the other was
attempting to land at the same time on the same
runway..........................................Al low me to restate my
position on mandatory radios: Four fatalities in region 11 could have
been prevented if the tow pilot and glider pilot had been in radio
contact.
JJ

[Bob]

A working radio should be required, at the least by the flying clubs.
Here in Germany most places I have flown require a radio check before
a launch. This is something I just can't get my mind around, not
having a working/mounted radio in every plane. And I don't think a
handheld meets this requirement unless it has a mounting in the plane,
therefore it wouldn't be a handheld.I don't want to be flying around
an airfield without pilots using proper (whatever that is) radio
verbage!

Flamesuit on!

Bob

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/6/2010 5:34 AM, Bob wrote:
> A working radio should be required, at the least by the flying clubs.
> Here in Germany most places I have flown require a radio check before
> a launch. This is something I just can't get my mind around, not
> having a working/mounted radio in every plane. And I don't think a
> handheld meets this requirement unless it has a mounting in the plane,
> therefore it wouldn't be a handheld.I don't want to be flying around
> an airfield without pilots using proper (whatever that is) radio
> verbage!
>
> Flamesuit on!
>
> Bob
This leads to the fundamental problem. We can buy handhelds for ~$200,
but a panel mount radio costs ~$1,000. If we could somehow get the
price of panel mount radios down to the handheld price, every glider in
the US would have one.

--
Mike Schumann

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:44:23 -0800, JJ Sinclair wrote:

> The FAA and NTSB both acknowledge that "see and be seen" doesn't always
> work, especially at higher speeds. In this case both pilots attention
> was riveted on making a difficult landing in high winds with a
> cross-wind component. Once they turned final each was in the others
> blind spot as both aircraft were belly to belly. I believe this accident
> would not have happened if either pilot knew the other was attempting to
> land at the same time on the same runway.
>
My club has never mandated circuit direction, but we do train ab initios
to look out for traffic on downwind on the other side of the run and
flying base leg in the opposite direction. AFAIK we've not had any in-
circuit accidents due to this factor.

We do now encourage radio use. Call to announce your intentions and where
you're coming from at 5km or so when returning after an xc task and again
on downwind after joining the circuit to announce your chosen run and
circuit direction.


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

[John Smith]

> This leads to the fundamental problem. We can buy handhelds for ~$200,
> but a panel mount radio costs ~$1,000. If we could somehow get the price
> of panel mount radios down to the handheld price, every glider in the US
> would have one.

I suspect this boils down to panel mount radios being TSOed and
handhelds being not.

[BT[_3_]]

JJ
I'll agree... to a point..
Radio's are good..
Radio's fail..
Mandating Radios may lead to a false sense of security.. Train otherwise
Radio gets blocked by another transmission..
Low battery.. you can hear but not transmit (glider).. and you don't know it
I would change "could have been prevented.." to "may have been prevented.."
There is no certainty.

My heart goes out to those involved.. we dodged the bullet on a mid air,
everyone survived.
It was not in the traffic pattern and a radio made no difference because not
being in the pattern, no broadcast were made.
BT

>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The FAA and NTSB both acknowledge that "see and be seen" doesn't
> always work, especially at higher speeds. In this case both pilots
> attention was riveted on making a difficult landing in high winds with
> a cross-wind component. Once they turned final each was in the others
> blind spot as both aircraft were belly to belly. I believe this
> accident would not have happened if either pilot knew the other was
> attempting to land at the same time on the same
> runway..........................................Al low me to restate my
> position on mandatory radios: Four fatalities in region 11 could have
> been prevented if the tow pilot and glider pilot had been in radio
> contact.
> JJ

[JJ Sinclair]

On Feb 6, 7:33*am, "BT" > wrote:
> JJ
> I'll agree... to a point..
> Radio's are good..
> Radio's fail..
> Mandating Radios may lead to a false sense of security.. Train otherwise
> Radio gets blocked by another transmission..
> Low battery.. you can hear but not transmit (glider).. and you don't know it
> I would change "could have been prevented.." to "may have been prevented..."
> There is no certainty.
>
> My heart goes out to those involved.. we dodged the bullet on a mid air,
> everyone survived.
> It was not in the traffic pattern and a radio made no difference because not
> being in the pattern, no broadcast were made.
> BT
>
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > The FAA and NTSB both acknowledge that "see and be seen" doesn't
> > always work, especially at higher speeds. In this case both pilots
> > attention was riveted on making a difficult landing in high winds with
> > a cross-wind component. Once they turned final each was in the others
> > blind spot as both aircraft were belly to belly. I believe this
> > accident would not have happened if either pilot knew the other was
> > attempting to land at the same time on the same
> > runway..........................................Al low me to restate my
> > position on mandatory radios: Four fatalities in region 11 could have
> > been prevented if the tow pilot and glider pilot had been in radio
> > contact.
> > JJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We are pretty much in agreement here BT, but I have just seen too many
accidents that should never have happened:

The G-103 at Minden that had a functioning radio but the battery
probably went dead after a morning of pattern tows. Spoilers came open
on takeoff and the tow pilot called "Spoilers Open"! When he got no
response he gave the signal (rudder wag) which was misunderstood by an
instructor (probably because it was now obvious that a bad situation
was developing). At any rate the sailplane released just after
clearing the wires at the end of 30, made a 180 with spoilers still
full open and flew into the afore mentioned wires! The student was
severly injured and the instructor died in the hospital from
complications of his injuries (pneumonia).

What would have prevented this accident? A com-check before every
takeoff.

Then there was the Genesis flying the first practice day of the
Standard Class Nationals at Minden. The rules called for all takeoffs
to be on 123.3, but the manager hadn't implemented that on the
practice day, so the line crew and tow pilots were on 122.8. The
Genesis driver didn't know this because he didn't go to the briefing.
The Genesis rolled about 100 feet when the elevator fell off because
the pilot hadn't secured the locking mechanism. Both line crew called
"release" on 122.8 but that message wasn't heard on a radio tuned to
123.3. After lifting off the Genesis went into low tow and was stable
enough to hang on and try to get baliout altitude. It is not known if
the pilot ever got the message that he was aviating sans an elevator,
at any rate the glider released at about 1000 feet and almost
completed an outside loop, but not quite!

What would have prevented this accident? A com-check before every
takeoff.

No, BT I think I'll stay with, "Would have prevented".

JJ Sinclair

[bildan]

On Feb 6, 8:33*am, "BT" > wrote:
> JJ
> I'll agree... to a point..
> Radio's are good..
> Radio's fail..
> Mandating Radios may lead to a false sense of security.

IMHO, this is false. Not having a radio receiving other glider
transmissions can lead to the unconscious assumption you are alone.

Hearing a glider transmit leads to a visual search for that glider
which may turn up NORDO gliders in addition to the one you are looking
for. Hearing radio transmissions is a constant reminder that there
are other gliders sharing the air with you. Radios increase
vigilance.

The problem with handhelds is not so much that they are a loose object
since it's not hard to secure them. It's that they don't perform as
well with their "rubber ducky" antenna as a good panel radio
installation.

On a related subject, cheap FRS (Family Radio Service) or GMRS "walkie-
talkies" work really well out to about 3 miles air-to-air. (Yeah, I
know the FCC rules) They're great for airfield ground ops and
"stealth" team flying without cluttering 123.3 & 123.5.

[Free Flight 107]

I completely agree with JJ, NO Radio Check, NO Fly, Period.

I personally refuse to fly at Warner Springs because they don't have
VHF air radios in their tow planes.
When thy equipe their tow planes with proper radios instead of the
stealth radios now used, I will consider flying there.

Four fatalities in Region 11 due to no comms is 4 too many.

Wayne

[John Smith]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
>> Mandating Radios may lead to a false sense of security..

BS. A radio gives you additional options, that's all. *Of course* you
bear always in your mind that somebody else's radio may be inop.

[2G]

On Feb 6, 10:59*am, John Smith > wrote:
> JJ Sinclair wrote:
> >> Mandating Radios may lead to a false sense of security..
>
> BS. A radio gives you additional options, that's all. *Of course* you
> bear always in your mind that somebody else's radio may be inop.

There is simply no excuse for flying without a radio. I don't care if
it is a handheld IF I can hear it. I once complained about the ultra-
lights at our field who did not have radios, after one nearly hit our
towplane with me on tow. They installed radios. I was doing a cross
country in a 152 at a different airport when the electrical system
malfunctioned. I could receive, but not transmit. So I decided to
follow another plane that was in the pattern. Incredibly, they stopped
and parked right on the active runway (the instructor was critiquing
the student's landing)! This forced me to do a go around, following
normal procedures. It was then I noticed I was right over the jumpers
drop zone. It turned out that the jump plane was NOT broadcasting on
the CTAF because they only had one operational radio, which they felt
had to stay on Seattle approach. A call to the FAA "convinced" them
that they COULD broadcast eminent jumps on the CTAF after all.

What this boils down to is that radios are one of the most effective
safety devices we have, right behind the standard Mark IV Eyeball. The
subject accident would have, in all likelihood, been prevented if the
towplane had a radio and used it. This is because both glider and
towplane would have been in radio contact PRIOR to the launch,
eliminating most of the reasons for failed radio communication (not
turned on, on the wrong frequency and the squelch turned up). Multiple
transmissions would have eliminated the remaining one; simultaneous
transmissions.


Tom

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 6, 3:22*pm, 2G > wrote:

> There is simply no excuse for flying without a radio...

I think that there is no excuse for always/never statements like that.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/6/2010 8:20 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> This leads to the fundamental problem. We can buy handhelds for ~$200,
>> but a panel mount radio costs ~$1,000. If we could somehow get the price
>> of panel mount radios down to the handheld price, every glider in the US
>> would have one.
>
> I suspect this boils down to panel mount radios being TSOed and
> handhelds being not.
Is that the real reason, or is it the smaller production volumes?

--
Mike Schumann

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 6, 9:49*am, bildan > wrote:

> On a related subject, cheap FRS (Family Radio Service) or GMRS "walkie-
> talkies" work really well out to about 3 miles air-to-air...

My experience is that FRS radios that say they're good for two miles
on the ground are good for about ten miles air-to-ground or twelve
miles air-to-air.

[JJ Sinclair]

Wayne wrote,
> I personally refuse to fly at Warner Springs because they don't have
> VHF air radios in their tow planes.
> When thy equipe their tow planes with proper radios instead of the
> stealth radios now used, I will consider flying there.
>
> Four fatalities in Region 11 due to no comms is 4 too many.
>
> Wayne

That's the answer Wayne, work with your club or FBO and try to get
them to adopt a NO-COM-CHECK-NO-TOW policy. If they refuse, find
another club or FBO. I lost my best friend in the recent tow plane/
glider mid-air and I have seen the shock, disbelief, heartache,
sadness, financial distress and morning up close and personal. This
sport is selfish enough, but the ultimate sefish act is to remove the
head of a household over something we can and must control.
JJ

[mike]

On Feb 6, 11:23*am, Free Flight 107 > wrote:
> I completely agree with JJ, NO Radio Check, NO Fly, Period.
>
> I personally refuse to fly at Warner Springs because they don't have
> VHF air radios in their tow planes.
> When thy equipe their tow planes with proper radios instead of the
> stealth radios now used, I will consider flying there.
>
> Four fatalities in Region 11 due to no comms is 4 too many.
>
Hi Wayne,

What is a stealth radio?

Mike

[RL]

What the proper use of radios does is to increase situational
awareness in and around a glider operation. On many occasions during
our operation you could close your eyes and just listen to the radio
transmissions with a full awareness of a departing tow plane, glider
traffic in the pattern, or the position of local non-glider traffic –
you can acquire the whole 3-D picture. Of course, as a pilot, you must
maintain an intense visual scan, but there is no doubt that the use of
radios in all gliders and tow planes has made our operation much safer
and more effective. In this day and age there is simply no excuse not
to have a radio on board gliders and towplanes; and the radios should
be used as a primary communications method.

Bob

[Free Flight 107]

On Feb 7, 8:49*am, mike > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:23*am, Free Flight 107 > wrote:> I completely agree with JJ, NO Radio Check, NO Fly, Period.
>
> > I personally refuse to fly at Warner Springs because they don't have
> > VHF air radios in their tow planes.
> > When thy equipe their tow planes with proper radios instead of the
> > stealth radios now used, I will consider flying there.
>
> > Four fatalities in Region 11 due to no comms is 4 too many.
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> What is a stealth radio?
>
> Mike

Mike, A stealth radio is one that only a few people have the use of,
and it's on a frequency/band that is unknow to others, a good example
is the radios used by construction crews, they just have A, B, C, D,
on their dials if any dial at all. All their radios are on a band
supplied by the manufacturer, Motorola for examp. It's like using an
FRS radio at contests to talk secrectly to one another.


Thank you JJ for your first hand view of what an accident can mean to
others on the ground and at home. Right now the families in Boulder CO
are in that state of shock, disbelief, anger, and sorrow over an
accident that should not have really happened in our modern, hi-tech
times.

The mid-air at Boulder CO, http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14348694 has
a comment by an airport person that notes that there were no radio
comms on the CTAF/UniCom for 5 minutes prior to the accident. My first
question is Did the tow plane and 2-32 have radios on-board? Did the
Cirrus have its radio on CTAF? This follows the observation of What
were the Cirrus and Tow plane doing in the same area?

Like Bob notes, if they are used properly, your situational awarness
is so much greater, and your safety margines go up accordingly. As
glider pilots we've never had proper radio protocol and instruction on
using them like power pilots do. A very sad state in my opinion. We
are now in the 21st century and there is no reason not to have a
proper radio in every aircraft flown in the world. As noted above,
when the Ultra Lites at one air port realised it could keep them from
being KILLED, they got the message.

When will everyone in the Glider comunity get the same message??

Wayne Walker

[Free Flight 107]

I just read the other two threads on the accident in Boulder. Please
disregard my question on radios in the glider and tow plane, it's
obvious they both had them and that the Cirrus R22 somehow wasn't
aware of their proximity in a very crowded and restricted airspace.

My sincerest condolences to everyone affected by this tragedy,
especially the pilots, staff and owners of MIle HIgh Soaring.

Wayne

[jcarlyle]

Radios are very helpful for increasing SA of what's in the pattern or
taking off, for those who are listening.

But what about the case of the random power pilot, who flies right
over the glider port at pattern altitude, not transmitting and not
listening on the gliderport's frequency? I know at least some aren't
listening - I've called them when I've been on field duty. This is,
unfortunately, a very common occurrence.

A PCAS might help. And of course there's <no> replacement for a good
visual scan - the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.

But sometimes it's all not enough...

-John

[vaughn[_2_]]

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
...
> Radios are very helpful for increasing SA of what's in the pattern or
> taking off, for those who are listening.

Agreed.
>
> But what about the case of the random power pilot, who flies right
> over the glider port at pattern altitude, not transmitting and not
> listening on the gliderport's frequency? I know at least some aren't
> listening - I've called them when I've been on field duty. This is,
> unfortunately, a very common occurrence.

Agreed again, but nothing is perfect, especially the Mark I eyeball! A radio
just serves as one more source of information for the pilot. How can that be
bad?

> A PCAS might help.

Agreed.

>And of course there's <no> replacement for a good visual scan

Who suggested otherwise?

> the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.

Respectfully disagree. They are potentially valuable sources of information for
the pilot. Either one can increase the pilot's SA and help him know of potential
hazards that are either in his blind spots, or possibly scanned and missed.
>
> But sometimes it's all not enough...

Unfortunately true. Us pilots need all the help we can get.

Vaughn

[jcarlyle]

Vaughn,

We're talking past one another. I fly with a radio, a transponder, and
a PCAS. I try my very best to do a good visual scan. But planes still
surprise me on occasion. I'm sure I'm not alone.

My point was that there are some power pilots who engage in unsafe
behavior, eg, flying over a gliderport (which is well marked on a
sectional) at pattern altitude, and not listening to the gliderport's
frequency. I'm not suggesting that the Cirrus pilot at Boulder was
doing this, I don't know anything about that tragic situation. I do
know that I've seen pattern alitude overflights multiple times at my
own gliderport, and the pilot was not listening to our frequency.

-John

On Feb 7, 4:53 pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "jcarlyle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Radios are very helpful for increasing SA of what's in the pattern or
> > taking off, for those who are listening.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> > But what about the case of the random power pilot, who flies right
> > over the glider port at pattern altitude, not transmitting and not
> > listening on the gliderport's frequency? I know at least some aren't
> > listening - I've called them when I've been on field duty. This is,
> > unfortunately, a very common occurrence.
>
> Agreed again, but nothing is perfect, especially the Mark I eyeball! A radio
> just serves as one more source of information for the pilot. How can that be
> bad?
>
> > A PCAS might help.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >And of course there's <no> replacement for a good visual scan
>
> Who suggested otherwise?
>
> > the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.
>
> Respectfully disagree. They are potentially valuable sources of information for
> the pilot. Either one can increase the pilot's SA and help him know of potential
> hazards that are either in his blind spots, or possibly scanned and missed.
>
>
>
> > But sometimes it's all not enough...
>
> Unfortunately true. Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>
> Vaughn

[Brian[_1_]]

So how may mid-airs have there been involving a glider where one
aircraft didn't have a radio?

[Eric Greenwell]

jcarlyle wrote:
> A PCAS might help. And of course there's <no> replacement for a good
> visual scan - the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.
The implication of the word "crutch" is a pilot with a good visual scan
can get along just fine without a radio. I think that is misleading,
because very few pilots can scan at such a high level they always see
all the traffic. Even the best scanners can miss a fast airplane coming
up behind them, not see one below them in the ground clutter, or get
tunnel vision when distracted by a situation.

And, I believe both the towplane and the glider should have a radio,
even if they are the only two aircraft within 20 miles of the field.
They are cheap to buy (cheaper now than ever before) and install, last a
long time, and are easy to use. It's hard to believe we're still having
this conversation.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bruce]

Until you use something like FLARM - you may preludedly think you have
good situational awareness. Personal experience and that of many other,
much more experienced than I. Initially I thought it was just evidence
of my poor scan - but national and world champions alike have made the
same comment - your mind filters things out to keep complexity down to
something it can handle. Problem is some of those things move and can
very quickly be somewhere other than where you fondly imagined them to be.

From a safety perspective I cannot see how anyone can justify flying
without at least a decent radio. A decent panel mount radio is 800-1300USD.

Monitoring the local general flying channel , it is remarkable how much
traffic you hear, but never see. 5km/3NM too far away to see but is only
maybe a minute for a fast turboprop.

I know multiple anecdotes do not make data but:
Having had the experience of being low, and a little marginal getting
into an airfield I did not know on an early XC. I made a reasonable
circuit and a nice safe landing. It was a completely unremarkable
"landout". Of course, I called joining overhead on the TIBA frequency (I
was disorganised enough to have failed to note the frequency for the
field before I took off.)The B200 I had not seen in the haze on its huge
downwind acknowledged, did an orbit and landed 2 minutes behind me. If I
had not made the call I would have been turning final in front of him,
in the ground clutter, with the sun behind him. That could have been
seriously interesting. Until I called, the 2 crew Comm pilots had not
seen me, despite me crossing in front of them within 200 feet of their
height.

My 2c - nothing substitutes for pilot attention - scan and situational
awareness cannot be replaced by technology.
that said you should do whatever you can to help the old brain.

The minimum technology in our current skies has to include a radio.
Adding FLARM to the gliding aircraft - tugs included is well worth it.
Adding PCAS / Mode-C would be perfect - but would exceed the value of my
glider - but maybe not the value of my life. (That depends on when you
ask the wife ;-) )

Cheers
Bruce

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> jcarlyle wrote:
>> A PCAS might help. And of course there's <no> replacement for a good
>> visual scan - the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.
> The implication of the word "crutch" is a pilot with a good visual scan
> can get along just fine without a radio. I think that is misleading,
> because very few pilots can scan at such a high level they always see
> all the traffic. Even the best scanners can miss a fast airplane coming
> up behind them, not see one below them in the ground clutter, or get
> tunnel vision when distracted by a situation.
>
> And, I believe both the towplane and the glider should have a radio,
> even if they are the only two aircraft within 20 miles of the field.
> They are cheap to buy (cheaper now than ever before) and install, last a
> long time, and are easy to use. It's hard to believe we're still having
> this conversation.
>

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

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/7/2010 5:54 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
> Vaughn,
>
> We're talking past one another. I fly with a radio, a transponder, and
> a PCAS. I try my very best to do a good visual scan. But planes still
> surprise me on occasion. I'm sure I'm not alone.
>
> My point was that there are some power pilots who engage in unsafe
> behavior, eg, flying over a gliderport (which is well marked on a
> sectional) at pattern altitude, and not listening to the gliderport's
> frequency. I'm not suggesting that the Cirrus pilot at Boulder was
> doing this, I don't know anything about that tragic situation. I do
> know that I've seen pattern alitude overflights multiple times at my
> own gliderport, and the pilot was not listening to our frequency.
>
> -John
>
> On Feb 7, 4:53 pm, >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Radios are very helpful for increasing SA of what's in the pattern or
>>> taking off, for those who are listening.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But what about the case of the random power pilot, who flies right
>>> over the glider port at pattern altitude, not transmitting and not
>>> listening on the gliderport's frequency? I know at least some aren't
>>> listening - I've called them when I've been on field duty. This is,
>>> unfortunately, a very common occurrence.
>>
>> Agreed again, but nothing is perfect, especially the Mark I eyeball! A radio
>> just serves as one more source of information for the pilot. How can that be
>> bad?
>>
>> > A PCAS might help.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> And of course there's<no> replacement for a good visual scan
>>
>> Who suggested otherwise?
>>
>> > the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.
>>
>> Respectfully disagree. They are potentially valuable sources of information for
>> the pilot. Either one can increase the pilot's SA and help him know of potential
>> hazards that are either in his blind spots, or possibly scanned and missed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But sometimes it's all not enough...
>>
>> Unfortunately true. Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
Even if you do everything right, you can still be surprised. A power
pilot could easily be monitoring the local CTAF frequencies on a cross
country only to unexpectedly encounter a glider who is talking on 123.3
(what power pilot would think of monitoring that???).

The only real solution is universal deployment of ADS-B on every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, UAVs, military aircraft, etc.
With that, if you attach your ADS-B transceiver to a GPS, you will see
everybody. No surprises. The technology exists for ADS-B transceivers
to be available for ~$1K. The only thing missing is the political will
in the FAA to permit this class of avionics to be certified for VFR use.
We need to make our voices heard that we need this NOW.

Mike Schumann

--
Mike Schumann

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/8/2010 4:28 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Until you use something like FLARM - you may preludedly think you have
> good situational awareness. Personal experience and that of many other,
> much more experienced than I. Initially I thought it was just evidence
> of my poor scan - but national and world champions alike have made the
> same comment - your mind filters things out to keep complexity down to
> something it can handle. Problem is some of those things move and can
> very quickly be somewhere other than where you fondly imagined them to be.
>
> From a safety perspective I cannot see how anyone can justify flying
> without at least a decent radio. A decent panel mount radio is 800-1300USD.
>
> Monitoring the local general flying channel , it is remarkable how much
> traffic you hear, but never see. 5km/3NM too far away to see but is only
> maybe a minute for a fast turboprop.
>
> I know multiple anecdotes do not make data but:
> Having had the experience of being low, and a little marginal getting
> into an airfield I did not know on an early XC. I made a reasonable
> circuit and a nice safe landing. It was a completely unremarkable
> "landout". Of course, I called joining overhead on the TIBA frequency (I
> was disorganised enough to have failed to note the frequency for the
> field before I took off.)The B200 I had not seen in the haze on its huge
> downwind acknowledged, did an orbit and landed 2 minutes behind me. If I
> had not made the call I would have been turning final in front of him,
> in the ground clutter, with the sun behind him. That could have been
> seriously interesting. Until I called, the 2 crew Comm pilots had not
> seen me, despite me crossing in front of them within 200 feet of their
> height.
>
> My 2c - nothing substitutes for pilot attention - scan and situational
> awareness cannot be replaced by technology.
> that said you should do whatever you can to help the old brain.
>
> The minimum technology in our current skies has to include a radio.
> Adding FLARM to the gliding aircraft - tugs included is well worth it.
> Adding PCAS / Mode-C would be perfect - but would exceed the value of my
> glider - but maybe not the value of my life. (That depends on when you
> ask the wife ;-) )
>
> Cheers
> Bruce
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> jcarlyle wrote:
>>> A PCAS might help. And of course there's <no> replacement for a good
>>> visual scan - the radio and the PCAS are crutches, nothing more.
>> The implication of the word "crutch" is a pilot with a good visual
>> scan can get along just fine without a radio. I think that is
>> misleading, because very few pilots can scan at such a high level they
>> always see all the traffic. Even the best scanners can miss a fast
>> airplane coming up behind them, not see one below them in the ground
>> clutter, or get tunnel vision when distracted by a situation.
>>
>> And, I believe both the towplane and the glider should have a radio,
>> even if they are the only two aircraft within 20 miles of the field.
>> They are cheap to buy (cheaper now than ever before) and install, last
>> a long time, and are easy to use. It's hard to believe we're still
>> having this conversation.
>>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
FLARM is NOT the answer in the US. What we need is low cost ADS-B
transceivers in the same price range as FLARM. That way we can see and
be seen by other aircraft in the US airspace system.

Low cost ADS-B technology exists TODAY and prototypes are flying. The
only thing missing is the political will in the FAA to prioritize the
establishment of certification standards so this equipment can be
commercialized for VFR applications.

Mike Schumann

--
Mike Schumann

[RL]

The use and development of position awareness (collision avoidance)
technology is a very beneficial adjunct to the eyeball. I have a PCAS
in my airplane and glider and I definitely see more traffic than I
would otherwise. But in the near-airport environment, where most
collisions occur, the effectiveness of detection devices diminishes
and the radio is still the most valuable SA device in the ship.
Additionally, a radio is much more effective than the traditional
soaring signals. You still need to use the appropriate soaring signals
– However, consider things like the controversial rudder waggle
(something is wrong with your glider), how much easier and more
accurate is it for the tow pilot to hit the PTT and say, “your
spoilers are open”. Or for the glider pilot to ask the tow pilot to
turn right 20 degrees and head for the big cloud, rather than trying
to drag the tow plane tail around using an old school maneuver.

As stated earlier, it’s 2010… hard to believe radios in gliders are
even a discussion topic.

Bob

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mike Schumann > wrote:

> FLARM is NOT the answer in the US. What we need is low cost ADS-B
> transceivers in the same price range as FLARM. That way we can see and
> be seen by other aircraft in the US airspace system.
>
> Low cost ADS-B technology exists TODAY and prototypes are flying. The
> only thing missing is the political will in the FAA to prioritize the
> establishment of certification standards so this equipment can be
> commercialized for VFR applications.

Has anybody mentioned PowerFLARM yet? Does FLARM, Mode-C/S, and ADS-B.
Supposedly available in the US in a couple of months. More info at
powerflarm.com.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>> But sometimes it's all not enough...
>>> Unfortunately true. Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>>>
>>> Vaughn
> Even if you do everything right, you can still be surprised. A power
> pilot could easily be monitoring the local CTAF frequencies on a cross
> country only to unexpectedly encounter a glider who is talking on
> 123.3 (what power pilot would think of monitoring that???).
>
> The only real solution is universal deployment of ADS-B on every
> aircraft, including gliders, balloons, UAVs, military aircraft, etc.
> With that, if you attach your ADS-B transceiver to a GPS, you will see
> everybody. No surprises. The technology exists for ADS-B
> transceivers to be available for ~$1K. The only thing missing is the
> political will in the FAA to permit this class of avionics to be
> certified for VFR use. We need to make our voices heard that we need
> this NOW.
I can't find good graphics showing current ADS-B coverage, or scheduled
coverage. Can someone point out a source? A talk at the convention said
the FAA is holding well to it's installation schedule, which was good to
hear.

The July 2009 graphic I found didn't show much coverage out West, and
surprisingly, none in Colorado, so I don't trust it much.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 11:30*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
> >>>> But sometimes it's all not enough...
> >>> Unfortunately true. *Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>
> >>> Vaughn
> > Even if you do everything right, you can still be surprised. *A power
> > pilot could easily be monitoring the local CTAF frequencies on a cross
> > country only to unexpectedly encounter a glider who is talking on
> > 123.3 (what power pilot would think of monitoring that???).
>
> > The only real solution is universal deployment of ADS-B on every
> > aircraft, including gliders, balloons, UAVs, military aircraft, etc.
> > With that, if you attach your ADS-B transceiver to a GPS, you will see
> > everybody. *No surprises. *The technology exists for ADS-B
> > transceivers to be available for ~$1K. *The only thing missing is the
> > political will in the FAA to permit this class of avionics to be
> > certified for VFR use. *We need to make our voices heard that we need
> > this NOW.
>
> I can't find good graphics showing current ADS-B coverage, or scheduled
> coverage. Can someone point out a source? A talk at the convention said
> the FAA is holding well to it's installation schedule, which was good to
> hear.
>
> The July 2009 graphic I found didn't show much coverage out West, and
> surprisingly, none in Colorado, so I don't trust it much.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What so you mean by "coverage"
I thought the beauty of ADS-B is that it is an "aircraft to aircraft"
based system, no ground "coverage" necessary.
The other beauty is that ADS-B is NOT radar based, it is GPS based, so
it works in remote areas, like ALASKA where it is considered very
successful in reducing mid air collisions.

Another feature is ADS-B is the "extended squitter" which basically
broadcasts your GPS loacation every second, whether you transponder
gets "interrogated" or not.

We recently installed a Garmin GDL 90 for a customer.........

The unit itself is huge, like two shoe boxes in size, and
heavy........costs around $8K......This is a "blind box".. It
requires additional hardware to display info, it also requires THREE
antennas..........then there is the installation cost,...it is not so
simple to install.......etc.


Cookie

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 9, 4:10*am, " >
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:30*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike Schumann wrote:
> > >>>> But sometimes it's all not enough...
> > >>> Unfortunately true. *Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>
> > >>> Vaughn
> > > Even if you do everything right, you can still be surprised. *A power
> > > pilot could easily be monitoring the local CTAF frequencies on a cross
> > > country only to unexpectedly encounter a glider who is talking on
> > > 123.3 (what power pilot would think of monitoring that???).
>
> > > The only real solution is universal deployment of ADS-B on every
> > > aircraft, including gliders, balloons, UAVs, military aircraft, etc.
> > > With that, if you attach your ADS-B transceiver to a GPS, you will see
> > > everybody. *No surprises. *The technology exists for ADS-B
> > > transceivers to be available for ~$1K. *The only thing missing is the
> > > political will in the FAA to permit this class of avionics to be
> > > certified for VFR use. *We need to make our voices heard that we need
> > > this NOW.
>
> > I can't find good graphics showing current ADS-B coverage, or scheduled
> > coverage. Can someone point out a source? A talk at the convention said
> > the FAA is holding well to it's installation schedule, which was good to
> > hear.
>
> > The July 2009 graphic I found didn't show much coverage out West, and
> > surprisingly, none in Colorado, so I don't trust it much.
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> > * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What so you mean by "coverage"
> I thought the beauty of ADS-B is that it is an "aircraft to aircraft"
> based system, no ground "coverage" necessary.
> The other beauty is that ADS-B is NOT radar based, it is GPS based, so
> it works in remote areas, like ALASKA where it is considered very
> successful in reducing mid air collisions.
>
> Another feature is ADS-B is the "extended squitter" which basically
> broadcasts your GPS loacation every second, whether you transponder
> gets "interrogated" or not.
>
> We recently installed a Garmin GDL 90 for a customer.........
>
> The unit itself is huge, like two shoe boxes in size, and
> heavy........costs around $8K......This is a "blind box".. *It
> requires additional hardware to display info, it also requires THREE
> antennas..........then there is the installation cost,...it is not so
> simple to install.......etc.
>
> Cookie

You need an ADS-B ground station for TIS-B (not to be confused with
Mode S TIS - completely different): so an ADS-B (either UAT or 1090ES)
receiver equipped aircraft can receive position reports based on
current SSR/transponder location of aircraft that are not equipped
with an ADS-B transmitter. Once you/the threat aircraft is outside SSR
coverage you will not "see" the threat via TIS-B. If a threat aircraft
is not equipped with a transponder you will not see it via TIS-B. You
need TIS-B during any transition to ADS-B adoption, or you will just
see other early adopters.

You also need ADS-B ground station coverage for ADS-R: the relay
between 1090ES and UAT link layers so aircraft equipped with one type
of ADS-B receiver will see the signals from an aircraft equipped with
the other transmitter type. That is a USA only peculiarity. In Europe
for example it is 1090ES only.

One confusing point as well is some ADS-B *receiver* manufactures and
less than clear that their devices are not transmitters so while you
might see other ADS-B boxes (or transponders via TIS-B) they can't see
you. Sometimes there is an implied belief that the aircraft with the
receiver has a transponder.

The Alaska trials were UAT only AFAIK and compared to large areas of
no SSR coverage and subsidized installation of UAT devices it is not
surprising it had good results. The GDL 90 was basically developed for
those trials and is showing its age. Garmin has a much more
interesting traffic solution now in the 800 series which include
active transponder interrogation (i.e. a TAS/TCAD) system combined
with ADS-B via 1090ES over Mode S (and you can pull up Mode S TIS on
the same hardware if you want need to, not sure why you would). In
Europe there are interesting combined Flarm and ADS-B 1090ES receivers
like the Garrecht 1090-TRX and PowerFlarm (not yet shipping). The
glider and GA avionics manufacturers in Europe are focusing on 1090ES
for ADS-B since Europe has mandated Mode S transponders. I expect to
see a wide variety of 1090ES and UAT devices in gliders and GA
aircraft and ADS-R relay is goign to be an important issue. i.e. think
about ground station coverage in mountainous terrain and along ridges
etc. where you can't just assume the other guy has an "ADS-B" and you
will see him. I believe that some vendors are working on dual-band (UAT
+1090ES) receivers and that may be a good thing.

Extended squitter is really a term that applies only to Mode S
transponders and in that case is the message type that carries the ADS-
B transmission.

Darryl

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 2:07*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:10*am, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 11:30*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > > Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > >>>> But sometimes it's all not enough...
> > > >>> Unfortunately true. *Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>
> > > >>> Vaughn
> > > > Even if you do everything right, you can still be surprised. *A power
> > > > pilot could easily be monitoring the local CTAF frequencies on a cross
> > > > country only to unexpectedly encounter a glider who is talking on
> > > > 123.3 (what power pilot would think of monitoring that???).
>
> > > > The only real solution is universal deployment of ADS-B on every
> > > > aircraft, including gliders, balloons, UAVs, military aircraft, etc..
> > > > With that, if you attach your ADS-B transceiver to a GPS, you will see
> > > > everybody. *No surprises. *The technology exists for ADS-B
> > > > transceivers to be available for ~$1K. *The only thing missing is the
> > > > political will in the FAA to permit this class of avionics to be
> > > > certified for VFR use. *We need to make our voices heard that we need
> > > > this NOW.
>
> > > I can't find good graphics showing current ADS-B coverage, or scheduled
> > > coverage. Can someone point out a source? A talk at the convention said
> > > the FAA is holding well to it's installation schedule, which was good to
> > > hear.
>
> > > The July 2009 graphic I found didn't show much coverage out West, and
> > > surprisingly, none in Colorado, so I don't trust it much.
>
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > > * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> > > * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What so you mean by "coverage"
> > I thought the beauty of ADS-B is that it is an "aircraft to aircraft"
> > based system, no ground "coverage" necessary.
> > The other beauty is that ADS-B is NOT radar based, it is GPS based, so
> > it works in remote areas, like ALASKA where it is considered very
> > successful in reducing mid air collisions.
>
> > Another feature is ADS-B is the "extended squitter" which basically
> > broadcasts your GPS loacation every second, whether you transponder
> > gets "interrogated" or not.
>
> > We recently installed a Garmin GDL 90 for a customer.........
>
> > The unit itself is huge, like two shoe boxes in size, and
> > heavy........costs around $8K......This is a "blind box".. *It
> > requires additional hardware to display info, it also requires THREE
> > antennas..........then there is the installation cost,...it is not so
> > simple to install.......etc.
>
> > Cookie
>
> You need an ADS-B ground station for TIS-B (not to be confused with
> Mode S TIS - completely different): so an ADS-B (either UAT or 1090ES)
> receiver equipped aircraft can receive position reports based on
> current SSR/transponder location of aircraft that are not equipped
> with an ADS-B transmitter. Once you/the threat aircraft is outside SSR
> coverage you will not "see" the threat via TIS-B. If a threat aircraft
> is not equipped with a transponder you will not see it via TIS-B. You
> need TIS-B during any transition to ADS-B adoption, or you will just
> see other early adopters.
>
> You also need ADS-B ground station coverage for ADS-R: the relay
> between 1090ES and UAT link layers so aircraft equipped with one type
> of ADS-B receiver will see the signals from an aircraft equipped with
> the other transmitter type. That is a USA only peculiarity. In Europe
> for example it is 1090ES only.
>
> One confusing point as well is some ADS-B *receiver* manufactures and
> less than clear that their devices are not transmitters so while you
> might see other ADS-B boxes (or transponders via TIS-B) they can't see
> you. Sometimes there is an implied belief that the aircraft with the
> receiver has a transponder.
>
> The Alaska trials were UAT only AFAIK and compared to large areas of
> no SSR coverage and subsidized installation of UAT devices it is not
> surprising it had good results. The GDL 90 was basically developed for
> those trials and is showing its age. Garmin has a much more
> interesting traffic solution now in the 800 series which include
> active transponder interrogation (i.e. a TAS/TCAD) system combined
> with ADS-B via 1090ES over Mode S (and you can pull up Mode S TIS on
> the same hardware if you want need to, not sure why you would). In
> Europe there are interesting combined Flarm and ADS-B 1090ES receivers
> like the Garrecht 1090-TRX and PowerFlarm (not yet shipping). The
> glider and GA avionics manufacturers in Europe are focusing on 1090ES
> for ADS-B since Europe has mandated Mode S transponders. I expect to
> see a wide variety of 1090ES and UAT devices in gliders and GA
> aircraft and ADS-R relay is goign to be an important issue. i.e. think
> about ground station coverage in mountainous terrain and along ridges
> etc. where you can't just assume the other guy has an "ADS-B" and you
> will see him. I believe that some vendors are working on dual-band (UAT
> +1090ES) receivers and that may be a good thing.
>
> Extended squitter is really a term that applies only to Mode S
> transponders and in that case is the message type that carries the ADS-
> B transmission.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Darryl,

Thanks for the information.

So what's the answer? They came out with mode A, Then they needed
mode C, then mode S and then ADS-B...

It seems like every system has at least some sort of loophole it it.
By the time anything is in widespread use it seems to be obsolete
already.

Cookie

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 9, 4:14*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:07*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:10*am, " >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 11:30*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > > > Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > > >>>> But sometimes it's all not enough...
> > > > >>> Unfortunately true. *Us pilots need all the help we can get.
>
> > > > >>> Vaughn
> > > > > Even if you do everything right, you can still be surprised. *A power
> > > > > pilot could easily be monitoring the local CTAF frequencies on a cross
> > > > > country only to unexpectedly encounter a glider who is talking on
> > > > > 123.3 (what power pilot would think of monitoring that???).
>
> > > > > The only real solution is universal deployment of ADS-B on every
> > > > > aircraft, including gliders, balloons, UAVs, military aircraft, etc.
> > > > > With that, if you attach your ADS-B transceiver to a GPS, you will see
> > > > > everybody. *No surprises. *The technology exists for ADS-B
> > > > > transceivers to be available for ~$1K. *The only thing missing is the
> > > > > political will in the FAA to permit this class of avionics to be
> > > > > certified for VFR use. *We need to make our voices heard that we need
> > > > > this NOW.
>
> > > > I can't find good graphics showing current ADS-B coverage, or scheduled
> > > > coverage. Can someone point out a source? A talk at the convention said
> > > > the FAA is holding well to it's installation schedule, which was good to
> > > > hear.
>
> > > > The July 2009 graphic I found didn't show much coverage out West, and
> > > > surprisingly, none in Colorado, so I don't trust it much.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > > > * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> > > > * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider..org-Hidequotedtext -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What so you mean by "coverage"
> > > I thought the beauty of ADS-B is that it is an "aircraft to aircraft"
> > > based system, no ground "coverage" necessary.
> > > The other beauty is that ADS-B is NOT radar based, it is GPS based, so
> > > it works in remote areas, like ALASKA where it is considered very
> > > successful in reducing mid air collisions.
>
> > > Another feature is ADS-B is the "extended squitter" which basically
> > > broadcasts your GPS loacation every second, whether you transponder
> > > gets "interrogated" or not.
>
> > > We recently installed a Garmin GDL 90 for a customer.........
>
> > > The unit itself is huge, like two shoe boxes in size, and
> > > heavy........costs around $8K......This is a "blind box".. *It
> > > requires additional hardware to display info, it also requires THREE
> > > antennas..........then there is the installation cost,...it is not so
> > > simple to install.......etc.
>
> > > Cookie
>
> > You need an ADS-B ground station for TIS-B (not to be confused with
> > Mode S TIS - completely different): so an ADS-B (either UAT or 1090ES)
> > receiver equipped aircraft can receive position reports based on
> > current SSR/transponder location of aircraft that are not equipped
> > with an ADS-B transmitter. Once you/the threat aircraft is outside SSR
> > coverage you will not "see" the threat via TIS-B. If a threat aircraft
> > is not equipped with a transponder you will not see it via TIS-B. You
> > need TIS-B during any transition to ADS-B adoption, or you will just
> > see other early adopters.
>
> > You also need ADS-B ground station coverage for ADS-R: the relay
> > between 1090ES and UAT link layers so aircraft equipped with one type
> > of ADS-B receiver will see the signals from an aircraft equipped with
> > the other transmitter type. That is a USA only peculiarity. In Europe
> > for example it is 1090ES only.
>
> > One confusing point as well is some ADS-B *receiver* manufactures and
> > less than clear that their devices are not transmitters so while you
> > might see other ADS-B boxes (or transponders via TIS-B) they can't see
> > you. Sometimes there is an implied belief that the aircraft with the
> > receiver has a transponder.
>
> > The Alaska trials were UAT only AFAIK and compared to large areas of
> > no SSR coverage and subsidized installation of UAT devices it is not
> > surprising it had good results. The GDL 90 was basically developed for
> > those trials and is showing its age. Garmin has a much more
> > interesting traffic solution now in the 800 series which include
> > active transponder interrogation (i.e. a TAS/TCAD) system combined
> > with ADS-B via 1090ES over Mode S (and you can pull up Mode S TIS on
> > the same hardware if you want need to, not sure why you would). In
> > Europe there are interesting combined Flarm and ADS-B 1090ES receivers
> > like the Garrecht 1090-TRX and PowerFlarm (not yet shipping). The
> > glider and GA avionics manufacturers in Europe are focusing on 1090ES
> > for ADS-B since Europe has mandated Mode S transponders. I expect to
> > see a wide variety of 1090ES and UAT devices in gliders and GA
> > aircraft and ADS-R relay is goign to be an important issue. i.e. think
> > about ground station coverage in mountainous terrain and along ridges
> > etc. where you can't just assume the other guy has an "ADS-B" and you
> > will see him. I believe that some vendors are working on dual-band (UAT
> > +1090ES) receivers and that may be a good thing.
>
> > Extended squitter is really a term that applies only to Mode S
> > transponders and in that case is the message type that carries the ADS-
> > B transmission.
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Darryl,
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> So what's the answer? *They came out with mode A, *Then they needed
> mode C, then *mode S and then ADS-B...
>
> It seems like every system has at least some sort of loophole it it.
> By the time anything is in widespread use it seems to be obsolete
> already.
>
> Cookie

Technology is often obsolete before being deployed.

And the question is often not "what is the answer?". The question is
"what is the question?".
(and maybe with both Mode S and ADS-B technologies that actually
applies)

Sigh, I'm such a cynic.

Darryl