Parowan midair? [Archive] - AviationBanter

Mike Schumann

June 17th 10, 01:29 PM

On 6/16/2010 10:20 PM, 5Z wrote:
> On Jun 16, 12:34 pm, > wrote:
>> There's several words to describe that - "competitor" and "big brass
>
> Actually, I'd call it pretty irresponsible. That glider could, at any
> moment have a system failure due to weakened structure. The only
> smart response is to land IMMEDIATELY, and definitely avoid overflying
> any people on the ground.
>
> Just checked the rules, and there's nothing in there regarding a
> pilot's responsibility after a collision.
>
> But several years ago, at a national contest, there was some heated
> debate at the mandatory meeting about what a pilot should do in such a
> case. If I recall correctly, an immediate landing for inspection was
> mandated, with one or two vocal "I'm here to WIN!!!" dissents.
>
> Nothing bad happened this time. But what if someone had been hurt or
> killed due to a system failure while the pilot continued to soar?
> What would be reported in the media? What would the NTSB response be?
>
> -Tom
Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
the FARs:

49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or
any public aircraft not operated by the
Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
of the United States, or any foreign
aircraft shall immediately, and by the
most expeditious means available, notify
the nearest National Transportation
Safety Board (Board) field office when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the
following listed incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction
or failure;
(2) Inability of any required flight
crewmember to perform normal flight
duties as a result of injury or illness;
(3) Failure of structural components
of a turbine engine excluding compressor
and turbine blades and vanes;
(4) In-flight fire; or
(5) Aircraft collide in flight.
(6) Damage to property, other than
the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000
for repair (including materials and
labor) or fair market value in the event
of total loss, whichever is less.
(7) For large multiengine aircraft
(more than 12,500 pounds maximum
certificated takeoff weight):
(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems
which requires the sustained use
of an emergency bus powered by a
back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary
power unit, or air-driven generator
to retain flight control or essential
instruments;
(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems
that results in sustained reliance
on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical
system for movement of flight
control surfaces;
(iii) Sustained loss of the power or
thrust produced by two or more engines;
and
(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in
which an emergency egress system is
utilized.
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed
to have been involved in an accident.

It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if
you 1st finish flying the contest.

--
Mike Schumann

Frank Whiteley

June 17th 10, 03:08 PM

On Jun 16, 11:38*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 16, 9:39*pm, Ramy > wrote:> I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled
> > his way back with 5 feet of wing missing...
>
> > Ramy
>
> [snip]
>
> A scary scenario but I'd want to be feeling *really* comfortable about
> how the ship is handling before extending the prop/running the engine.
> If something is wrong you may make it worse, and if it gets worse you
> may seriously impair your ability to bail out. You need to retract the
> engine again, which normally involves closing the throttle and turning
> off the ignition and flying slow enough to be able to use the prop-
> stop then retract back the mast. If the 26E got uncontrollable under
> power you would need time to do something like close the throttle,
> turn of the ignition and retract the mast far enough for the prop to
> strike the fuselage so the running or windmilling prop does not chew
> you up on exit... and you hope anything still hanging out there does
> not get in the way of your egress. Enough armchair quarterbacking from
> me, the pilot involved is very experienced on type so it will be
> interesting to see what he did to pull this off. Fantastic that he
> made it back safe.
>
> The notion of a glider being allowed to attempt to complete a task
> after a mid-air does not sit well with me. It is just the wrong
> inducement for pilots involved. And given all the other SSA rules
> focus on things like start safety etc, this just seems out of place. I
> hope the rules committee look at this.
>
> Darryl

The preliminary report is on the FAA web site today. Unless the FAA
and NTSB were on site yesterday, I suspect until released by the FAA
and pilot interviews completed, neither glider (and maybe pilot) is
available for flight or repair.

YMMV,

Frank Whiteley

jcarlyle

June 17th 10, 03:29 PM

At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.

I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives
"irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate
with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles
with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't
any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true,
why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing?

-John

jb92563

June 17th 10, 04:04 PM

I totally agree that this rule is very sensible and should apply.

Besides, after two aircraft colide with enough force to tear a wing
tip off you
can bet your life that the FAA will ground both gliders until detailed
examination
is perfromed to prove that either is considered airworthy.

So.....your going to miss the rest of the contest in any case, so why
further risk your life
and more importantly those of others with a potentially damaged glider
that could loose control
at the worst possible time, like when your at the top of a gaggle in a
thermal.

I understand that the pilot in the Ventus probably felt his glider
suffered no signifigant damage, but would you not
want to take responsibility and at the very least escort the damaged
plane home so that you could radio for help if his
glider went down somewhere.

Even if a radio communication between the two pilots revealed that the
clipped wing glider thought he was OK to make it home, I think
escorting him to a safe landing would have been the most admiral thing
the other pilot could do and would gain him much more respect
and notatiaty than winning a contest day that nobody in the rest of
the world gives a crap about.

Sorry for sounding so harsh but winning a contest day is not even
close to winning the respect of your peers.

I guess under this kind of stress it is difficult to make the best
decissions.

Its always easier to see it clearly sitting on the ground typing at a
keyboard, but following your gut in this case might have been better
than striving to win.

Soap box dismounted!

Ray

On Jun 17, 4:36*am, stephanevdv > wrote:
> This is the rule as laid out by IGC in Annex A (international
> competition rules) to the Sporting Code, Gliding section:
>
> 4.1.4 A competitor involved in a collision in the air shall not
> continue the flight but land as soon as practicable. Both pilots will
> be scored as having landed at the position at which the collision
> occurred.
>
> Seems a sensible rule to me...

Andy[_1_]

June 17th 10, 06:40 PM

On Jun 17, 4:27*am, brian whatcott > wrote:

> * I don't believe that any competent authority has yet determined that
> the Ventus is still (safely) flyable...

A follow-up report from my Parowan source indicates that the 2cx has
been inspected and has been determined to be airworthy. As to the
competence of the inspector I have no information. If the 2cx is
experimental I assume that the only requirements would be for the
person conducting the inspection to hold an airframe rating (the A of
A&P).

Andy

Greg Arnold[_3_]

June 17th 10, 06:57 PM

On 6/17/2010 10:40 AM, Andy wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:27 am, brian > wrote:
>
>> I don't believe that any competent authority has yet determined that
>> the Ventus is still (safely) flyable...
>
> A follow-up report from my Parowan source indicates that the 2cx has
> been inspected and has been determined to be airworthy. As to the
> competence of the inspector I have no information. If the 2cx is
> experimental I assume that the only requirements would be for the
> person conducting the inspection to hold an airframe rating (the A of
> A&P).
>
> Andy

I don't understand how one glider could take off the wing of another
glider without suffering some damage itself.

Bart[_4_]

June 17th 10, 07:22 PM

> Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
> the FARs:
>
> 49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification.
> The operator of any civil aircraft, or
> any public aircraft not operated by the
> Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
> of the United States, or any foreign
> aircraft shall immediately, and by the
> most expeditious means available, notify
> the nearest National Transportation
> Safety Board (Board) field office when:
> (a) An aircraft accident or any of the
> following listed incidents occur:
[....]
> (5) Aircraft collide in flight.
[....]
> It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if
> you 1st finish flying the contest.

By using your radio to ask your ground crew to phone the nearest NTSB
office? One could even argue that this IS the "most expeditious means
available."

B.

Mike Schumann

June 17th 10, 07:41 PM

On 6/17/2010 2:22 PM, Bart wrote:
>> Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
>> the FARs:
>>
>> 49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification.
>> The operator of any civil aircraft, or
>> any public aircraft not operated by the
>> Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
>> of the United States, or any foreign
>> aircraft shall immediately, and by the
>> most expeditious means available, notify
>> the nearest National Transportation
>> Safety Board (Board) field office when:
>> (a) An aircraft accident or any of the
>> following listed incidents occur:
> [....]
>> (5) Aircraft collide in flight.
> [....]
>> It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if
>> you 1st finish flying the contest.
>
> By using your radio to ask your ground crew to phone the nearest NTSB
> office? One could even argue that this IS the "most expeditious means
> available."
>
> B.
>
> B.

It will be interesting to see if that's what actually happened.

--
Mike Schumann

Chip Bearden[_2_]

June 17th 10, 07:43 PM

It's great that we have so many experienced opinions voiced on this
subject. Too bad none of them was in the cockpit at the time, much
less at the contest in question. In 45 years of glider flying, I've
very occasionally been in gaggles where there were midairs (never
involving me, fortunately). The first thing that usually happens--as
in this case, according to the contest report--is one or both pilots
announce the collision or otherwise communicate the situation. Then--
if they're still flying--each seeks input/in-air inspection from other
pilots in close proximity before making their decisions, which--as
here--may be different. In the cases I'm most familiar with, some
pilots have continued on, others have landed, wisely, as soon as
possible. I suspect the decision-making process varies depending on
the terrain, progress along the task to that point, weather, and state
of mind in addition to the condition of the aircraft. That's not to
say that one would fly on with safety in doubt, merely that every
situation is different.

I also know the pilot of the Ventus. He's highly experienced,
qualified, and motivated to win, but I would not consider him to be
incautious or of a "safety be damned" bent. I wasn't there that day so
except for this posting, I'll try to refrain from offering opinions.
Healthy facts-based debate in this forum is good. Speculation doesn't
accomplish much. Never forget that not all of the readers of this
newsgroup are knowledgeable and committed glider pilots. Let's not
make the same mistakes that we justifiably criticize the media for
making. Instead, let the facts emerge before we add fuel to a fire
that we started.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

mike

June 17th 10, 07:56 PM

On Jun 17, 12:43*pm, Chip Bearden > wrote:
> It's great that we have so many experienced opinions voiced on this
> subject. Too bad none of them was in the cockpit at the time, much
> less at the contest in question. In 45 years of glider flying, I've
> very occasionally been in gaggles where there were midairs (never
> involving me, fortunately). The first thing that usually happens--as
> in this case, according to the contest report--is one or both pilots
> announce the collision or otherwise communicate the situation. Then--
> if they're still flying--each seeks input/in-air inspection from other
> pilots in close proximity before making their decisions, which--as
> here--may be different. In the cases I'm most familiar with, some
> pilots have continued on, others have landed, wisely, as soon as
> possible. I suspect the decision-making process varies depending on
> the terrain, progress along the task to that point, weather, and state
> of mind in addition to the condition of the aircraft. That's not to
> say that one would fly on with safety in doubt, merely that every
> situation is different.
>
> I also know the pilot of the Ventus. He's highly experienced,
> qualified, and motivated to win, but I would not consider him to be
> incautious or of a "safety be damned" bent. I wasn't there that day so
> except for this posting, I'll try to refrain from offering opinions.
> Healthy facts-based debate in this forum is good. Speculation doesn't
> accomplish much. Never forget that not all of the readers of this
> newsgroup are knowledgeable and committed glider pilots. Let's not
> make the same mistakes that we justifiably criticize the media for
> making. Instead, let the facts emerge before we add fuel to a fire
> that we started.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> USA

Amen!

Bob Kuykendall

June 17th 10, 10:49 PM

On Jun 17, 10:57*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:

> I don't understand how one glider could take off the wing of another
> glider without suffering some damage itself.

I understand how one glider could take break the outboard portion of
another's wing and suffer only cosmetic damage. That's been done a
couple of times.

Mike the Strike

June 17th 10, 11:07 PM

Some facts that might temper some of the speculation here:

The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
mountainous terrain. This area is very low population and the risk to
people or structures on the ground was minimal. The nearest airport,
Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
the pilots. The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan. If I had been flying
south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. (He calculated
that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
reasonably well.) There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
the event of a landing problem.

The Ventus pilot reported at this morning's meeting that, with the
benefit of hindsight, he probably should have terminated the task and
landed. I've polled a few competition pilots, and they are divided
almost equally between those who would carry on and those who would
land with an apparently undamaged ship.

There is no evidence of careless or reckless flying by either pilot -
it is likely just one of those events where their position and speed
reduced the pilots' visibility until it was too late. Neither pilot
saw the other until just before impact.

The FAA inspected both gliders today. The Ventus had two very small
compression marks in the nose that did not affect structural
integrity. The Ventus was thoroughly gone over by an experienced
glider repair guy, has a clean bill of health and is back in the air
and on course as I write this.

We may be unable to figure out exactly what happened, but a reasonable
guess is that the nose of the Ventus impacted the wing of the ASH 26
somewhere near midspan, pushing it down hard. This increased the
aerodynamic load on the wing to the point where the structure failed
five feet from the tip.

Mike the Strike

(Parowan weatherman)

flyingmr2

June 17th 10, 11:23 PM

Thanks for the facts Mike. I'm just glad no one got hurt.
John Ackerson

Bruce Hoult

June 17th 10, 11:45 PM

On Jun 18, 3:04*am, jb92563 > wrote:
> Sorry for sounding so harsh but winning a contest day is not even
> close to winning the respect of your peers.

Do you actually know that they weren't, for example, on the last leg
of the task, with Parowan the closest practical landing point?

Eric Greenwell

June 18th 10, 03:09 AM

On 6/17/2010 7:29 AM, jcarlyle wrote:
> At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.
>
> I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives
> "irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate
> with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles
> with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't
> any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true,
> why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing?
>
The SSA report said the collision occurred 75 miles north of Parowan,
which would put at least one, maybe two good airports (Milford and
Beaver) in between, and two more even closer but not along the path to
Parowan.

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

Eric Greenwell

June 18th 10, 03:45 AM

On 6/17/2010 3:07 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Some facts that might temper some of the speculation here:
>
> The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
> mountainous terrain. This area is very low population and the risk to
> people or structures on the ground was minimal. The nearest airport,
> Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
> the pilots.
There is no NOTAM for Fillmore, and all the pilots in the contest should
have known that.

> The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
> which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan.
Beaver is 23 NM/26 miles from Parowan. From the approxiamate location of
the collision you describe, Richfield is 10 NM; Salina is 23 NM;
Junction is 36; Delta is 33 NM; Beaver is 43 NM; Milford is 44 NM.
These are all paved municipal airports with 4 having 75+ wide runways,
the others 60 feet wide; one is 4500 long (Parowan if 5000') and the
others are greater than 5000'. So, plenty of closer airports with good
runways.

> If I had been flying
> south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
> have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. (He calculated
> that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
> reasonably well.) There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
> usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
> the event of a landing problem.
>

I agree there would be lot more people at Parowan than these other
airports, and perhaps closer to the biggest hospital. Of course, if it's
the hospital you worry about, you should fly past Parowan and land at
Cedar City!

One strategy would be to contact contest ground and have them arrange
for emergency help to be at another airport, or even use 121.5 to
declare an emergency to ensure help arrived at the airport of choice. I
suspect an ambulance could arrive at any of them before it was necessary
to land there.

So, I think we are still left with the question: why did the pilot
choose to fly to Parowan with all these other, closer options? My best
guess is I would have opted for Parowan if the glider seemed stable,
controllable, and "obviously" able to make it to Parowan, but sitting
here, thinking it through, it doesn't seem as good an idea as landing
after arranging for help.

--
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

Mike the Strike

June 18th 10, 05:00 AM

On Jun 17, 7:45*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 6/17/2010 3:07 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:> Some facts that might temper some of the speculation here:
>
> > The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
> > mountainous terrain. *This area is very low population and the risk to
> > people or structures on the ground was minimal. *The nearest airport,
> > Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
> > the pilots.
>
> There is no NOTAM for Fillmore, and all the pilots in the contest should
> have known that.
>
> > * *The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
> > which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan.
>
> Beaver is 23 NM/26 miles from Parowan. From the approxiamate location of
> the collision you describe, Richfield is 10 NM; Salina is 23 NM;
> Junction is 36; Delta is 33 NM; Beaver is 43 NM; Milford is 44 NM. *
> These are all paved municipal airports with 4 having 75+ wide runways,
> the others 60 feet wide; one is 4500 long (Parowan if 5000') and the
> others are *greater than 5000'. So, plenty of closer airports with good
> runways.
>
> > * *If I had been flying
> > south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
> > have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. *(He calculated
> > that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
> > reasonably well.) *There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
> > usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
> > the event of a landing problem.
>
> I agree there would be lot more people at Parowan than these other
> airports, and perhaps closer to the biggest hospital. Of course, if it's
> the hospital you worry about, you should fly past Parowan and land at
> Cedar City!
>
> * One strategy would be to contact contest ground and have them arrange
> for emergency help to be at another airport, or even use 121.5 to
> declare an emergency to ensure help arrived at the airport of choice. I
> suspect an ambulance could arrive at any of them before it was necessary
> to land there.
>
> So, I think we are still left with the question: why did the pilot
> choose to fly to Parowan with all these other, closer options? My best
> guess is I would have opted for Parowan if the glider seemed stable,
> controllable, and "obviously" able to make it to Parowan, but sitting
> here, thinking it through, it doesn't seem as good an idea as landing
> after arranging for help.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)
>
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
>
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

The only attractive airfield options other than Parowan were Fillmore
and Beaver. These were in the I-15 corridor west of the mountains
which also has lots of landable fields. Crossing mountains and
deserts to the others makes no sense. Richfield, Salina and Junction
required traversing high remote mountain terrain to areas with poor
cellphone coverage. Delta is in the opposite direction in the middle
of the desert with absolutely no redeeming features and Milford
requires crossing a lower mountain range. Flying south towards home
was the smart option. Once you have Beaver made, it's a short hop to
Parowan - a no-brainer.

As I said, I most likely would have done the same.

Mike

soarpilot

June 18th 10, 01:49 PM

On Jun 18, 12:00*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jun 17, 7:45*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/17/2010 3:07 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:> Some facts that might temper some of the speculation here:
>
> > > The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
> > > mountainous terrain. *This area is very low population and the risk to
> > > people or structures on the ground was minimal. *The nearest airport,
> > > Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
> > > the pilots.
>
> > There is no NOTAM for Fillmore, and all the pilots in the contest should
> > have known that.
>
> > > * *The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
> > > which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan.
>
> > Beaver is 23 NM/26 miles from Parowan. From the approxiamate location of
> > the collision you describe, Richfield is 10 NM; Salina is 23 NM;
> > Junction is 36; Delta is 33 NM; Beaver is 43 NM; Milford is 44 NM. *
> > These are all paved municipal airports with 4 having 75+ wide runways,
> > the others 60 feet wide; one is 4500 long (Parowan if 5000') and the
> > others are *greater than 5000'. So, plenty of closer airports with good
> > runways.
>
> > > * *If I had been flying
> > > south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
> > > have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. *(He calculated
> > > that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
> > > reasonably well.) *There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
> > > usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
> > > the event of a landing problem.
>
> > I agree there would be lot more people at Parowan than these other
> > airports, and perhaps closer to the biggest hospital. Of course, if it's
> > the hospital you worry about, you should fly past Parowan and land at
> > Cedar City!
>
> > * One strategy would be to contact contest ground and have them arrange
> > for emergency help to be at another airport, or even use 121.5 to
> > declare an emergency to ensure help arrived at the airport of choice. I
> > suspect an ambulance could arrive at any of them before it was necessary
> > to land there.
>
> > So, I think we are still left with the question: why did the pilot
> > choose to fly to Parowan with all these other, closer options? My best
> > guess is I would have opted for Parowan if the glider seemed stable,
> > controllable, and "obviously" able to make it to Parowan, but sitting
> > here, thinking it through, it doesn't seem as good an idea as landing
> > after arranging for help.
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)
>
> > - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
>
> > - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>
> The only attractive airfield options other than Parowan were Fillmore
> and Beaver. *These were in the I-15 corridor west of the mountains
> which also has lots of landable fields. *Crossing mountains and
> deserts to the others makes no sense. *Richfield, Salina and Junction
> required traversing high remote mountain terrain to areas with poor
> cellphone coverage. *Delta is in the opposite direction in the middle
> of the desert with absolutely no redeeming features and Milford
> requires crossing a lower mountain range. *Flying south towards home
> was the smart option. *Once you have Beaver made, it's a short hop to
> Parowan - a no-brainer.
>
> As I said, I most likely would have done the same.
>
> Mike

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site. Competition or not, if you get right down to the
brass tacks of things, the pilot who continued, if he passed by
available closer sights including RTB, was not demonstrating good
judgement nor safe practice. If the finish was the closest available,
then his flying to the extremes to compete with damage was simply poor
judgment. Competitions do not exempt us from safety and FAA
regulations. It's worth your life???

It is amazing to see how things are rationalized to promote accepting
mistakes as being something else, much less admired. Student pilots
read these posts as well as seasoned aviators. Lead by example, even
in competition. The Holy Grail doesn't exempt us from safe, lawful
flying practices. My two cents.

Tim

vaughn[_3_]

June 18th 10, 02:23 PM

"soarpilot" > wrote in message
...

>Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
>available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn

Mike Schumann

June 18th 10, 02:52 PM

On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
>> available site.
>
> While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
> respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
> now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?
>
> Vaughn
>
>
This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. This discussion serves a
very useful purpose in that regard.

What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. This
would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.

--
Mike Schumann

jb92563

June 18th 10, 04:16 PM

On Jun 18, 6:52*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote:> > *wrote in message
> ....
>
> >> Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
> >> available site.
>
> > While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
> > respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
> > now). *Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?
>
> > Vaughn
>
> This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. *This discussion serves a
> very useful purpose in that regard.
>
> What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
> both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. *This
> would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
> discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

This is an excellent opportunity to analyze the facts once the NTSB
gives their report and the pilots are free to talk about it.

I hope they are willing to endure a bit of debate on the subject in
order to help everyone learn how to handle a situation like this.

I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
the correct choice, since as we all know,
in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
and NOTAM'ed areas.

Even not following the regulations and sporting rules until landed, is
valid in an emergency.

We will just have to wait and hope that the pilots involved engage in
an information session with the soaring community
so we can learn.

In retrospect in almost every racing sport there is an element of
danger, where lives can be lost.

I just never was willing to acknowledge that Glider racing was one of
them, and perhaps many of us are in the same quandry, judging
by the split of opinion.

Accepting that puts the race into a whole other perspective where
indeed I could relate to the decisions of the pilot to carry on.

Winning is the reward of a life well lived despite the risks.

Ray

jeplane

June 18th 10, 05:15 PM

We have 2 morons.

One for flying 75 miles with a un-airworthy aircraft, when closer
airports were available, and the other one, for trying to finish a
task after colliding.

Both should have FAA violations waiting at home, for reckless and
unsafe operations.

And if the CD declares the Ventus a winner that day, he probably
should get a spanking as well for encouraging flying in this
condition...

Sigh... Idiots!!!!

John Cochrane

June 18th 10, 05:53 PM

On Jun 16, 1:48*pm, Andy > wrote:
> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
> day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
> wing and so far has no log posted.
>

As I mull over what this event means for how we should run contests,
two things come to mind

1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that
point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score
points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly
things when points are on the table.

We could allow a pilot to land, inspect the glider, persuade the CD
it's ok, and take off again. But any impact raises questions about
airworthiness that just can't be answered for the purposes of
continuing a contest flight by an in-fight examination. (In-flight
exam helps you to decide whether to nurse it home or jump, but this is
an issue of managing an ongoing crisis, not competing in a race.)

2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and
ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to call the day off.

In this case, it might have been helpful for someone to ferry the
glider missing 5 feet of wing back to the airport. If he lost control
or had to bail out over the boondocks, a pair of eyes would make a
huge difference.

Others have suggested that the other pilot of the midair should do
that, but that doesn't make much sense. Typically the other pilot in a
midair has his own bits of dangling fiberglass, and may not be in the
best mental state to fly top cover anyway. The reports didn't suggest
anyone else volunteering to help here. A yellow flag might have
produced some.

We've had other cases of crashes where it was vital for competitors to
abandon the task and stick around the crash site or parachute impact.
It's asking a lot to expect pilots to do that, especially at a
nationals, when their competitors are blasting on earning points and
world team spots (with their "radios off"). It's only fair, and we'll
only really get the needed cooperation, if points are off the table.
Getting another day in, compromised by unfairness to those who stuck
around to help, does not seem worth danger to life and limb. If
someone needs to abandon the task to help with a serious safety
situation, we all should abandon the task to do so.

I emphasize, this is only appropriate when we need help from
competitors for an ongoing issue, not as a knee-jerk reaction to any
event.

Does this seem like the sensible approach?

John Cochrane

Mike Schumann

June 18th 10, 05:58 PM

On 6/18/2010 11:16 AM, jb92563 wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:52 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote:> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
>>>> available site.
>>
>>> While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
>>> respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
>>> now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?
>>
>>> Vaughn
>>
>> This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. This discussion serves a
>> very useful purpose in that regard.
>>
>> What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
>> both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. This
>> would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
>> discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> This is an excellent opportunity to analyze the facts once the NTSB
> gives their report and the pilots are free to talk about it.
>
> I hope they are willing to endure a bit of debate on the subject in
> order to help everyone learn how to handle a situation like this.
>
> I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
> the correct choice, since as we all know,
> in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
> he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
> and NOTAM'ed areas.
>
> Even not following the regulations and sporting rules until landed, is
> valid in an emergency.
>
> We will just have to wait and hope that the pilots involved engage in
> an information session with the soaring community
> so we can learn.
>
> In retrospect in almost every racing sport there is an element of
> danger, where lives can be lost.
>
> I just never was willing to acknowledge that Glider racing was one of
> them, and perhaps many of us are in the same quandry, judging
> by the split of opinion.
>
> Accepting that puts the race into a whole other perspective where
> indeed I could relate to the decisions of the pilot to carry on.
>
> Winning is the reward of a life well lived despite the risks.
>
>
> Ray

I don't see any pressing reason, in this case, to wait for the NTSB
report before discussing this accident. Unlike many aircraft accidents,
where the cause is not clear until the NTSB has had a chance to make a
detailed examination, in this case we have a simple accident caused by
two pilots not seeing each other until it was too late.

Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). Presumably, the flight recorder
traces have been submitted to the contest organizers so that the pilots'
performance can be graded (one pilot apparently won the day's task). I
have always assumed that records for SSA sanctioned contests were
public. Why should other pilots not be able to look at these traces to
see what kind of situation these pilots were in so that they could not
see each other until it was too late.

The more, and earlier discussion that these types of events receive, the
better. Maybe someone will learn something from this that will prevent
another accident before the final NTSB report is issued in a year or so.

--
Mike Schumann

Brian[_1_]

June 18th 10, 06:29 PM

> 1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that
> point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score
> points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly
> things when points are on the table.

I agree this sounds like a rule that should be implemented.

> 2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and
> ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to *call the day off.

Just thinking out loud on this issue, perhaps the rules should allow
for any pilot involved in a potential and/or emergency situation to
request one other glider to abandon the task and assist the pilot in
safely landing the glider. The assisting pilot would at the
descression of the CD be awarded enough points to maintain his
position on the score sheet, But not more than a 3rd place finish for
the day.

This way the assisting pilot is not significantly penalized for
assisting, However the assisting pilot can not use this rule to
maintain a leading position in the race.

Of course the other scenerio as you mentioned is just calling off the
day.

Brian Case

Jip

June 18th 10, 06:45 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message
...

> 1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that
> point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score
> points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly
> things when points are on the table.

I agree this sounds like a rule that should be implemented.

> 2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and
> ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to call the day off.

Just thinking out loud on this issue, perhaps the rules should allow
for any pilot involved in a potential and/or emergency situation to
request one other glider to abandon the task and assist the pilot in
safely landing the glider. The assisting pilot would at the
descression of the CD be awarded enough points to maintain his
position on the score sheet, But not more than a 3rd place finish for
the day.

This way the assisting pilot is not significantly penalized for
assisting, However the assisting pilot can not use this rule to
maintain a leading position in the race.

Of course the other scenerio as you mentioned is just calling off the
day.

Brian Case

You could give pilots that stay and help 1000 points for the day.
I always think the best of people....... but something tells me that the
spot of the accident will stay overcrowded for several hours ;-)

drbdanieli

June 18th 10, 07:45 PM

In yacht racing, a competitor can ask for and be given redress for
assisting another vessel that needs assistance. If memory serves me
correctly, it's usally an average of the daily score that the
assisting vessel obtained during the regatta.

Although I haven't any idea how this mid-air occured, there are blind
spots that people should be aware of. I had a near miss years ago at
a nationals when I was ahead and below another glider. Obviously, I
couldn't see above and behind me and he couldn't see "under his
feet". When I got a thermal and zoomed up, my tail missed his cockpit
by a few feet! The increased numbers of sailplanes in a contest,
following the same line of cloud streets or ridges, a moment of in
attention with your head in the panel, messing with your computer can
all add up to a statistic.

I think what we need to focus on is what can be learned from this
accident and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening
to someone else. Personally, I think situations like this make a case
for getting Flarm or an equivalent system established here in the US.

Barry

Bob Kuykendall

June 18th 10, 07:52 PM

On Jun 18, 9:15*am, jeplane > wrote:
> We have 2 morons...

> Sigh... Idiots!!!!

So says the anonymous one.

Ramy

June 18th 10, 08:02 PM

On Jun 18, 9:15*am, jeplane > wrote:
> We have 2 morons.
>
> One for flying 75 miles with a un-airworthy aircraft, when closer
> airports were available, and the other one, for trying to finish a
> task after colliding.
>
> Both should have FAA violations waiting at home, for reckless and
> unsafe operations.
>
> And if the CD declares the Ventus a winner that day, he probably
> should get a spanking as well for encouraging flying in this
> condition...
>
> Sigh... Idiots!!!!

I see the same reactions in every thread about an accident. You can
devide the reactions to 3 groups:
1 - Inteligent people trying to analyze the situation and learn
lessons without pointing fingers.
2 - Those who point fingers and calling names without knowing what
they are talking about.
3 - The "wait for the NTSB report" crowd, who must have never seen an
NTSB report otherwise they would know that NTSB reports are usually
useless and often published so late no one remembers the details.
Better say "wait for pilot reports" or a report in "Safety Corner"
although since Thelen stopped writing those reports himself, no one
seems to dare writing about accidents anymore.

BTW, at least one trace is available on OLC, but I could not find
anything that could suggest where the midair happened...

Ramy

Andy[_1_]

June 18th 10, 08:03 PM

On Jun 18, 9:58*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
> were participating in a contest). *

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

Mike Schumann

June 18th 10, 08:43 PM

On 6/18/2010 3:03 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:58 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
>> were participating in a contest).
>
> Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
> of the 2 gliders met. That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
> accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. With both
> loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
> exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.
>
> One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
> each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
> event. I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
> support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
> the interest since this was a no injury accident.
>
> Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
> would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.
>
> Andy

Do you have a link to the traces?

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

June 18th 10, 08:46 PM

On 6/18/2010 2:45 PM, drbdanieli wrote:
> In yacht racing, a competitor can ask for and be given redress for
> assisting another vessel that needs assistance. If memory serves me
> correctly, it's usally an average of the daily score that the
> assisting vessel obtained during the regatta.
>
> Although I haven't any idea how this mid-air occured, there are blind
> spots that people should be aware of. I had a near miss years ago at
> a nationals when I was ahead and below another glider. Obviously, I
> couldn't see above and behind me and he couldn't see "under his
> feet". When I got a thermal and zoomed up, my tail missed his cockpit
> by a few feet! The increased numbers of sailplanes in a contest,
> following the same line of cloud streets or ridges, a moment of in
> attention with your head in the panel, messing with your computer can
> all add up to a statistic.
>
> I think what we need to focus on is what can be learned from this
> accident and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening
> to someone else. Personally, I think situations like this make a case
> for getting Flarm or an equivalent system established here in the US.
>
> Barry
>

We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.

--
Mike Schumann

Andy[_1_]

June 18th 10, 08:58 PM

On Jun 18, 12:43*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 3:03 PM, Andy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:58 am, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
> >> were participating in a contest).
>
> > Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
> > of the 2 gliders met. *That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
> > accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. * With both
> > loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
> > exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.
>
> > One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
> > each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
> > event. *I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
> > support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
> > the interest since this was a no injury accident.
>
> > Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
> > would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.
>
> > Andy
>
> Do you have a link to the traces?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'll send you a private email.

Andy

Gary Evans[_2_]

June 18th 10, 09:04 PM

I've flown Parowan on several occasions and if I were in that
predicament with 6 feet of missing wing and questionable spoilers but
the plane was stable in flight I would go to the longest runway at
which I knew there would be people to help. That would be Parowan. IMO
following rules would not be the most important objective. The goal
would be survival.

June 19th 10, 01:31 AM

On Jun 18, 12:53*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:

> Does this seem like the sensible approach?

Yes.

As an aside to others... we could do without the name calling, thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Brad[_2_]

June 19th 10, 02:30 AM

On Jun 18, 12:03*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:58*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
> > Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
> > were participating in a contest). *
>
> Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
> of the 2 gliders met. *That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
> accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. * With both
> loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
> exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.
>
> One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
> each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
> event. *I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
> support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
> the interest since this was a no injury accident.
>
> Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
> would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.
>
> Andy

A few years ago there was a collision during a ridge running
excursion. Based on the surviving pilots recollection, the wreckage
debris and the damage to both sailplanes we were able to forensically
reconstruct the flight path of both aircraft up to the point of the
collision. I worked with an engineer who took all that data, along
with the information in the flight handbooks of the sailplanes and
such and from that we created spline paths and keyframes to create
bank angles and trajectory. I took that information and created a
fairly accurate animation of the collision.

The creepiest part of that was when I put the camera in one of the
glider and watched from the "pilots" POV as the other glider slid
right in to him.

The result was a broken wing in one glider and a uncontrolled crash
that resulted in his death, the other pilot bailed out and survived.

Brad

Eric Greenwell

June 19th 10, 03:36 AM

On 6/18/2010 1:04 PM, Gary Evans wrote:
> I've flown Parowan on several occasions and if I were in that
> predicament with 6 feet of missing wing and questionable spoilers but
> the plane was stable in flight I would go to the longest runway at
> which I knew there would be people to help. That would be Parowan. IMO
> following rules would not be the most important objective. The goal
> would be survival.
>
If runway size is important, Cedar City ( 8600' x 150') is only 16 NM
past Parowan (a mere 5000' x 75'), lots of people, and lots closer to
the hospital.

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

Eric Greenwell

June 19th 10, 03:45 AM

On 6/18/2010 6:23 AM, vaughn wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
>> available site.
>>
> While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
> respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
> now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?
>
> Vaughn
I know both of them, though not very well, and so far I don't see
anything that will cause them problems; in fact, I think some of the
discussion might help them make better choices in the future.

What problems do you think these discussions cause the pilots involved?

--
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

Eric Greenwell

June 19th 10, 03:49 AM

On 6/18/2010 8:16 AM, jb92563 wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:52 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote:> > wrote in message
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>> Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
>>>> available site.
>>>>
>>
>>> While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
>>> respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
>>> now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?
>>>
>>
>>> Vaughn
>>>
>> This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. This discussion serves a
>> very useful purpose in that regard.
>>
>> What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
>> both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. This
>> would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
>> discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>>
> snip
>
> I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
> the correct choice, since as we all know,
> in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
> he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
> and NOTAM'ed areas.
>

I may be misinterpreting what you've written, but I sure don't think a
successful outcome means they made the correct choice; it might also
mean they were very lucky.

--
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

[email protected]

June 19th 10, 07:47 AM

I cannot help to add some observations, based on what I have heard and
read. My discussion is focused on the 26E, though much of it applies
to the second pilot as well.

Evaluating the extent of damage and therefore the airworthiness of a
composite aircraft (especially carbon) after it has sustained impact
is not easy even in a well-lit shop with inspection devices. I
believe that doing so airborne from the distance of another aircraft
with enough certainty to gamble your life on is impossible.

Secondly, with a wing open to the airstream. there is a very strong
likelihood of air loads peeling much, if not most of the remaining
skin(s) off the spar and/or the foam core. I have been in the bizarre
and unhappy position of hoping that many square meters of my wing skin
would tear away as opposed to being a 1 x 4 meter spoiler. If it had
not torn away, I would have landed in the trees/rocks. I survived.
It was "luck".

The human factors side of the post-impact equation is known,
predictable, and self-destructive. Mix the following carefully in
your brain:

The shock of being involved in a near-death experience mid-air,

Post-accident denial

Hopeful/delusional expectations that "everything will be OK"

The desire to return to normalcy

The "racing mentality"

Stir thoroughly, add some well-meaning and equally delusional input
from others ("The ship looks OK") and you get an individual willing to
believe anything positive.

Will ANYONE seriously bet your life and the happiness of those that
love you that:

That 5 ft of span and control missing from a wing is No Big Deal

That it is possible to evaluate the condition of such a wing while
airborne

That the structural condition of the aircraft is not likely to
deteriorate due to flight and air loads

That it is reasonable to continue to soar for another 75 miles like
this?

Put another way, would you drive your car 75 miles home at freeway
speeds after a huge collision on the interstate that left you missing
a big chunk of the structure based on another driver's positive visual
observation and the fact that it handles OK for the moment?

I will refrain from commenting on the "racing rules" discussions. Any
group that condones, and tacitly rewards behavior such as this is
beyond my comprehension. When rules are necessary to prevent behavior
that defies all logic, and decades of ingrained hard-won aviation
safety paradigms (paid for in dead bodies and ruined lives of loved
ones left behind), we need a new sport.

The "we must have FLARM / ASDB / Electron Slinger du jour" hue and cry
defies the track record of "see-and-avoid", especially in gaggles, and
is, in my opinion, a hardware solution to a "software" problem; namely
declining pilot training, competency and a deeply rooted cultural
addiction to staring at / listening to electronic devices.

I wish you all safe flight and much good fortune. If you find this
scenario even remotely reasonable, I believe you will eventually need
the latter. Your aviation paradigm is strongly weighted toward
letting random circumstances (luck, your diety of choice,
predestination) decide your survival.

Brian[_1_]

June 19th 10, 02:13 PM

Mark makes some great statements about a pilot’s mentality after a
collision.
To quote:
The shock of being involved in a near-death experience mid-air,
Post-accident denial
Hopeful/delusional expectations that "everything will be OK"
The desire to return to normalcy
The "racing mentality"

However, I think that it would be very few pilots that would say that
they handled such a situation perfectly after the fact, nearly every
pilot could probably think of something they could have done better
after they themselves have had the chance to do some arm chair
quarterbacking.

As far as continuing to race after the collision, this would seem to
be the poorest decision made in this incident, however with the
thinking, the collision “wasn’t that bad” it hit on a strong part of
the glider, which I have a pretty good view of (the interior inside
the cockpit). The thinking “I don’t have that much farther to go
anyway”. The thinking “The other pilot is OK, so far.” The thinking
“if I am careful, I can complete the task.” The thinking “it is
better to stay high and see if anything is going to get worse
anyway.” It is pretty easy to see how this kind of decision could be
made.

As for returning to Parowan, it disturbs me to see statements like “it
is the pilots duty to land at the nearest airport”. That is absolutely
incorrect and it is based on the fact that he was able to make a
fairly normal landing, which was an unknown at the time. It should say
“it is the pilots duty to do the safest thing possible” and landing at
the nearest airport may not be the safest thing, if fact it was
unknown if a landing could even be safely performed. My mottos for an
emergency are “Don’t do anything to make it worse” and “Try as little
new stuff as possible during the emergency, ie. Stick with what you
practice and are familiar with as much as possible.” Returning to
Parowan certainly had a number of advantages. I am assuming that he
was some altitude above the ground maybe as much as 10,000 feet, he
did not want to deploy the spoilers so that means he can either circle
down over the nearest airport that he is unfamiliar with and I doubt
while concentrating on flying damaged aircraft that he would want to
be doing a lot of research about them. I am sure other pilots could
have and may have even helped him evaluate his options. Or he could
use the altitude he needs to lose to return to Parowan where he is
familiar with the airport and the people on the ground know what is
going on. Best case scenario here is they could have even had
emergency services waiting for him when he attempted the landing
Worst case is he may have to bail out, but he may have to do that no
matter what he decides. From what I have heard Cedar City may have
been a better option with a larger runway and more services, but the
trade off was he would have been landing at an unfamiliar airport and
it was even further away.

Some pilots I am sure would have just bailed out of a glider with such
damage, and I am sure they would not have been faulted for doing so,
but bailing out has its risks as well.

While it can nearly always be argued they could have done better, they
at least made adequate decisions and it is useful to mentally place
yourself in their position and try to figure out how you would handle
the situation, It may influence how you handle your emergency if/when
it happens.

just my 2cents worth
Brian Case

Derek C

June 19th 10, 04:03 PM

In the UK, in the event of a mid-air collision in a comp, however
minor, both competitors are scored to the point of the collision and
are expected to land (or bail out) as soon as possible afterwards.

A few years ago one of our top comp pilots was killed shortly after a
mid-air. He was flying a brand new and very expensive glider and
attempted to land it in a damaged condition. Unfortunately the tail
boom eventually failed when he was too low to bail out and it dived
more or less vertically into the ground, killing him instantly. The
glider he collided with was able to make a safe landing.

You should consider bailing out of a damaged glider well before flying
on round the competition task!

Derek C

Darryl Ramm

June 19th 10, 04:56 PM

On Jun 18, 9:53*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Jun 16, 1:48*pm, Andy > wrote:
[good stuff snipped]
>
> Does this seem like the sensible approach?

Yes. Thanks for starting to get the ball rolling on this so quickly.

Darryl

Andreas Maurer

June 21st 10, 01:23 AM

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
> wrote:

>We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
>SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
>example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.

Mike, believe me:
If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
possibly available in 2012.

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.

Andreas

Derek C

June 21st 10, 07:04 AM

On Jun 21, 1:23*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
>
> > wrote:
> >We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. *The
> >SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
> >example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.
>
> Mike, believe me:
> If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
> around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW *- and you are not
> going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
> possibly available in 2012.
>
> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>
> Andreas

I have flown with FLARM in a UK competition. It tells you that there
are other FLARM equipped gliders nearby and in a crowded thermal the
collision warning goes off quite frequently, even though you can see
the other gliders and there is no chance of collisions. If you get a
warning from another glider you haven't seen, it can be quite
difficult to work out where it is, especially in a circling situation.
It is not a substitute for keeping a good look out!

Derek C

Cats

June 21st 10, 10:02 AM

On Jun 21, 7:04*am, Derek C > wrote:
<snip>
> It is not a substitute for keeping a good look out!

FLARM that is. Of course not, and the Flarm website is very clear
about that, but it can be a useful aid. I certainly appreciated
having it on the South Downs Ridge earlier this year.

Bob

June 21st 10, 01:27 PM

Flarm saved my a$$ 2 weeks ago north of Samadan (just southwest from
Innsbruck). Snowline at 2000 meters,we were at 2300 meters flying
under the edge of a cloud Flarm warning goes off. Couldn't see
anything but rolled into a tight climbing turn. Directly in front,
backdrop of snow, was a Duo on the nose going for the same thermal. As
soon as we pulled up and turned the Duo rolled the other direction. No
harm no foul, no Flarm?????

2 sailplanes at the same altitude, snow on the rocks in the
background, we were doing 170KMH and he was probably moving pretty
fast also. Within seconds of the Flarm warning we would have been
turning and climbing into the thermal. Would we have seen the Dou? I
would like to think so! Should my family rely on that happening? That
is one to think about.

I know Flarm is probably not the answer in the US, not enough planes
have Flarm already to get critical mass. Here in the Alps and Germany
most XC planes are now equipped but there are still enough without to
cause some problems.

Please, keep a good lookout!

Bob

Mike Schumann

June 21st 10, 03:27 PM

On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
> > wrote:
>
>
>> We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
>> SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
>> example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.
>
> Mike, believe me:
> If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
> around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
> going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
> possibly available in 2012.
>
> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>
>
>
>
> Andreas
>

FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.

--
Mike Schumann

Dave White

June 21st 10, 03:51 PM

I've been following this thread with complete astonishment that anyone
could consider the conduct of the Ventus pilot praiseworthy in any
respect. There was simply no way for this pilot to assess the
airworthiness of the glider after the collision. Just because the
visible portion of the nose appeared to be intact does not mean the
glider was undamaged elsewhere, or even that the nose was airworthy.
Taking this risk in the name of a competition that is ultimately
meaningless is not only unbelievable, it's a detriment to soaring,
which is already in jeopardy in many areas. Someone with such poor
judgement has no place in our sport. "Careless and reckless" are the
words the FAA will use to remove this pilot from the community. I'd
go with "stupid." There is simply no excuse for what this individual
did.

Wayne Paul

June 21st 10, 04:18 PM

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message ...
> On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:

.... Snip ...

>
> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
> would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
> could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
> their but.
>
> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
> AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Just courious, what do you consider "Low Cost." Us guys with old inexpensive sailplanes would like to know.

Wayne

Bob 7U

June 21st 10, 04:41 PM

I suppose the term 'low cost' is relative and depends upon whether you
compare it to the cost of your sailplane or your life.

Bob 7U

On Jun 21, 11:18*am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in ...
> > On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> ... Snip ...
>
>
>
> > FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. *That is NOT going to
> > happen in the US. *Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
> > would certify the units. *NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
> > could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
> > their but.
>
> > We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
> > level attention to this. *It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
> > AOPA. *They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Just courious, what do you consider "Low Cost." *Us guys with old inexpensive sailplanes would like to know.
>
> Wayne

Wayne Paul

June 21st 10, 04:55 PM

Bob,

I don't appreciate the smart remark

I really want to know. I fly what I can afford. If ADS-B becomes required equipment and is more then I can afford. I will have to leave the sport the sport I love.

Wayne

..................................
"Bob 7U" > wrote in message ...
I suppose the term 'low cost' is relative and depends upon whether you
compare it to the cost of your sailplane or your life.

Bob 7U

On Jun 21, 11:18 am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in ...
> > On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> ... Snip ...
>
>
>
> > FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
> > happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
> > would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
> > could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
> > their but.
>
> > We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
> > level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
> > AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Just courious, what do you consider "Low Cost." Us guys with old inexpensive sailplanes would like to know.
>
> Wayne

Jip

June 21st 10, 05:31 PM

"Dave White" > wrote in message
...
> I've been following this thread with complete astonishment that anyone
> could consider the conduct of the Ventus pilot praiseworthy in any
> respect. There was simply no way for this pilot to assess the
> airworthiness of the glider after the collision. Just because the
> visible portion of the nose appeared to be intact does not mean the
> glider was undamaged elsewhere, or even that the nose was airworthy.
> Taking this risk in the name of a competition that is ultimately
> meaningless is not only unbelievable, it's a detriment to soaring,
> which is already in jeopardy in many areas. Someone with such poor
> judgement has no place in our sport. "Careless and reckless" are the
> words the FAA will use to remove this pilot from the community. I'd
> go with "stupid." There is simply no excuse for what this individual
> did.

There are many old pilots and there are many bold pilots.
But....., there are n't many old bold pilots ;-)

[email protected][_2_]

June 21st 10, 06:47 PM

On Jun 21, 10:51*am, Dave White > wrote:
> *There is simply no excuse for what this individual
> did.
The pilot doesn't need an excuse- free will is sufficient. I would
hope that people alone over the boondocks are free to make whatever
choices they wish, even if those choices are to maximize the potential
of getting a tin trophy. Free will aside the worst thing for safety
would be rigid 'if-then' post collision rules. If you can't handle a
little bit of the unknown perhaps soaring isn't the right sport for
you.

Cats

June 21st 10, 07:14 PM

On Jun 21, 3:27*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
<snip>
>
> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. *

So surely is ADS-B?

Darryl Ramm

June 21st 10, 07:20 PM

On Jun 21, 7:27*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
> > > *wrote:
>
> >> We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. *The
> >> SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
> >> example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.
>
> > Mike, believe me:
> > If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
> > around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW *- and you are not
> > going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
> > possibly available in 2012.
>
> > FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
> > that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>
> > Andreas
>
> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. *That is NOT going to
> happen in the US. *Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
> would certify the units. *NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
> could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
> their but.
>
> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
> level attention to this. *It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
> AOPA. *They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have..
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

An extremely bad outcome of wanting "ADS-B technology" to be deployed
widely would be to end up with a need to mandatory equip with ADS-B
with none of the FLARM-equivalent glider-tuned traffic warnings
produced by the ADS-B receivers, no-compatibility with TCAS in fast
jets and airlines etc. and significant areas where there is no GBT
coverage to provide ADS-R (e.g. for glider on glider traffic awareness
on mountain ridges where there may be a mix of UAT and 1090ES ADS-B
equipped gliders).

This is all extremely early technology, I hope actions by the SSA and
others does not end up heading towards mandatory ADS-B carriage
without these and other issues being addressed. By all means go work
on testing and R&D stuff, but this stuff is far away from being wide
scale deployable in gliders that it is premature to suggest ADS-B as a
solution to practical real world problems like what happened at
Parowan. And I do not feel that overly-involving the federal
government in an attempt to get technology adopted in gliders is a
good idea. The free market should be quite capable of delivering
innovative ADS-B based technology to our cockpits, as has been done by
FLARM (in Europe and elsewhere) and PCAS manufacturers.

Darryl

Bob Kuykendall

June 21st 10, 08:10 PM

On Jun 21, 8:41*am, Bob 7U > wrote:

> I suppose the term 'low cost' is relative and depends upon whether you
> compare it to the cost of your sailplane or your life.
>
> Bob 7U

We have this exact same discussion on the rock climbing forums. The
corollary here is, how about all those $0.15 nuts and bolts in your
sailplane? Isn't your life worth more than that? Why aren't you using
$100, or better yet $1000 nuts and bolts custom manufactured and
individually tested and certified to the most stringent certification
standards?

Thanks, Bob K.

Tony[_5_]

June 21st 10, 08:28 PM

On Jun 21, 2:10*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 8:41*am, Bob 7U > wrote:
>
> > I suppose the term 'low cost' is relative and depends upon whether you
> > compare it to the cost of your sailplane or your life.
>
> > Bob 7U
>
> We have this exact same discussion on the rock climbing forums. The
> corollary here is, how about all those $0.15 nuts and *bolts in your
> sailplane? Isn't your life worth more than that? Why aren't you using
> $100, or better yet $1000 nuts and bolts custom manufactured and
> individually tested and certified to the most stringent certification
> standards?
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

not to mention trusting your life to some crazy guy who built a glider
in his garage...

Westbender

June 21st 10, 09:46 PM

> not to mention trusting your life to some crazy guy who built a glider
> in his garage...

Now that was funny! I'm sure Bob will come back with a nice, sharp
response.

Back to the serious aspect of this discussion. I just don't see this
as "black or white" as most others do. If I were involved in a
collision, I'd be so puckered up the damaged ship would probably be
safer than my skill, which would be seriously degraded by stress. I
guess I'd be looking to put it down as soon as possible with my hand
not far from the canopy eject handle the entire time. That's mostly
because I'm a low-timer and conservative by nature. I'm sure that a
cooler head in this type of situation comes with experience. Who am I
to judge someone way more experienced than me flying in this
circumstance. Over hostile terrain no less. I'm glad no one was hurt.

Dave

Brad[_2_]

June 21st 10, 09:51 PM

On Jun 21, 12:28*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:10*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 8:41*am, Bob 7U > wrote:
>
> > > I suppose the term 'low cost' is relative and depends upon whether you
> > > compare it to the cost of your sailplane or your life.
>
> > > Bob 7U
>
> > We have this exact same discussion on the rock climbing forums. The
> > corollary here is, how about all those $0.15 nuts and *bolts in your
> > sailplane? Isn't your life worth more than that? Why aren't you using
> > $100, or better yet $1000 nuts and bolts custom manufactured and
> > individually tested and certified to the most stringent certification
> > standards?
>
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> not to mention trusting your life to some crazy guy who built a glider
> in his garage...

hey, I resemble that remark!

Mike Schumann

June 21st 10, 10:53 PM

On 6/21/2010 2:14 PM, Cats wrote:
> On Jun 21, 3:27 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped.
>
> So surely is ADS-B?

If you have an ADS-B transceiver you will see all ADS-B equipped
aircraft and all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft if you are
within range of an ADS-B ground station.

Given the Nextgen strategy, over the next 10+ years, most US based
aircraft will eventually be equipped with ADS-B.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

June 21st 10, 10:56 PM

On 6/21/2010 2:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:27 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
>>>> SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
>>>> example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.
>>
>>> Mike, believe me:
>>> If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
>>> around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
>>> going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
>>> possibly available in 2012.
>>
>>> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
>>> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>>
>>> Andreas
>>
>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
>> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
>> would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
>> could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
>> their but.
>>
>> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
>> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
>> AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> An extremely bad outcome of wanting "ADS-B technology" to be deployed
> widely would be to end up with a need to mandatory equip with ADS-B
> with none of the FLARM-equivalent glider-tuned traffic warnings
> produced by the ADS-B receivers, no-compatibility with TCAS in fast
> jets and airlines etc. and significant areas where there is no GBT
> coverage to provide ADS-R (e.g. for glider on glider traffic awareness
> on mountain ridges where there may be a mix of UAT and 1090ES ADS-B
> equipped gliders).
>
> This is all extremely early technology, I hope actions by the SSA and
> others does not end up heading towards mandatory ADS-B carriage
> without these and other issues being addressed. By all means go work
> on testing and R&D stuff, but this stuff is far away from being wide
> scale deployable in gliders that it is premature to suggest ADS-B as a
> solution to practical real world problems like what happened at
> Parowan. And I do not feel that overly-involving the federal
> government in an attempt to get technology adopted in gliders is a
> good idea. The free market should be quite capable of delivering
> innovative ADS-B based technology to our cockpits, as has been done by
> FLARM (in Europe and elsewhere) and PCAS manufacturers.
>
> Darryl
>

Nobody is asking the Feds to solve this problem. We have private
companies (Navworx and others) who have reasonably price ADS-B products
ready to go into production. What we need is for the FAA to get out of
the way and authorize the production of these units so that the free
market can work its magic.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

June 21st 10, 11:02 PM

On 6/21/2010 11:18 AM, Wayne Paul wrote:
>
> "Mike > wrote in message ...
>> On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> ... Snip ...
>
>>
>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
>> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
>> would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
>> could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
>> their but.
>>
>> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
>> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
>> AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Just courious, what do you consider "Low Cost." Us guys with old inexpensive sailplanes would like to know.
>
> Wayne
>

There is no inherent reason that ADS-B UAT transceivers using consumer
grade GPS and RF components can't be built for the same general price
point as FLARM units. The only difference in the hardware is frequency
and transmit power.

FLARM units are currently available in Europe for about $1,000. With a
potential US market that is 10x larger, there should be no reason you
can't hit this price point. There are only two things that can stop this:

1. Inability to use consumer grade components.
2. Product liability insurance costs.

If ADS-B transceivers were available at this price point, we would see
very widespread voluntary deployment, just like in Europe, where most
gliders are FLARM equipped.

--
Mike Schumann

Bob Kuykendall

June 21st 10, 11:32 PM

On Jun 21, 3:02*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:

> ...FLARM units are currently available in Europe for about $1,000. *With a
> potential US market that is 10x larger...

Mike, can you please expound on that remark?

My understanding is that the US has typically accounted for about 15%
of the world market in sailplanes and soaring-related merchandise. Do
I misapprehend the size of the US soaring market, or do you include
powered aircraft in your 10x estimate?

Thanks, Bob K.

Mike Schumann

June 22nd 10, 12:52 AM

On 6/21/2010 6:32 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Jun 21, 3:02 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>
>> ...FLARM units are currently available in Europe for about $1,000. With a
>> potential US market that is 10x larger...
>
> Mike, can you please expound on that remark?
>
> My understanding is that the US has typically accounted for about 15%
> of the world market in sailplanes and soaring-related merchandise. Do
> I misapprehend the size of the US soaring market, or do you include
> powered aircraft in your 10x estimate?
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Low cost ADS-B transceivers are not just of interest to the soaring
community, but for all of GA. There are almost 150,000 GA aircraft in
the US. This dwarfs the glider fleet, both in the US and Europe.

--
Mike Schumann

June 22nd 10, 01:19 AM

On Jun 21, 10:47*am, " >
wrote:
> of getting a tin trophy. *Free will aside the worst thing for safety
> would be rigid 'if-then' post collision rules. *If you can't handle a
> little bit of the unknown perhaps soaring isn't the right sport for
> you.

Explain why getting either zero or distance to point of collision
would be bad for safety.

As Mark so eloquently stated in an earlier comment, the pilots have
enough things to deal with already. Giving them the choice to
complete a task is just not a good idea. This isn't NASCAR, it's
SOARING. We already have rules in place to make an attempt to reduce
unsafe or questionable behavior, so why not add this?

-Tom

Kevin Christner

June 22nd 10, 01:20 AM

Mike Schumann

June 22nd 10, 02:00 AM

On 6/21/2010 8:32 PM, Stephen! wrote:
> Mike > wrote in news:ByoSn.73380
> :
>
>> Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
>> the FARs:
>>
>> 49CFR õ 830.5 Immediate notification.
>
> What is the FAA's definition of "immediate"?
>

I think 49CFR830.5 is pretty clear. Logic would say that you are OK if
you are delayed because you are dealing with the accident, helping
victims, etc. I suspect that delaying the notification because you were
busy being interviewed by a TV reporter would probably be frowned on. A
delay caused by your desire to finish a race would probably rank
significantly lower than that.

Not to say that you might be able to get around the reporting problem if
you had someone else make the call for you while you were otherwise
distracted. You'd still have to deal with the issue of whether your
actions were reckless.

--
Mike Schumann

Nimbob

June 22nd 10, 02:48 AM

> What is the FAA's definition of "immediate"?

It's the NTSB's rule, it would need to be their definition.

Jim

Eric Greenwell

June 22nd 10, 03:06 AM

On 6/21/2010 7:27 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
>> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>
>
> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
> FAA would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working
> prototypes that could go into production overnight if we can get the
> FAA to get off their but.
>
> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller
> at AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they
> have.
It's going to take more that the availability of ADS-B units; they are
going to have to mandated by the FAA or mandated by the SSA for use in
contests, or no one will buy them. An ADS-B unit currently provides no
protection in glider contests you can't get from a FLARM, which is a
superior collision avoidance device for gliders, and people aren't
buying FLARMS. FLARM even has an IGC logger in it for extra value,
something you won't get with the ADS-B units, but USA pilots still
aren't interested. I don't think they believe their risk of collision is
very high. If pilots saw things as Bob 7U sees them, all the contest
pilots would be using FLARM already.

If FLARM was mandated for contests by the SSA, and made relatively
inexpensive to rent for a contest, that would ensure everyone used them
without too much grumbling. That could be done "right now", or certainly
in time for the next season, without an FAA intervention. Another
approach would be to require transponders in all contest gliders (at
least for Nationals), and also require an MRX transponder detector. That
would let you know when a glider was near you and the relative altitude,
and keep the airliners away. It would have value when you weren't flying
in a contest, and "significant number" of Nationals contestants already
have a transponder and/or MRX.

ADS-B is the future, but as currently planned, I don't think glider
pilots will find it compelling for many years. Cost is not the only issue.

Darryl, don't be shy about contradicting me!

--
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

Eric Greenwell

June 22nd 10, 03:21 AM

On 6/21/2010 2:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 2:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 7:27 am, Mike >
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
>>>>> SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
>>>>> example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.
>>>
>>>> Mike, believe me:
>>>> If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
>>>> around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
>>>> going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
>>>> possibly available in 2012.
>>>
>>>> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
>>>> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
>>> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
>>> FAA
>>> would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes
>>> that
>>> could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
>>> their but.
>>>
>>> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
>>> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
>>> AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they
>>> have.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> An extremely bad outcome of wanting "ADS-B technology" to be deployed
>> widely would be to end up with a need to mandatory equip with ADS-B
>> with none of the FLARM-equivalent glider-tuned traffic warnings
>> produced by the ADS-B receivers, no-compatibility with TCAS in fast
>> jets and airlines etc. and significant areas where there is no GBT
>> coverage to provide ADS-R (e.g. for glider on glider traffic awareness
>> on mountain ridges where there may be a mix of UAT and 1090ES ADS-B
>> equipped gliders).
>>
>> This is all extremely early technology, I hope actions by the SSA and
>> others does not end up heading towards mandatory ADS-B carriage
>> without these and other issues being addressed. By all means go work
>> on testing and R&D stuff, but this stuff is far away from being wide
>> scale deployable in gliders that it is premature to suggest ADS-B as a
>> solution to practical real world problems like what happened at
>> Parowan. And I do not feel that overly-involving the federal
>> government in an attempt to get technology adopted in gliders is a
>> good idea. The free market should be quite capable of delivering
>> innovative ADS-B based technology to our cockpits, as has been done by
>> FLARM (in Europe and elsewhere) and PCAS manufacturers.
>>
>> Darryl
>>
>
> Nobody is asking the Feds to solve this problem. We have private
> companies (Navworx and others) who have reasonably price ADS-B
> products ready to go into production. What we need is for the FAA to
> get out of the way and authorize the production of these units so that
> the free market can work its magic.
Without an FAA standard, I think you'd find the "magic" of the free
market would stay in the lamp, no matter how hard you rubbed it. The
units have to work together, they need the GBT, and who will install
those if the FAA "gets out of the way"? Will there be a big market with
a bunch of units not built to a common standard? Not very soon, as
everyone waits for the market to settle on a standard, in part for
interoperability reasons, in part for liability reasons, and because
you'd STILL have to install a transponder, because the airliners,
bizjets, and military aren't going to install non-standard ADS-B units
and will continue to depend on TCAS.

I like the concept of ADS-B, but I don't see a clear, quick path to
adoption by gliders.

Note to other pilots: if you want to know when I'm close to you, get an
MRX. It will tell you your approximate distance from me; it will tell
you your height relative to me; and it will tell you if I'm climbing! No
FLARM or ADS-B required.

--
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

bumper[_3_]

June 22nd 10, 04:09 AM

On Jun 21, 7:06*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 7:27 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
> >> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>
> >> Andreas
>
> > FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. *That is NOT going to
> > happen in the US. *Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
> > FAA would certify the units. *NAVWORX and MITRE have working
> > prototypes that could go into production overnight if we can get the
> > FAA to get off their but.
>
> > We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
> > level attention to this. *It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller
> > at AOPA. *They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they
> > have.
>
> It's going to take more that the availability of ADS-B units; they are
> going to have to mandated by the FAA or mandated by the SSA for use in
> contests, or no one will buy them. An ADS-B unit currently provides no
> protection in glider contests you can't get from a FLARM, which is a
> superior collision avoidance device for gliders, and people aren't
> buying FLARMS. FLARM even has an IGC logger in it for extra value,
> something you won't get with the ADS-B units, but USA pilots still
> aren't interested. I don't think they believe their risk of collision is
> very high. If pilots saw things as Bob 7U sees them, all the contest
> pilots would be using FLARM already.
>
> If FLARM was mandated for contests by the SSA, and made relatively
> inexpensive to rent for a contest, that would ensure everyone used them
> without too much grumbling. That could be done "right now", or certainly
> in time for the next season, without an FAA intervention. Another
> approach would be to require transponders in all contest gliders (at
> least for Nationals), and also require an MRX transponder detector.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)
>
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
>
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Eric,

If the SSA mandated Flarm for contests, how much would that help? Not
a lot, except at contests, and then only for glider vs glider mid-
airs. Most gliders don't fly contests, how about them? The non contest
glider pilots are concerned about mid-airs with gliders and power
planes too, especially in areas with significant GA and airline
traffic. The solution has to address glider vs power plane collision
risk too. And in the USA, Flarm won't do.

I'm with Darryl on this one. What we need is a reasonably priced,
power frugal ADS-B transceiver that is built to the same com and data
standard as those used in the big iron. The FAA needs to back off from
their triple redundant, paper work driven certification standards.
They need to lay out the outline of how the equipment should interface
and then get out of the way. Until then, it's a Mode-C and PCAS for me.

Mike Schumann

June 22nd 10, 05:24 AM

On 6/21/2010 10:21 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 2:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>> On 6/21/2010 2:20 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>> On Jun 21, 7:27 am, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
>>>>>> SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
>>>>>> example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>> Mike, believe me:
>>>>> If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
>>>>> around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
>>>>> going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
>>>>> possibly available in 2012.
>>>>
>>>>> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
>>>>> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
>>>> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
>>>> would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
>>>> could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
>>>> their but.
>>>>
>>>> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
>>>> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
>>>> AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>>
>>> An extremely bad outcome of wanting "ADS-B technology" to be deployed
>>> widely would be to end up with a need to mandatory equip with ADS-B
>>> with none of the FLARM-equivalent glider-tuned traffic warnings
>>> produced by the ADS-B receivers, no-compatibility with TCAS in fast
>>> jets and airlines etc. and significant areas where there is no GBT
>>> coverage to provide ADS-R (e.g. for glider on glider traffic awareness
>>> on mountain ridges where there may be a mix of UAT and 1090ES ADS-B
>>> equipped gliders).
>>>
>>> This is all extremely early technology, I hope actions by the SSA and
>>> others does not end up heading towards mandatory ADS-B carriage
>>> without these and other issues being addressed. By all means go work
>>> on testing and R&D stuff, but this stuff is far away from being wide
>>> scale deployable in gliders that it is premature to suggest ADS-B as a
>>> solution to practical real world problems like what happened at
>>> Parowan. And I do not feel that overly-involving the federal
>>> government in an attempt to get technology adopted in gliders is a
>>> good idea. The free market should be quite capable of delivering
>>> innovative ADS-B based technology to our cockpits, as has been done by
>>> FLARM (in Europe and elsewhere) and PCAS manufacturers.
>>>
>>> Darryl
>>>
>>
>> Nobody is asking the Feds to solve this problem. We have private
>> companies (Navworx and others) who have reasonably price ADS-B
>> products ready to go into production. What we need is for the FAA to
>> get out of the way and authorize the production of these units so that
>> the free market can work its magic.
> Without an FAA standard, I think you'd find the "magic" of the free
> market would stay in the lamp, no matter how hard you rubbed it. The
> units have to work together, they need the GBT, and who will install
> those if the FAA "gets out of the way"? Will there be a big market with
> a bunch of units not built to a common standard? Not very soon, as
> everyone waits for the market to settle on a standard, in part for
> interoperability reasons, in part for liability reasons, and because
> you'd STILL have to install a transponder, because the airliners,
> bizjets, and military aren't going to install non-standard ADS-B units
> and will continue to depend on TCAS.
>
> I like the concept of ADS-B, but I don't see a clear, quick path to
> adoption by gliders.
>
> Note to other pilots: if you want to know when I'm close to you, get an
> MRX. It will tell you your approximate distance from me; it will tell
> you your height relative to me; and it will tell you if I'm climbing! No
> FLARM or ADS-B required.
>

The MITRE unit is fully a fully functional ADS-B transceiver, meeting
all of the ADS-B specs, except for the use of aviation grade WAAS GPS
components that can provide an indication of the navigational fix's
integrity. The transmit power may also be somewhat lower than the NPRM
specs.

In addition to the position and velocity data that is transmitted each
second, the ADS-B transceiver also transmits an indication of the
accuracy and integrity of the navigational data. The MITRE unit
transmits "unknown" for integrity, as that information is not available
from a consumer grade GPS chipset.

The problem is that the current FAA specs require ADS-B transceivers to
have an accuracy and integrity level that meets the requirements for
parallel instrument approaches in IFR conditions at Class B airports.
This is complete overkill for VFR only GA aircraft. It is double
overkill, due to the fact that most GA aircraft are required to have
Mode C transponders in addition to any ADS-B equipment they might
voluntarily deploy between now and 2020.

The bottom line is that the low cost prototypes that are flying today
work and are fully operational in the FAA's Nextgen environment. They
may not provide the integrity signal that the FAA wants for IFR
applications, but that shouldn't preclude their being authorized for use
in VFR environments only.

Why would a glider or GA pilot buy a MITRE transceiver if it was
available at the right price:

1. ATC would see you on their radar (assuming you are within range of
an ADS-B ground station).
2. You would see all ADS-B and transponder equipped aircraft (again if
within range of a ground station). The info that you see is
significantly more accurate than what you get out of a PCAS device, at a
similar price point to a PCAS device.
3. You get free weather radar, METARs and TAFs

The only catch is that, for the time being, TCAS units will not see you
unless you also have a Mode C or S transponder.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

June 22nd 10, 05:42 AM

On 6/21/2010 10:06 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 7:27 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>
>>> FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
>>> that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>
>>
>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
>> happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the
>> FAA would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes
>> that could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get
>> off their but.
>>
>> We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
>> level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
>> AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.
> It's going to take more that the availability of ADS-B units; they are
> going to have to mandated by the FAA or mandated by the SSA for use in
> contests, or no one will buy them. An ADS-B unit currently provides no
> protection in glider contests you can't get from a FLARM, which is a
> superior collision avoidance device for gliders, and people aren't
> buying FLARMS. FLARM even has an IGC logger in it for extra value,
> something you won't get with the ADS-B units, but USA pilots still
> aren't interested. I don't think they believe their risk of collision is
> very high. If pilots saw things as Bob 7U sees them, all the contest
> pilots would be using FLARM already.
>
> If FLARM was mandated for contests by the SSA, and made relatively
> inexpensive to rent for a contest, that would ensure everyone used them
> without too much grumbling. That could be done "right now", or certainly
> in time for the next season, without an FAA intervention. Another
> approach would be to require transponders in all contest gliders (at
> least for Nationals), and also require an MRX transponder detector. That
> would let you know when a glider was near you and the relative altitude,
> and keep the airliners away. It would have value when you weren't flying
> in a contest, and "significant number" of Nationals contestants already
> have a transponder and/or MRX.
>
> ADS-B is the future, but as currently planned, I don't think glider
> pilots will find it compelling for many years. Cost is not the only issue.
>
> Darryl, don't be shy about contradicting me!
>

FLARM is in no way intrinsically better for soaring than ADS-B. The
difference is that FLARM units have built in collision alarms, whereby
the MITRE ADS-B transeiver is a black box that needs to be connected to
a GPS moving map or other display device to show the traffic (an iPhone
will work). See-You Mobile is a good example of a display device that
will show FLARM traffic. It should also be able to connect to the MITRE
unit and provide exactly the same functionality, except that you will
also see Mode C / S transponder equipped aircraft (if you are within
range of a ground station). Any alarm logic needs to be implemented in
the display device. (If you use one of the newer versions of the iPhone
as your display device, it should be possible to develop an app that
uses its built in compass function so that you get audio alarms for
collision threats that can identify not only the distance and altitude
difference to the target, but also where the target is relative to your
heading, even if you are circling in a thermal).

In the US, the biggest risk to most glider pilots are not other gliders,
but GA aircraft. The MITRE box will give you the same advantages in
this environment as a PCAS box will, with more accuracy and the bonus
that you will be visible on ATC Radar without having a separate
transponder. FLARM will not do any of that (in the US).

Another note: FLARM and ADS-B units are not a cure alls for collision
avoidance in competition flying. The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
sharing a thermal in a gagle. These units are good for warning you that
you are near another aircraft, and can show you where that aircraft is,
but when you are sharing a thermal with another glider at or near your
altitude, you absolutely need to rely on your eyeballs and keep the
other glider in sight at all times.

--
Mike Schumann

Andreas Maurer

June 22nd 10, 08:41 AM

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:42:48 -0400, Mike Schumann
> wrote:

Hi Mike,

>The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
>update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
>are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
>sharing a thermal in a gagle.

Well... based upon some years of experience with FLARM and gaggles I
have to disagree. Contrary to common believe GPS precision is
completely adequate to provide collision warnings immediately after
the heading change of a glider.

>These units are good for warning you that
>you are near another aircraft, and can show you where that aircraft is,
>but when you are sharing a thermal with another glider at or near your
>altitude, you absolutely need to rely on your eyeballs and keep the
>other glider in sight at all times.

True - but, believe it or not, FLARM detects pretty reliably if the
glider in your vicinity is a danger or not.
You can turn with a glider at the same altitude without getting a
warning - but as soon as one of you changes its circle, creating a
collision hazard, FLARM gives you a warning. Works really well.

As already mentioned: FLARM won't solve all the problems... but some
of them.
However, I'm still puzzled, regarding incidents like the one that
started this thread, why people are so reluctant to get such a device
now and decide to wait for the "final solution" for decades.
Lots of pretty drawings and concepts out there... but do you really
believe that this mythical US anti-collision-device will ever turn
into halfways affordable hardware? I doubt it. The certification
process alone is going to make it really, really expensive.

To me this sounds as if all you guys were refusing to fly with a
parachute now because some company advertized 100% reliable zero-zero
ejection seats for gliders in 2030. :)

I don't care... I don't fly on your side of the pond. :)

But I have the impression that you need a sponsor (SSA?) to get enough
FLARMS on loan to equip one or two competitions - I dare to predict
that after two weeks 100% of the participating pilots are going to buy
one.

Cheers
Andreas

Bob

June 22nd 10, 10:25 AM

>
> But I have the impression that you need a sponsor (SSA?) to get enough
> FLARMS on loan to equip one or two competitions - I dare to predict
> that after two weeks 100% of the participating pilots are going to buy
> one.
>
> Cheers
> Andreas

Andreas

I respectufully have to disagree with you on this :>)

Getting 100% of the folks from the US to agree on anything is an
impossibility, I know, I am one of those folks. Look at the topic
post! They can't even agreee on the "contest flight is scored from
point of collision" concept. They are still arguing about radios in
sailplanes.....

Bob

Andreas Maurer

June 22nd 10, 11:15 AM

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Bob >
wrote:

>I respectufully have to disagree with you on this :>)

Ah Bob,

I stand corrected. :)

Cheers
Andreas

jb92563

June 22nd 10, 04:17 PM

I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
the accident.

I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
forum.

However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
order to win.

Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
but isn't every glider
flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?

A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
mortals, so flying
a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
a good parachute
and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
deal.

The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
your damaged glider
could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
aware of and therefore can not
mitigate the risk.

In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
all systems are go based on the information at hand,
who has the right to argue with you?

Life is all about choosing your risks carefully, mitigating where
possible and accepting the risk where the reward meets our goals and
dreams.

We all have the right to make those decisions for ourselves.

"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
The fearful are caught as often as the bold."
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. "
"I Refuse To Tiptoe Through Life, Only To Arrive Safely At Death's
Door"
Helen Keller

Derek C

June 22nd 10, 05:15 PM

On Jun 22, 4:17*pm, jb92563 > wrote:
> I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
> the accident.
>
> I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
> forum.
>
> However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
> order to win.
>
> Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
> but isn't every glider
> flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?
>
> A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
> mortals, so flying
> a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
> a good parachute
> and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
> deal.
>
> The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
> your damaged glider
> could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
> aware of and therefore can not
> mitigate the risk.
>
> In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
> all systems are go based on the information at hand,
> *who has the right to argue with you?
>
> Life is all about choosing your risks carefully, mitigating where
> possible and accepting the risk where the reward meets our goals and
> dreams.
>
> We all have the right to make those decisions for ourselves.
>

I think that you colonials should adopt the UK rule that you are only
scored to the point of a mid-air collision. That removes the incentive
to press on in a damaged glider, and hopefully encourages all pilots
to keep a better lookout, to avoid having a mid-air collision in the
first place.

Derek C

Eric Greenwell

June 23rd 10, 04:29 AM

On 6/22/2010 8:17 AM, jb92563 wrote:
> I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
> the accident.
>
> I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
> forum.
>
> However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
> order to win.
>
> Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
> but isn't every glider
> flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?
>
> A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
> mortals, so flying
> a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
> a good parachute
> and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
> deal.
>
> The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
> your damaged glider
> could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
> aware of and therefore can not
> mitigate the risk.
>
> In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
> all systems are go based on the information at hand,
> who has the right to argue with you?
I think the organizers, the SSA, and the other entrants have the right
to argue with you. You could potentially harm someone else (as you point
out), or require a rescue, causing a lot of problems and grief for
everyone, including generating bad publicity for the sport if you crash.
If a pilot wants to "make the call" as a free spirit, let him become a
free spirit first; i.e., remove himself from the contest.

--
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

Mike Schumann

June 23rd 10, 04:37 AM

On 6/22/2010 11:29 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/22/2010 8:17 AM, jb92563 wrote:
>> I would be most interested in what the other competitors thought of
>> the accident.
>>
>> I'm sure the competitors are split down the middle just like on the
>> forum.
>>
>> However, they will also be able to relate to 'pushing the limits' in
>> order to win.
>>
>> Perhaps to us on the ground it seems irresponsible to continue on task
>> but isn't every glider
>> flight pushing some kind of personal comfort level or limit?
>>
>> A top notch competitor would have a much higher limit than us mere
>> mortals, so flying
>> a potentially damaged glider on task, over uninhabited desert, wearing
>> a good parachute
>> and perhaps with a SPOT PLB attached does not seem like such a big
>> deal.
>>
>> The only contentious issue would be thermalling with some others where
>> your damaged glider
>> could create a risk to the other competitors that they may not be
>> aware of and therefore can not
>> mitigate the risk.
>>
>> In the end it is up to the pilot to make the call and if you decide
>> all systems are go based on the information at hand,
>> who has the right to argue with you?
> I think the organizers, the SSA, and the other entrants have the right
> to argue with you. You could potentially harm someone else (as you point
> out), or require a rescue, causing a lot of problems and grief for
> everyone, including generating bad publicity for the sport if you crash.
> If a pilot wants to "make the call" as a free spirit, let him become a
> free spirit first; i.e., remove himself from the contest.
>

The FAA might also weigh in.

--
Mike Schumann

Mark Jardini

June 23rd 10, 03:57 PM

I imagine to win the day he was finishing up at better than best L/D?
A competitor would finish up with speeds in the yellow arc.

I was a flight doc in the ANG once upon a time. My whole job was one
small part of safety. That pilot community would not tolerate lapses
in flying safety.

The acceptable loss rate was zero. The loss rate for much more
complicated and dangerous aircraft than we fly, has to be well below
ours in the soaring community.

Why do we, as a community, set our bar so low? Why do we soaring
pilots think this is acceptable?

MJ

Brian Whatcott

June 23rd 10, 06:06 PM

Mark Jardini wrote:
>
> Why do we, as a community, set our bar so low? Why do we soaring
> pilots think this is acceptable?
>
> MJ
%%%
Is there nobody available to spank offenders then?

Brian W

Andy[_1_]

June 23rd 10, 09:10 PM

On Jun 23, 7:57*am, Mark Jardini > wrote:

> The acceptable loss rate was zero.

But what was the actual loss rate?

>The loss rate for much more
> complicated and dangerous aircraft than we fly, has to be well below
> ours in the soaring community.

What data supports that conclusion?

Why do you associate complicated with dangerous? It may actually be
an inverse correlation given that much airframe and systems complexity
is driven by the need for redundancy.

> Why do we, as a community, set our bar so low? Why do we soaring
> pilots think this is acceptable?

You only know where you set your bar. You can raise or lower it as
you please but setting the bar at zero accidents does not assure a
result of zero accidents.

Do you know any sailplane racing pilot that has set the bar at say 4
accidents per season?

The only way to guarantee zero accidents in sailplane contests is to
eliminate sailplane contests.

What should be far more important than what 2 pilots did after this
accident is why did they have the accident in the first place.
Understanding that has the potential for an improvement in safety.
Legislating what to do after an accident has far less potential.

Andy

Mike Schumann

June 23rd 10, 09:34 PM

On 6/23/2010 4:10 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:57 am, Mark > wrote:
>
>> The acceptable loss rate was zero.
>
> But what was the actual loss rate?
>
>> The loss rate for much more
>> complicated and dangerous aircraft than we fly, has to be well below
>> ours in the soaring community.
>
> What data supports that conclusion?
>
> Why do you associate complicated with dangerous? It may actually be
> an inverse correlation given that much airframe and systems complexity
> is driven by the need for redundancy.
>
>> Why do we, as a community, set our bar so low? Why do we soaring
>> pilots think this is acceptable?
>
> You only know where you set your bar. You can raise or lower it as
> you please but setting the bar at zero accidents does not assure a
> result of zero accidents.
>
> Do you know any sailplane racing pilot that has set the bar at say 4
> accidents per season?
>
> The only way to guarantee zero accidents in sailplane contests is to
> eliminate sailplane contests.
>
> What should be far more important than what 2 pilots did after this
> accident is why did they have the accident in the first place.
> Understanding that has the potential for an improvement in safety.
> Legislating what to do after an accident has far less potential.
>
> Andy

Is there a possibility that what they did after the accident reflects on
a mindset that might have been a contributing factor to the accident itself?

--
Mike Schumann

Bob Kuykendall

June 23rd 10, 10:25 PM

On Jun 23, 1:34*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:

> Is there a possibility that what they did after the accident reflects on
> a mindset that might have been a contributing factor to the accident itself?

Is there a possibility that that is other than a rhetorical
question? ;)

cernauta

June 29th 10, 01:01 AM

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:27:44 -0400, Mike Schumann
> wrote:

>FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped.

I strongly believe this is faulty logic. Or a rhetoric statement.
In fact, Flarm is useful if the two gliders in collision course are
equipped.

The other gliders, no matter how many they are, have nothing to do
with the usefulness of Flarm. I have been flying with a Flarm unit
since 2004, and I feel it helped me increase, by a factor of 10, the
number of visual contacts I have made. Since this year, combined with
a "radar" display on the Ipaq, I have an extremely useful aid to my
"situational awareness".

Mitre is extremely interesting, but it's not here, now. Flarm is at a
cost similar to many other gliding gizmos and accessories, we like to
buy for our toy. The sooner you buy one, the longer you enjoy.

Aldo Cernezzi

ursus

June 29th 10, 08:17 AM

On Jun 22, 6:42*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:

>There is no inherent reason that ADS-B UAT transceivers using consumer
>grade GPS and RF components can't be built for the same general price
>point as FLARM units. The only difference in the hardware is frequency
>and transmit power.

The FLARM RF transceiver costs about $5 in parts. The ADS-B UAT
transceiver is how much ???
Most glider pilots are in complete denial about the commercial
realities of the gliding business:
Selling and supporting an *empty* box, with no production costs, to
glider pilots could not be done below USD 600 per unit.
It is not pretty, but that's the reality if your business intends to
still be around in a few years, while supporting and innovating for
the customers...

> The MITRE unit
>transmits "unknown" for integrity, as that information is not available
>from a consumer grade GPS chipset.

The 'consumer grade' GPS chipset in FLARM provides all the information
you ever need:
DOP, accuracy estimates, pseudorange errors, satellite health and
whatever comes in through WAAS / EGNOS...
Some of that information is also transmitted in the FLARM signal and
used for alarm evaluation.
Just because a device is FAA certified does not mean it is better, it
just means it is outdated ;-)

> Another note: *FLARM and ADS-B units are not a cure alls for collision
> avoidance in competition flying. *The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
> update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
> are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
> sharing a thermal in a gagle. *

The update rate and relative (!) precision of the GPS used in FLARM is
by far sufficient to do collision avoidance in glider competitions.
Other factors are more limiting.
However, if you stick various FAA approved GPS's into gliders your
relative position and velocity information will not be nearly as
good...

My dear US friends; we do agree that 'classic' FLARM is not the best
solution for the US. This is why we never launched it there.
Stay tuned for PowerFLARM; it will deliver all you need, soon.
www.powerflarm.com

Urs - FLARM

Mike Schumann

June 30th 10, 04:14 PM

On 6/29/2010 2:17 AM, ursus wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:42 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>
>> There is no inherent reason that ADS-B UAT transceivers using consumer
>> grade GPS and RF components can't be built for the same general price
>> point as FLARM units. The only difference in the hardware is frequency
>> and transmit power.
>
> The FLARM RF transceiver costs about $5 in parts. The ADS-B UAT
> transceiver is how much ???
> Most glider pilots are in complete denial about the commercial
> realities of the gliding business:
> Selling and supporting an *empty* box, with no production costs, to
> glider pilots could not be done below USD 600 per unit.
> It is not pretty, but that's the reality if your business intends to
> still be around in a few years, while supporting and innovating for
> the customers...
>
>> The MITRE unit
>> transmits "unknown" for integrity, as that information is not available
>>from a consumer grade GPS chipset.
>
> The 'consumer grade' GPS chipset in FLARM provides all the information
> you ever need:
> DOP, accuracy estimates, pseudorange errors, satellite health and
> whatever comes in through WAAS / EGNOS...
> Some of that information is also transmitted in the FLARM signal and
> used for alarm evaluation.
> Just because a device is FAA certified does not mean it is better, it
> just means it is outdated ;-)
>
>> Another note: FLARM and ADS-B units are not a cure alls for collision
>> avoidance in competition flying. The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
>> update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
>> are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
>> sharing a thermal in a gagle.
>
> The update rate and relative (!) precision of the GPS used in FLARM is
> by far sufficient to do collision avoidance in glider competitions.
> Other factors are more limiting.
> However, if you stick various FAA approved GPS's into gliders your
> relative position and velocity information will not be nearly as
> good...
>
> My dear US friends; we do agree that 'classic' FLARM is not the best
> solution for the US. This is why we never launched it there.
> Stay tuned for PowerFLARM; it will deliver all you need, soon.
> www.powerflarm.com
>
> Urs - FLARM
>

You are obviously much more knowledgeable about FLARM and the associated
engineering than most of us. Please educate us on how much the price of
a FLARM unit would increase if it were re-engineered to meet the ADS-B
standards, assuming that the FAA would permit the utilization of
consumer grade components, eliminate the need for antenna diversity, and
reduce the transmit power levels somewhat to reflect the lower closing
rates of GA aircraft.

The other key consideration is that such a unit would not just be of
interest to the soaring community, but would also be sold into the VFR
GA market, dramatically increasing the potential sales volumes compared
to FLARM in Europe.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

June 30th 10, 04:20 PM

On 6/28/2010 7:01 PM, cernauta wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:27:44 -0400, Mike Schumann
> > wrote:
>
>
>> FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped.
>
> I strongly believe this is faulty logic. Or a rhetoric statement.
> In fact, Flarm is useful if the two gliders in collision course are
> equipped.
>
> The other gliders, no matter how many they are, have nothing to do
> with the usefulness of Flarm. I have been flying with a Flarm unit
> since 2004, and I feel it helped me increase, by a factor of 10, the
> number of visual contacts I have made. Since this year, combined with
> a "radar" display on the Ipaq, I have an extremely useful aid to my
> "situational awareness".
>
> Mitre is extremely interesting, but it's not here, now. Flarm is at a
> cost similar to many other gliding gizmos and accessories, we like to
> buy for our toy. The sooner you buy one, the longer you enjoy.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi

You are obviously flying in Europe or somewhere where FLARM adoption
rates are high.

In the US, there are no FLARM units. It's a chicken and egg situation.
The 1st person to install a FLARM unit would see no benefit. As more
people deploy these units, then the benefit would increase.

In the US, for most glider pilots, the major threat to collisions is not
other gliders, but other general aviation powered aircraft. What is the
realistic chance of getting these pilots to buy / install FLARM? ZERO!

The advantage that ADS-B UAT has in the US, is that a pilot who installs
this equipment will immediately see all other Mode C/S transponder
equipped aircraft if he is flying in the vicinity of an ADS-B ground
station. Since 80% of the US GA fleet is currently transponder
equipped, this is a huge incentive to get pilots to deploy this
technology, if it was cheap enough.

--
Mike Schumann

Greg Arnold

June 30th 10, 05:35 PM

On 6/30/2010 8:20 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> In the US, there are no FLARM units. It's a chicken and egg situation.
> The 1st person to install a FLARM unit would see no benefit. As more
> people deploy these units, then the benefit would increase.
>
> In the US, for most glider pilots, the major threat to collisions is not
> other gliders, but other general aviation powered aircraft. What is the
> realistic chance of getting these pilots to buy / install FLARM? ZERO!

If I correctly understand the forthcoming PowerFLARM, it identifies both
other gliders that have FLARM, and any aircraft that have transponders.
I would think that glider pilots will first buy it to identify
transponders, and that is how we will achieve the critical mass of FLARM
units in gliders.

Mike the Strike

June 30th 10, 06:53 PM

> If I correctly understand the forthcoming PowerFLARM, it identifies both
> other gliders that have FLARM, and any aircraft that have transponders.
> * I would think that glider pilots will first buy it to identify
> transponders, and that is how we will achieve the critical mass of FLARM
> units in gliders.

Unlike Europe, where gliders are more separated from commercial
traffic, here in the USA we share airspace with commercial, military
and general aviation. Our Tucson gliderport is right under an
incoming airway to Tucson International Airport and we have two other
nearby airports. Since installing a transponder, I now deflect most
of the really heavy commercial and military traffic around me, but
still have concerns about others. I nearly had a glider/glider head-
on with a fellow Tucson Soaring Club member a couple of years ago and
I have had close looks at a number of other planes, including a few
light twins and A-10s.

The only detection device that would be useful to me would alert me to
powered aircraft as well as gliders, and it seems that the new
PowerFLARM will do that. Whether or not it will be widely adopted at
its $1,500+ price point is another question.

Mike

rlovinggood

June 30th 10, 08:20 PM

>
> Unlike Europe, where gliders are more separated from commercial
> traffic, here in the USA we share airspace with commercial, military
> and general aviation. *Our Tucson gliderport is right under an
> incoming airway to Tucson International Airport and we have two other
> nearby airports. *Since installing a transponder, I now deflect most
> of the really heavy commercial and military traffic around me, but
> still have concerns about others. *I nearly had a glider/glider head-
> on with a fellow Tucson Soaring Club member a couple of years ago and
> I have had close looks at a number of other planes, including a few
> light twins and A-10s.
>
> The only detection device that would be useful to me would alert me to
> powered aircraft as well as gliders, and it seems that the new
> PowerFLARM will do that. Whether or not it will be widely adopted at
> its $1,500+ price point is another question.
>
> Mike

If the new PowerFLARM works as both an ADS-B receiver and FLARM
transmitter/receiver AND serves as a secure flight recorder, then
$1,500 doesn't seem out of line. Not that I can afford it, but it
doesn't seem too crazy. Now, will powered aircraft with TCAS (Traffic
Collision Avoidance System) and ADS-B receive any type of signal from
the PowerFLARM? Will the Hawker 800 and other bizjets see me on their
electronic gadgets before physical contact with up close and personal
inspections are made?

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Darryl Ramm

June 30th 10, 08:55 PM

On Jun 30, 9:35*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 6/30/2010 8:20 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the US, there are no FLARM units. It's a chicken and egg situation.
> > The 1st person to install a FLARM unit would see no benefit. As more
> > people deploy these units, then the benefit would increase.
>
> > In the US, for most glider pilots, the major threat to collisions is not
> > other gliders, but other general aviation powered aircraft. What is the
> > realistic chance of getting these pilots to buy / install FLARM? ZERO!
>
> If I correctly understand the forthcoming PowerFLARM, it identifies both
> other gliders that have FLARM, and any aircraft that have transponders.
> * I would think that glider pilots will first buy it to identify
> transponders, and that is how we will achieve the critical mass of FLARM
> units in gliders.

To the earlier point, I don't suspect anybody, includign Flarm, thinks
that the Flarm radio-protocol would be widely adopted in the GA market
in the USA. I think that was one of the points that Urs (CEO of Flarm)
was trying to make in his post about why the PowerFLARM is more
suitable for the USA market.

I suspect Greg understands PCAS well, but as with any of this
technology I want to be cautious about how some people will understand
statements like PowerFLARM seeing "any aircraft that have
transponders". The PowerFLARM (with 1090ES/PCAS option) includes PCAS
capability that will give some warning/traffic information about
transponder equipped threats. The PCAS threat information will not
include direction, only altitude and there is no detail available yet
AFAIK on how many threats etc. the PowerFLARM tracks/warns about/the
alert parameters/settings etc. So basically think of this like a Zaon
MRX built into the PowerFLARM box. If it works as well as the MRX it
is a great useful feature to have. However as with all PCAS it relies
on the transponder in the treat aircraft being interrogated either by
ground based SSR or by airborne TCAS or TCAD systems. Those of us who
fly with the MRX today know the coverage of these interrogators can be
pretty good, and that PCAS can be a great help in traffic awareness
but there are areas where there are no interrogator coverage (esp. low
on ridges, down low in valleys). PCAS is also of very limited if any
use in gaggles, even if the other gliders are all transponder
equipped. PCAS systems also often do not have enough range to provide
effective/early enough warning of fast jet traffic (esp. at
altitudes). If the concern is fast jets/airlines the most effective
thing to do is carry a transponder so those aircraft TCAS systems see
your glider and in the worse case issue a traffic resolution (TA)
command to the pilot. That is much more effective than hoping you can
use traffic awareness devices to help you avoid that fast jet.

The PowerFLARM (with 1090ES/PCAS option) also includes an ADS-B 1090ES
receiver. So will directly receive ADS-B data from 1090ES data-out
equipped aircraft. Which as the fleet adopts ADS-B this means the
PowerFLARM will see the position of 1090ES equipped airliners, jets
and likely much of the GA fleet. For those concerned with fast-jets/
airlines the 1090ES data-in capability in the PowerFLARM (without any
other devices, ADS-B transmitters etc.) will let you see those (1090ES
equipped) aircraft position precisely and at much longer range than
traditional PCAS systems. Bit again, this is a compliment, but not a
good alternative, to having a transponder in your glider to make you
visible to those aircraft's TCAS systems.

In the USA we have a complex dual-link ADS-B environment with both UAT
and 1090ES data-links supported. The FAA seemed to be assuming the GA
fleet would predominately equip with UAT devices. I beleive this is a
bad assumption and much of the GA fleet is likely to equip with 1090ES
data-out. Especially since, to meet requirements for flight in much of
the airspace those GA aircraft need to equip with both a transponder
and ADS-B data-out. Vendors like Garmin seem to be pushing just going
to Mode S and combining both capabilities in one box, which is what
they have done with the GTX-330ES/33ES products. Since common
components, packaging and costs can be combined this makes a lot of
sense.

In the USA a PowerFLARM will directly see the ADS-B transmission of
1090ES data-out equipped aircraft. But what about UATs and TIS-B?...
ADS-B dual-link works by utilizing GBT ground stations to relay
between 1090ES and UAT and visa-versa (that's called ADS-R or ADS-
Relay) and to also transmit the position of SSR radar based traffic
(that's called TIS-B). To do this the ground infrastructure needs to
know your aircraft's location so it can broadcast threats in your
vicinity. To do this your aircraft must be equipped with an ADS-B
transmitter, either a UAT transmitter (or transceiver) or Mode S
transponder with 1090ES. And the transmitters need to be fed a GPS
signal and correctly configured to tell the ground infrastructure what
ADS-B receiver capability your aircraft has. Just trying to get this
set up is a confusing mess today, and may not get any better--we are
likely to have lots of cases of improperly configured devices with
pilots unaware they are not working correctly.

Currently the PowerFLARM is the most interesting looking traffic
awareness product for gliders in the USA. It meets the baseline
requirement of being relatively compact and low-power. At around
$1,700 (with PCAS/1090ES) it is a bit more than many pilots would like
to pay, but for an early device with all these capabilities it is a
pretty amazing price point. The PowerFLARM has a nice built-in
display and audible warnings (fancier voice coming after first ship?)
and presumably supports Flarm's proven good glider-tuned collision
avoidance logic for Flarm as well as ADS-B direct and ADS-R traffic
(not sure how really handles the less precise location of TIS-B
threats). It supports the defacto standard Flarm serial protocol for
connection to remote displays, PDAs etc. Remember just having ADS-B
data-in anything provides no guarantee of a traffic/collision warning,
and certainly not something tuned for glider-on-glider situations like
Flarm has developed in their previous products. I am not aware of any
UAT devices, including the NavWorx products or the Mitre prototypes
that come close to having all these features, pretty much what I
consider baseline features for use in gliders. And based on a question
I posed to NavWorx, they appear to have no interest in supporting the
Flarm serial display protocol in their products. That's pretty
understandable since their products are really intended for the GA
market (e.g. their UAT transceiver appears to be packaged for GA
applications and to have relatively high power consumption for our
uses).

In the USA it is pretty clear we are going to be operating in an
environment with both 1090ES and UAT devices. We will have issues with
glider and GA aircraft owners (esp. early adopters and those not
seeking to meet carriage requirements) not being aware they need to be
ADS-B data-out equipped for ADS-R and TIS-B to work properly and we
will have areas without GBT coverage for ADS-R and TIS-B. For us I
worry about mountain ridges and valleys and similar areas where UAT
and 1090ES equipped gliders will not be able to "see" each other. I
worry that the only real ADS-B solution that will "just work" will
require the eventual adoption of dual-link receivers to directly
receive both 1090ES and UAT -- but even then we will need all gliders
to equip with an ADS-B data-out device for ADS-B to work. Or we all
adopt PowerFLARM and rely on the Flarm-Flarm link for glider on glider
traffic awareness in those corner cases. The SSA is supposed to be
working with the FAA on ADS-B, hopefully they are looking at lots of
these practical issues, not just focusing on the Mitre UAT prototype.

The nice thing about PowerFLARM (with the 1090ES/PCAS option) is that
with no extra work it gives you PCAS, 1090ES direct-in and Flarm to
Flarm capability today. Flarm-Flarm only being interesting if you can
convince lot of you local your glider buddies to buy one as well.
Early adopters today who want to play with ADS-B "properly" with a
PowerFLARM will need to add a ADS-B data-out transmitter. Probably the
most practical way of doing that today in the USA would be based on a
Trig TT-21 1090ES capable transponder.

All this of course is buried in a thread about a real collision. All
these devices are just aids and I really hope people posting about
technology here really really really get that....

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

June 30th 10, 09:12 PM

On Jun 30, 12:20*pm, rlovinggood > wrote:
> > Unlike Europe, where gliders are more separated from commercial
> > traffic, here in the USA we share airspace with commercial, military
> > and general aviation. *Our Tucson gliderport is right under an
> > incoming airway to Tucson International Airport and we have two other
> > nearby airports. *Since installing a transponder, I now deflect most
> > of the really heavy commercial and military traffic around me, but
> > still have concerns about others. *I nearly had a glider/glider head-
> > on with a fellow Tucson Soaring Club member a couple of years ago and
> > I have had close looks at a number of other planes, including a few
> > light twins and A-10s.
>
> > The only detection device that would be useful to me would alert me to
> > powered aircraft as well as gliders, and it seems that the new
> > PowerFLARM will do that. Whether or not it will be widely adopted at
> > its $1,500+ price point is another question.
>
> > Mike
>
> If the new PowerFLARM works as both an ADS-B receiver and FLARM
> transmitter/receiver AND serves as a secure flight recorder, then
> $1,500 doesn't seem out of line. *Not that I can afford it, but it
> doesn't seem too crazy. *Now, will powered aircraft with TCAS (Traffic
> Collision Avoidance System) and ADS-B receive any type of signal from
> the PowerFLARM? *Will the Hawker 800 and other bizjets see me on their
> electronic gadgets before physical contact with up close and personal
> inspections are made?
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

The PowerFLARM is a Flarm radio-protocol transmitter and receiver but
is an ADS-B 1090ES receiver only. It does not transmit any ADS-B data.

You need a transponder (Mode C or Mode S) for the fast jets,
airliners, military transport, etc. to "see" you on their TCAS system.
Some GA aircraft will also see you on their TCAD systems, and many
folks will see you on PCAS. It is especially important that there is
no way for the big-iron's TCAS systems to issue an "RA" resolution
advisory unless your glider has a transponder. The TCAS will not see a
UAT transmitter. You can of combine ADS-B data-out and the transponder
by having a Mode S transponder with 1090ES data-out capability (the
Trig TT-21 being the prototypical example in the USA).

Over time other aircraft (including maybe that Hawker 800 example) may
add ADS-B data-in and CDTI (ADS-B based traffic display). At the high
end CDTI will be integrated with the TCAS based traffic display, but
again without a transponder even a combined CDTI/TCAS system will not
issue an RA against you as a threat. The other issue is that many fast-
jet owners likely are to be convinced of the benefit of ADS-B data-in
and CDTI over their current mandatory TCAS requirements. We'll have to
see what adoption rates there are (I'm curious and currently asking a
corporate flight department who operate Hawker 900XP and others about
their ADS-B data-in/CDTI plans). You sneeze in these cockpits and
somebody hands you an invoice that could buy a shiny new ASH-30Mi...

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

July 5th 10, 05:09 PM

On Jun 16, 11:48*am, Andy > wrote:
> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
> day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
> wing and so far has no log posted.
>
> Any more information available?
>
> Andy.

Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).

According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
CD determined was dangerous flying.

As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
help judge the thermal location.

And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
do.

Darryl

Mike Schumann

July 6th 10, 01:35 AM

On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, > wrote:
>> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
>> day. If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
>> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
>> wing and so far has no log posted.
>>
>> Any more information available?
>>
>> Andy.
>
> Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
> Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
> was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
> both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
> for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).
>
> According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
> device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
> and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
> the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
> pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
> CD determined was dangerous flying.
>
> As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
> collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
> entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
> in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
> the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
> help judge the thermal location.
>
> And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
> collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
> Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
> was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
> closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
> as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
> pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
> not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
> facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
> do.
>
>
> Darryl

I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. Is there some further documentation
that describes this?

--
Mike Schumann

Darryl Ramm

July 6th 10, 02:25 AM

On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:48 am, > *wrote:
> >> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
> >> day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
> >> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
> >> wing and so far has no log posted.
>
> >> Any more information available?
>
> >> Andy.
>
> > Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
> > Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
> > was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
> > both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
> > for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).
>
> > According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
> > device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
> > and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
> > the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
> > pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
> > CD determined was dangerous flying.
>
> > As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
> > collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
> > entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
> > in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
> > the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
> > help judge the thermal location.
>
> > And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
> > collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
> > Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
> > was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
> > closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
> > as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
> > pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
> > not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
> > facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
> > do.
>
> > Darryl
>
> I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
> vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation
> that describes this?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
in SeeYou (Edit>Add Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
those gliders above or whether this was a factor.

Darryl

Tony[_5_]

July 6th 10, 02:38 AM

On Jul 5, 8:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 11:48 am, > *wrote:
> > >> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
> > >> day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
> > >> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
> > >> wing and so far has no log posted.
>
> > >> Any more information available?
>
> > >> Andy.
>
> > > Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
> > > Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
> > > was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
> > > both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
> > > for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).
>
> > > According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
> > > device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
> > > and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
> > > the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
> > > pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
> > > CD determined was dangerous flying.
>
> > > As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
> > > collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
> > > entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
> > > in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
> > > the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
> > > help judge the thermal location.
>
> > > And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
> > > collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
> > > Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
> > > was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
> > > closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
> > > as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
> > > pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
> > > not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
> > > facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
> > > do.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
> > vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation
> > that describes this?
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
> in SeeYou (Edit>Add Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
> files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
> starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
> joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
> either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
> those gliders above or whether this was a factor.
>
> Darryl

i know one pilot who was under the colliding pilots in the same
thermal.

Darryl Ramm

July 6th 10, 02:46 AM

On Jul 5, 6:38*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 16, 11:48 am, > *wrote:
> > > >> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
> > > >> day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
> > > >> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
> > > >> wing and so far has no log posted.
>
> > > >> Any more information available?
>
> > > >> Andy.
>
> > > > Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
> > > > Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
> > > > was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
> > > > both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
> > > > for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).
>
> > > > According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
> > > > device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
> > > > and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
> > > > the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
> > > > pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
> > > > CD determined was dangerous flying.
>
> > > > As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
> > > > collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
> > > > entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
> > > > in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
> > > > the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
> > > > help judge the thermal location.
>
> > > > And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
> > > > collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
> > > > Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
> > > > was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
> > > > closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
> > > > as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
> > > > pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
> > > > not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
> > > > facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
> > > > do.
>
> > > > Darryl
>
> > > I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
> > > vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation
> > > that describes this?
>
> > > --
> > > Mike Schumann
>
> > Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
> > in SeeYou (Edit>Add Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
> > files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
> > starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
> > joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
> > either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
> > those gliders above or whether this was a factor.
>
> > Darryl
>
> i know one pilot who was under the colliding pilots in the same
> thermal.

From the flight traces there appear to be two gliders below the
general are of the collision, neither appear to be actually working
the same thermal so I did not mention them. One of them in particular
flies towards and under the gliders a short time after the collide.

It's worth sitting down with SeeYou on a fast computer and playing
either the Parowan or WGC collision in 3D (complete with all the other
gliders) and imagine looking at that other traffic while joining a
thermal. A healthy reminder how easy this is to happen when there are
enough gliders around trying to work the same thermals.

Darryl

Mike Schumann

July 6th 10, 03:13 AM

On 7/5/2010 8:46 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jul 5, 6:38 pm, > wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 8:25 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 5, 5:35 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
>>>>>> day. If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
>>>>>> win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
>>>>>> wing and so far has no log posted.
>>
>>>>>> Any more information available?
>>
>>>>>> Andy.
>>
>>>>> Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st
>>>>> Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which
>>>>> was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site
>>>>> both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs
>>>>> for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet).
>>
>>>>> According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision
>>>>> device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling
>>>>> and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid
>>>>> the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That
>>>>> pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the
>>>>> CD determined was dangerous flying.
>>
>>>>> As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the
>>>>> collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders
>>>>> entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder
>>>>> in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing
>>>>> the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to
>>>>> help judge the thermal location.
>>
>>>>> And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a
>>>>> collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4).
>>>>> Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He
>>>>> was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other
>>>>> closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land
>>>>> as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the
>>>>> pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out,
>>>>> not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and
>>>>> facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would
>>>>> do.
>>
>>>>> Darryl
>>
>>>> I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the
>>>> vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. Is there some further documentation
>>>> that describes this?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those
>>> in SeeYou (Edit>Add Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC
>>> files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just
>>> starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be
>>> joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if
>>> either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching
>>> those gliders above or whether this was a factor.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> i know one pilot who was under the colliding pilots in the same
>> thermal.
>
> From the flight traces there appear to be two gliders below the
> general are of the collision, neither appear to be actually working
> the same thermal so I did not mention them. One of them in particular
> flies towards and under the gliders a short time after the collide.
>
> It's worth sitting down with SeeYou on a fast computer and playing
> either the Parowan or WGC collision in 3D (complete with all the other
> gliders) and imagine looking at that other traffic while joining a
> thermal. A healthy reminder how easy this is to happen when there are
> enough gliders around trying to work the same thermals.
>
> Darryl

This is an interesting insight into this incident. Based on the
previous posts, I had assumed that this collision had occurred between
two gliders in isolation. This certainly provides some explanation on
what led up to this event.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

July 6th 10, 03:15 AM

WaltWX

July 13th 10, 06:44 AM

On Jun 29, 12:17*am, ursus > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:42*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
> >There is no inherent reason that ADS-B UAT transceivers using consumer
> >grade GPS and RF components can't be built for the same general price
> >point as FLARM units. *The only difference in the hardware is frequency
> >and transmit power.
>
> The FLARM RF transceiver costs about $5 in parts. The ADS-B UAT
> transceiver is how much ???
> Most glider pilots are in complete denial about the commercial
> realities of the gliding business:
> Selling and supporting an *empty* box, with no production costs, to
> glider pilots could not be done below USD 600 per unit.
> It is not pretty, but that's the reality if your business intends to
> still be around in a few years, while supporting and innovating for
> the customers...
>
> > The MITRE unit
> >transmits "unknown" for integrity, as that information is not available
> >from a consumer grade GPS chipset.
>
> The 'consumer grade' GPS chipset in FLARM provides all the information
> you ever need:
> DOP, accuracy estimates, pseudorange errors, satellite health and
> whatever comes in through WAAS / EGNOS...
> Some of that information is also transmitted in the FLARM signal and
> used for alarm evaluation.
> Just because a device is FAA certified does not mean it is better, it
> just means it is outdated ;-)
>
> > Another note: *FLARM and ADS-B units are not a cure alls for collision
> > avoidance in competition flying. *The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
> > update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
> > are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
> > sharing a thermal in a gagle. *
>
> The update rate and relative (!) precision of the GPS used in FLARM is
> by far sufficient to do collision avoidance in glider competitions.
> Other factors are more limiting.
> However, if you stick various FAA approved GPS's into gliders your
> relative position and velocity information will not be nearly as
> good...
>
> My dear US friends; we do agree that 'classic' FLARM is not the best
> solution for the US. This is why we never launched it there.
> Stay tuned for PowerFLARM; it will deliver all you need, soon.www.powerflarm.com
>
> Urs - FLARM

Urs,

QUESTION: Will PowerFLARM only be monitoring ADB-B data from 1090ES
equipped aircraft? That's my understanding after listening to Daryl
Ramm's reply. Will I be able to monitor the lat/lon and altitude of
transponder equipped aircraft from the ADB-B ground stations
rebroadcasting that information (ADS-R or ... Relay feature of the ADB-
B program). If the ADB-B ground stations relay data from both UAT
equipped aircraft and transponder aircraft, then... will I be able to
get collision advisories from the same algorithm used with FLARM to
FLARM equipped gliders?

FYI... I have ordered one of the early delivery PowerFLARMs based on
the assumption that I can hear all the ADS-B and transponder equipped
aircraft.. either directly air-to-air with the 1090ES aircraft over
through the ADS-B ground stations. Is this a correct assumption? It's
really confusing ... all this ADS-B program stuff with dual
frequencies in the U.S.

Urs, my motivation for purchasing PowerFLARM was a near mid-air I had
at the Parowan 2010 Sports Nationals. If you go to the DAY6 IGC files
and look for these logs: 06LC4541.IGC (my log - Walter Rogers : WX a
Discus 2A) and 06LC4131.IGC (Richard Pfiffner: SD a Ventus) you will
see another near mid air coming out of the first turn. Our paths
intersected with about 15 feet vertical separation. Fortunately, I saw
the converging glider at the last moment and made a severe pitch down
to miss him. Richard never saw me... Ironically (or maybe... using
good sense) I decided to purchase my PowerFLARM from Richard.

Urs, we met briefly for dinner with Dave Nadler and Lee Kuhkle at the
SSA convention in Littlerock.

Looking forward to PowerFLARM and any future software upgrades that
will help with ADS-B...

Walt Rogers, WX

Darryl Ramm

July 13th 10, 08:23 AM

On Jul 12, 10:44*pm, WaltWX > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 12:17*am, ursus > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 6:42*am, Mike Schumann >
> > wrote:
>
> > >There is no inherent reason that ADS-B UAT transceivers using consumer
> > >grade GPS and RF components can't be built for the same general price
> > >point as FLARM units. *The only difference in the hardware is frequency
> > >and transmit power.
>
> > The FLARM RF transceiver costs about $5 in parts. The ADS-B UAT
> > transceiver is how much ???
> > Most glider pilots are in complete denial about the commercial
> > realities of the gliding business:
> > Selling and supporting an *empty* box, with no production costs, to
> > glider pilots could not be done below USD 600 per unit.
> > It is not pretty, but that's the reality if your business intends to
> > still be around in a few years, while supporting and innovating for
> > the customers...
>
> > > The MITRE unit
> > >transmits "unknown" for integrity, as that information is not available
> > >from a consumer grade GPS chipset.
>
> > The 'consumer grade' GPS chipset in FLARM provides all the information
> > you ever need:
> > DOP, accuracy estimates, pseudorange errors, satellite health and
> > whatever comes in through WAAS / EGNOS...
> > Some of that information is also transmitted in the FLARM signal and
> > used for alarm evaluation.
> > Just because a device is FAA certified does not mean it is better, it
> > just means it is outdated ;-)
>
> > > Another note: *FLARM and ADS-B units are not a cure alls for collision
> > > avoidance in competition flying. *The accuracy of the GPS fixes and the
> > > update rates (even for units meeting the FAA's latest approved specs)
> > > are not high enough to provide collision warnings for gliders that are
> > > sharing a thermal in a gagle. *
>
> > The update rate and relative (!) precision of the GPS used in FLARM is
> > by far sufficient to do collision avoidance in glider competitions.
> > Other factors are more limiting.
> > However, if you stick various FAA approved GPS's into gliders your
> > relative position and velocity information will not be nearly as
> > good...
>
> > My dear US friends; we do agree that 'classic' FLARM is not the best
> > solution for the US. This is why we never launched it there.
> > Stay tuned for PowerFLARM; it will deliver all you need, soon.www.powerflarm.com
>
> > Urs - FLARM
>
> Urs,
>
> QUESTION: Will PowerFLARM only be monitoring ADB-B data from 1090ES
> equipped aircraft? That's my understanding after listening to Daryl
> Ramm's reply. Will I be able to monitor the lat/lon and altitude of
> transponder equipped aircraft from the ADB-B ground stations
> rebroadcasting that information (ADS-R or ... Relay feature of the ADB-
> B program). If the ADB-B ground stations relay data from both UAT
> equipped aircraft and transponder aircraft, then... will I be able to
> get collision advisories from the same algorithm used with FLARM to
> FLARM equipped gliders?
>
> FYI... I have ordered one of the early delivery PowerFLARMs based on
> the assumption that I can hear all the ADS-B and transponder equipped
> aircraft.. either directly air-to-air with the 1090ES aircraft over
> through the ADS-B ground stations. Is this a correct assumption? It's
> really confusing ... all this ADS-B program stuff with dual
> frequencies in the U.S.
>
> Urs, my motivation for purchasing PowerFLARM was a near mid-air I had
> at the Parowan 2010 Sports Nationals. If you go to the DAY6 IGC files
> and look for these logs: 06LC4541.IGC (my log - Walter Rogers : WX a
> Discus 2A) and 06LC4131.IGC (Richard Pfiffner: SD a Ventus) you will
> see another near mid air coming out of the first turn. *Our paths
> intersected with about 15 feet vertical separation. Fortunately, I saw
> the converging glider at the last moment and made a severe pitch down
> to miss him. Richard never saw me... Ironically (or maybe... using
> good sense) I decided to purchase my PowerFLARM from Richard.
>
> Urs, we met briefly for dinner with Dave Nadler and Lee Kuhkle at the
> SSA convention in Littlerock.
>
> Looking forward to PowerFLARM and any future software upgrades that
> will help with ADS-B...
>
> Walt Rogers, WX

Walt

I'm nor sure you meant to broadcast this but I'll try to answer
(reconfirm what I think you already know?) on the more generic ADS-B
and PCAS part of your question. [And standard apology for the length
of my posts...]

PowerFLARM to the extent it has PCAS capabilities can see other
transponders being interrogated by ground (SSR Radar and in some
places multilateration systems) and airborne interrogators (TCAS, TCAD
etc). This would give you no direction information for that traffic.

PowerFLARM has a 1090ES receiver so can "see" with high accuracy
aircraft with 1090ES ADS-B data-out. That will over time include all
the airliners, fast jets, any traffic flying over FL 180, and I expect
it to include many GA aircraft who I expect will go with 1090ES data
out and not UAT to meet the ADS-B carriage requirement. Since there is
nothing else involved the line of sight range on this may be quite
significant, well beyond PCAS and FLARM (and ADS-R and TIS-B).

PowerFLARM has a 1090ES receiver so *if* you also have an ADS-B
transmitter properly configured to transmit your GPS position and ADS-
B receiver capability codes (i.e. set to show your aircraft receives
1090ES) then the ADS-B ground infrastructure will rebroadcast UAT data-
out equipped traffic over 1090ES that it is aware of within a cylinder
around your aircraft. The size of this cylinder is significantly less
than the ultimate range of UAT or 1090ES direct transmissions so this
one damper on anybody thinking they can track their glider buddies
over very long ranges in the air if there is mixed UAT and 1090ES
involved. The ADS-B data-out/transmitter you need for this would
typically be something like the Trig TT21 Mode S/1090ES transponder
but could be a UAT transmitter (or transceiver).

For the PowerFLARM or any other ADS-B receiver to see SSR radar
targets via TIS-B again the ADS-B ground infrastructure needs to know
where you are so it can broadcast possible threats in a cylinder
around you. But it will only broadcast traffic that the SSR radar
system (or multilateration in some areas - like the newly announced
Alaska deployment) can "see". There seems to be a common misconception
that ADS-B TIS-B will show transponder equipped threats over vast
areas, but it cannot show any TIS-B threats near you if you are flying
outside of traditional SSR radar (or multilateration) coverage. Again
the ADS-B data-out needed to tell the ground infrastructure where you
are would today normally be a Mode S /1090ES transponder.

One point of confusion with ADS-B traffic is some people talk about
TIS-B as if it means any traffic you see on ADS-B, it specifically
means just the SSR radar (or multilateration) traffic information
retransmitted on ADS-B. Traffic information via UAT or 1090ES data-out
direct and ADS-R is not "TIS-B" traffic.

I am concerned that in many cases pilots will not be able to tell ADS-
B receivers are not working correctly when they do not also have an
ADS-B transmitter. Gosh they will see ADS-B direct and ADS-R and TIS-B
traffic but the later two will only be traffic around other aircraft,
not necessarily yours. Unfortunately there are ADS-B receiver vendors,
especially USA based UAT receiver manufactures, who are not making
this requirement extremely clear. Some of those vendors seem to have
only woken up to this recently and are repositioning their UAT
receiver only "traffic systems" as "weather receivers" -- wanna guess
why? :-( I hope PowerFLARM in the USA makes very clear the need for an
ADS-B transmitter to enable full ADS-B traffic data-in. In Europe
today this is irrelevant so not surprising it is not called out in
European marketing material. Of course the PowerFLARM should work as a
FLARM-FLARM detector, PCAS detector and 1090ES direct traffic receiver
without any separate ADS-B transmitter.

There are large areas of the USA airspace we use where there is no SSR
coverage to enable ADS-R but even there you may get a PCAS alert
because of airborne interrogators. As more aircraft equip with ADS-B
(and I expect many will be 1090ES) you will see 1090ES targets replace
those directionless PCAS threats and unlike with PCAS you don't need
an external interrogator to see those 1090ES threats (because they
"squitter" their position ever second). It's trivial to deduplicate a
Mode S and 1090ES threat so something like PowerFLARM should be able
to suppress the PCAS warning for those 1090ES equipped threats. Even
as we pass the ADS-B carriage mandate there will be some aircraft that
stay equipped with say Mode C transponders and don't equip with ADS-B
anything, in which case there are times when you won't receive any
warnings from those aircraft. That's a scenario worth remembering with
some gliders equipped with Mode C transponders where there is no ADS-B
carriage mandate. If the transponders are not being interrogated a
PowerFLARM can't do anything for you -- you need those other gliders
to have a PowerFLARM (for FLARM-FLARM) or ADS-B data-out capability.

Maybe with the collision at Parowan, and at the World contest, and
other near misses (like yours) at both contests it may well be time to
start mandating FLARM/PowerFLARM in Contests to deal with this glider-
on-glider threat. In my mind that is a problem Flarm addresses just
about as good as it ever can be done. ADS-B futureware is really about
interacting with ATC and other traffic, and hopefully useful for long
distance tracking/SAR etc.

And we are focused on glider-on-glider issues here. Remember if the
issue is airliners and fast-jets the only thing that works properly
against those aircraft TCAS systems is a transponder (which could be a
Mode S/1090ES unit). The TCAS in those fast jets and airliners and
military transports etc. will not issue an resolution advisory (RA)
against a UAT equipped aircraft that does not also have a transponder.
The place where ATC bureaucracy and ADS-B technology meet seems to
have missed us, it really assumes your ADS-B transmitter is a
transponder or you have a separate transponder if UAT equipped.

Darryl

jcarlyle

July 13th 10, 02:55 PM

Darryl,

A question arising from your reply to Walt, specifically concerning
TIS-B. From your reply and PowerFLARM's literature:

A. It appears that this unit will give accurate direction, range and
relative altitude info to FLARM equipped planes, and it also will
broadcast FLARM signals to other aircraft.

B. It also appears that it will give you estimated range, relative
altitude, but no direction to Mode C and Mode S transponders <that are
being interrogated>.

C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
altitude info to ADS-B data-out equipped planes once a second <around
other aircraft>.

D. If your aircraft <does> have a Mode S with ADS-B out transponder,
you will get accurate direction, range and relative altitude info to
nearby aircraft with ADS-B data-out transponders once a second <around
your aircraft>.

We'd like point D2 to <also> include getting TIS-B data, meaning "SSR
radar (or multilateration) traffic information retransmitted on ADS-
B", but I can't find anywhere that PowerFLARM claims to do this. I
have an e-mail from Dr. Thomas Wittig, the developer of a competing
product (Funkwerk TM250 Traffic Monitor), that says his system
supports "ADS-B IN via Mode S 1090, but not TIS-B or TIS".

Does PowerFLARM really do TIS-B?

-John

On Jul 13, 3:23 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> PowerFLARM to the extent it has PCAS capabilities can see other
> transponders being interrogated by ground (SSR Radar and in some
> places multilateration systems) and airborne interrogators (TCAS, TCAD
> etc). This would give you no direction information for that traffic.
>
> PowerFLARM has a 1090ES receiver so can "see" with high accuracy
> aircraft with 1090ES ADS-B data-out. That will over time include all
> the airliners, fast jets, any traffic flying over FL 180, and I expect
> it to include many GA aircraft who I expect will go with 1090ES data
> out and not UAT to meet the ADS-B carriage requirement. Since there is
> nothing else involved the line of sight range on this may be quite
> significant, well beyond PCAS and FLARM (and ADS-R and TIS-B).
>
> PowerFLARM has a 1090ES receiver so *if* you also have an ADS-B
> transmitter properly configured to transmit your GPS position and ADS-
> B receiver capability codes (i.e. set to show your aircraft receives
> 1090ES) then the ADS-B ground infrastructure will rebroadcast UAT data-
> out equipped traffic over 1090ES that it is aware of within a cylinder
> around your aircraft. The size of this cylinder is significantly less
> than the ultimate range of UAT or 1090ES direct transmissions so this
> one damper on anybody thinking they can track their glider buddies
> over very long ranges in the air if there is mixed UAT and 1090ES
> involved. The ADS-B data-out/transmitter you need for this would
> typically be something like the Trig TT21 Mode S/1090ES transponder
> but could be a UAT transmitter (or transceiver).
>
> For the PowerFLARM or any other ADS-B receiver to see SSR radar
> targets via TIS-B again the ADS-B ground infrastructure needs to know
> where you are so it can broadcast possible threats in a cylinder
> around you. But it will only broadcast traffic that the SSR radar
> system (or multilateration in some areas - like the newly announced
> Alaska deployment) can "see". There seems to be a common misconception
> that ADS-B TIS-B will show transponder equipped threats over vast
> areas, but it cannot show any TIS-B threats near you if you are flying
> outside of traditional SSR radar (or multilateration) coverage. Again
> the ADS-B data-out needed to tell the ground infrastructure where you
> are would today normally be a Mode S /1090ES transponder.
>
> One point of confusion with ADS-B traffic is some people talk about
> TIS-B as if it means any traffic you see on ADS-B, it specifically
> means just the SSR radar (or multilateration) traffic information
> retransmitted on ADS-B. Traffic information via UAT or 1090ES data-out
> direct and ADS-R is not "TIS-B" traffic.

jcarlyle

July 13th 10, 03:47 PM

Nuts - I messed up the summary of this complex subject. Please correct
C and D, would you, Darryl?

The question still stands, though - Does PowerFLARM really do TIS-B?

-John

Darryl Ramm

July 13th 10, 07:29 PM

John

I'm not sure I corrected C and D to what you meant, but here goes.

On Jul 13, 6:55 am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Darryl,
>
> A question arising from your reply to Walt, specifically concerning
> TIS-B. From your reply and PowerFLARM's literature:
>
> A. It appears that this unit will give accurate direction, range and
> relative altitude info to FLARM equipped planes, and it also will
> broadcast FLARM signals to other aircraft.
>
> B. It also appears that it will give you estimated range, relative
> altitude, but no direction to Mode C and Mode S transponders <that are
> being interrogated>.
>
> C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
> transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
> altitude info to ADS-B data-out equipped planes once a second <around
> other aircraft>.

CORRECTED C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
altitude info *FROM* all 1090ES data-out eqipped aircraft once per
second.
You *MAY ALSO IF LUCKY* see *UAT* data-out equipped planes once a
second
but only <around other *SUITABLY EQUIPPED* aircraft>.

I'd hope people look at that scenario as completely unreliable since
the proximity/threat cylinder used by the ground infrastucture while
reasonably large in radius is likely relatively limited in altitude so
you could easily not "see" traffic via ADS-R and TIS-B even if you
might otherwise think it is relatively close. I am not sure there is a
hard commitment for this "threat cylinder" or service volume size but
typical numbers are around 15 nautical mile radius but only +/- 3,500'
around an suitable equipped aircraft. So the other nearby ADS-B data-
out equipped aircraft has to be relatively close to your altitude for
this to work. Think of it working "by accident" at times but not
something we should not every think about relying on.

It also will only work if the aircraft you are "close" enough to
either has 1090ES or UAT data-out and is transmitting the 1090ES
capability code bit -- that will cause the ground infrastructure to
transmit TIS-B around that aircraft. The ground infrastructure would
also transmit ADS-R data for UAT equipped target aircraft around that
other receiver equipped aircraft -- unless that other receiving
aircraft also happens to have a UAT receiver and is properly
transmitting the UAT capability code bit. In which case the ground
infrastructure should suppress the ADS-R data because the other
aircraft would receive the UAT data directly. Confused yet? :-) Repeat
after me... for ADS-B receivers to work properly in the USA your
aircraft must also have an ADS-B transmitter sending your GPS location
and have properly configured capability class bits (to describe your
aircraft's ADS-B receiver link type).

BTW it is also maybe worth noting that above FL180 all aircraft will
be assumed to have 1090ES (not UAT) data-out as required in the ADS-B
mandate and therefore I expect the ground infrastructure won't do ADS-
R for UAT or TIS-B to UAT receivers at these altitudes. That seems to
be backed up by some documentation I've seen. That may make UAT
devices in gliders useless in wave windows for traffic awareness/
avoidance (and the issue there may really be glider traffic staying
outside the wave window).

> D. If your aircraft <does> have a Mode S with ADS-B out transponder,
> you will get accurate direction, range and relative altitude info to
> nearby aircraft with ADS-B data-out transponders once a second <around
> your aircraft>.

Yes that is correct but technically an over-requirement. If you have a
PowerFLARM with a 1090ES receiver you will directly see other 1090ES
transmitting aircraft and in that specific scenario you do not need a
local 1090ES transponder to receive that other traffic since it comes
via ADS-B direct not ADS-R. However clearly the the other aircraft
have no chance of seeing you via 1090ES, and having a 1090ES receiver
while not transmitting any ADS-B data-out signals is a huge problem
for ADS-R and TIS-B as I've hopefully flogged to death already.

> We'd like point D2 to <also> include getting TIS-B data, meaning "SSR
> radar (or multilateration) traffic information retransmitted on ADS-
> B", but I can't find anywhere that PowerFLARM claims to do this. I
> have an e-mail from Dr. Thomas Wittig, the developer of a competing
> product (Funkwerk TM250 Traffic Monitor), that says his system
> supports "ADS-B IN via Mode S 1090, but not TIS-B or TIS".
>
> Does PowerFLARM really do TIS-B?

I cannot speak for PowerFLARM specifically but any device that has a
1090ES receiver essentially gets TIS-B and ADS-R for "free" if the
aircraft also has the proper ADS-B data-out equipment - which yes, is
not "free" to you since you gave to buy that ADS-B data-out device.
The receiver can tell from the data if a traffic message is ADS-B
direct, ADS-R or TIS-B. The SSR radar (or multilateration) derived
positional accuracy of TIS-B is much worse that the GPS derived ADS-B
direct or ADS-R positional data and I have no idea how specific
traffic awareness/collision avoidance products will handle display and
warning for TIS-B traffic. Remember the portable avionics market is
the wild-west there is no strict standard how any of this traffic data
is handled or displayed. One option would be to ignore all TIS-B
traffic but I would be very surprised by a vendor doing this. This
problem is similar to and a bit more complex than the same problem
with the positional accuracy of Mode S TIS where the TIS system is
careful to display a threat "on top of you" when it is gets close to
you within a reasonable margin of error.

To the Funkwerk comment...

"TIS" means the Mode S TIS used in the USA where *some* terminal/
approach radars communicate SSR radar traffic to aircraft equipped
with Mode S transponders that have TIS capabilities. I never would
expect an add-on receiver box to do Mode S TIS. That capability
requires the Mode S transponder to broadcast it has TIS receive
capability and then the TIS ground infrastructure sends directed
messages to that transponder about the relative position of nearby
Mode C or Mode S equipped traffic. Because of how this works it
happens within the Mode S transponder. Most modern Mode S transponders
will support TIS. Likely of most interest in the USA is the Trig
TT21/22 transponders that do support Mode S TIS, and there are some
glider pilots in the USA starting to play with TIS traffic data from
their TT21 transponders. Clearly this is only of interest around busy
terminal/approach radar coverage areas and getting that traffic
displayed is an issue since it not the glider defacto-standard Flarm
serial port data protocol.

"Does no support TIS-B" could mean several things and it may be worth
clarifying the vendor's statement...

0. The information from the vendor could be wrong (I've managed to get
clearly wrong capability claims/misinformation from vendors in this
early market). But presumably given the source of this claim it is
accurate that the device does not support TIS-B.
1. The vendor does not want to claim TIS-B support becasue they do not
know for sure your aircraft has the proper ADS-B data-out capability
to support this.
2. The vendor has decided to suppress all TIS-B traffic data because
they do not want to handle the relative imprecise or otherwise
problematic TIS-B position reports (that would surprise me). For
European manufactures that TIS-B is not important in Europe may be a
factor here.
3. The vendor has decided to suppresses all TIS-B traffic data because
they have not yet developed the capability to handle the relatively
imprecise TIS-B position reports (and maybe other technical issues
like target ghosting/deduplication) and/or since TIS-B is not
important in a device in Europe and they have chosen to delay
implementing TIS-B support. (The question would then be when is this
support coming?).

It would not be good for an ADS-B receiver devices for sale in the USA
to not support TIS-B. It's already a confusing enough mess out there
(have I proven that yet?? :-)) without having devices selectively not
implement this. However given that we don't have ADS-B ground
infrastructure widely deployed at the moment, if this device
limitation was clearly explained by the vendor with a "coming in a
firmware update in future" promise then that would be a different
matter.

Again please get specific answers from Butterfly/PowerFLARM or
Funkwerks etc. I have never used either vendors ADS-B products.

Regards

Darryl

jcarlyle

July 13th 10, 09:35 PM

Darryl,

The item C and D corrections were exactly what I had in mind - thank
you! The extra comments are much appreciated, too. The situation is
truly a confusing mess; thanks for trying to make sense of it all for
us.

Regarding the ability of PowerFLARM to display TIS-B, I'll follow your
advice and send an e-mail to Butterfly. The previous message in this
thread from Urs of FLARM strongly hints that PowerFLARM is intended
mainly for the US market, so presumably PowerFLARM either does (or
will shortly) support TIS-B.

Regards,
John

On Jul 13, 2:29 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> John
>
> I'm not sure I corrected C and D to what you meant, but here goes.
>
> On Jul 13, 6:55 am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Darryl,
>
> > A question arising from your reply to Walt, specifically concerning
> > TIS-B. From your reply and PowerFLARM's literature:
>
> > A. It appears that this unit will give accurate direction, range and
> > relative altitude info to FLARM equipped planes, and it also will
> > broadcast FLARM signals to other aircraft.
>
> > B. It also appears that it will give you estimated range, relative
> > altitude, but no direction to Mode C and Mode S transponders <that are
> > being interrogated>.
>
> > C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
> > transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
> > altitude info to ADS-B data-out equipped planes once a second <around
> > other aircraft>.
>
> CORRECTED C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
> transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
> altitude info *FROM* all 1090ES data-out eqipped aircraft once per
> second.
> You *MAY ALSO IF LUCKY* see *UAT* data-out equipped planes once a
> second
> but only <around other *SUITABLY EQUIPPED* aircraft>.
>
> I'd hope people look at that scenario as completely unreliable since
> the proximity/threat cylinder used by the ground infrastucture while
> reasonably large in radius is likely relatively limited in altitude so
> you could easily not "see" traffic via ADS-R and TIS-B even if you
> might otherwise think it is relatively close. I am not sure there is a
> hard commitment for this "threat cylinder" or service volume size but
> typical numbers are around 15 nautical mile radius but only +/- 3,500'
> around an suitable equipped aircraft. So the other nearby ADS-B data-
> out equipped aircraft has to be relatively close to your altitude for
> this to work. Think of it working "by accident" at times but not
> something we should not every think about relying on.
>
> It also will only work if the aircraft you are "close" enough to
> either has 1090ES or UAT data-out and is transmitting the 1090ES
> capability code bit -- that will cause the ground infrastructure to
> transmit TIS-B around that aircraft. The ground infrastructure would
> also transmit ADS-R data for UAT equipped target aircraft around that
> other receiver equipped aircraft -- unless that other receiving
> aircraft also happens to have a UAT receiver and is properly
> transmitting the UAT capability code bit. In which case the ground
> infrastructure should suppress the ADS-R data because the other
> aircraft would receive the UAT data directly. Confused yet? :-) Repeat
> after me... for ADS-B receivers to work properly in the USA your
> aircraft must also have an ADS-B transmitter sending your GPS location
> and have properly configured capability class bits (to describe your
> aircraft's ADS-B receiver link type).
>
> BTW it is also maybe worth noting that above FL180 all aircraft will
> be assumed to have 1090ES (not UAT) data-out as required in the ADS-B
> mandate and therefore I expect the ground infrastructure won't do ADS-
> R for UAT or TIS-B to UAT receivers at these altitudes. That seems to
> be backed up by some documentation I've seen. That may make UAT
> devices in gliders useless in wave windows for traffic awareness/
> avoidance (and the issue there may really be glider traffic staying
> outside the wave window).
>
> > D. If your aircraft <does> have a Mode S with ADS-B out transponder,
> > you will get accurate direction, range and relative altitude info to
> > nearby aircraft with ADS-B data-out transponders once a second <around
> > your aircraft>.
>
> Yes that is correct but technically an over-requirement. If you have a
> PowerFLARM with a 1090ES receiver you will directly see other 1090ES
> transmitting aircraft and in that specific scenario you do not need a
> local 1090ES transponder to receive that other traffic since it comes
> via ADS-B direct not ADS-R. However clearly the the other aircraft
> have no chance of seeing you via 1090ES, and having a 1090ES receiver
> while not transmitting any ADS-B data-out signals is a huge problem
> for ADS-R and TIS-B as I've hopefully flogged to death already.
>
> > We'd like point D2 to <also> include getting TIS-B data, meaning "SSR
> > radar (or multilateration) traffic information retransmitted on ADS-
> > B", but I can't find anywhere that PowerFLARM claims to do this. I
> > have an e-mail from Dr. Thomas Wittig, the developer of a competing
> > product (Funkwerk TM250 Traffic Monitor), that says his system
> > supports "ADS-B IN via Mode S 1090, but not TIS-B or TIS".
>
> > Does PowerFLARM really do TIS-B?
>
> I cannot speak for PowerFLARM specifically but any device that has a
> 1090ES receiver essentially gets TIS-B and ADS-R for "free" if the
> aircraft also has the proper ADS-B data-out equipment - which yes, is
> not "free" to you since you gave to buy that ADS-B data-out device.
> The receiver can tell from the data if a traffic message is ADS-B
> direct, ADS-R or TIS-B. The SSR radar (or multilateration) derived
> positional accuracy of TIS-B is much worse that the GPS derived ADS-B
> direct or ADS-R positional data and I have no idea how specific
> traffic awareness/collision avoidance products will handle display and
> warning for TIS-B traffic. Remember the portable avionics market is
> the wild-west there is no strict standard how any of this traffic data
> is handled or displayed. One option would be to ignore all TIS-B
> traffic but I would be very surprised by a vendor doing this. This
> problem is similar to and a bit more complex than the same problem
> with the positional accuracy of Mode S TIS where the TIS system is
> careful to display a threat "on top of you" when it is gets close to
> you within a reasonable margin of error.
>
> To the Funkwerk comment...
>
> "TIS" means the Mode S TIS used in the USA where *some* terminal/
> approach radars communicate SSR radar traffic to aircraft equipped
> with Mode S transponders that have TIS capabilities. I never would
> expect an add-on receiver box to do Mode S TIS. That capability
> requires the Mode S transponder to broadcast it has TIS receive
> capability and then the TIS ground infrastructure sends directed
> messages to that transponder about the relative position of nearby
> Mode C or Mode S equipped traffic. Because of how this works it
> happens within the Mode S transponder. Most modern Mode S transponders
> will support TIS. Likely of most interest in the USA is the Trig
> TT21/22 transponders that do support Mode S TIS, and there are some
> glider pilots in the USA starting to play with TIS traffic data from
> their TT21 transponders. Clearly this is only of interest around busy
> terminal/approach radar coverage areas and getting that traffic
> displayed is an issue since it not the glider defacto-standard Flarm
> serial port data protocol.
>
> "Does no support TIS-B" could mean several things and it may be worth
> clarifying the vendor's statement...
>
> 0. The information from the vendor could be wrong (I've managed to get
> clearly wrong capability claims/misinformation from vendors in this
> early market). But presumably given the source of this claim it is
> accurate that the device does not support TIS-B.
> 1. The vendor does not want to claim TIS-B support becasue they do not
> know for sure your aircraft has the proper ADS-B data-out capability
> to support this.
> 2. The vendor has decided to suppress all TIS-B traffic data because
> they do not want to handle the relative imprecise or otherwise
> problematic TIS-B position reports (that would surprise me). For
> European manufactures that TIS-B is not important in Europe may be a
> factor here.
> 3. The vendor has decided to suppresses all TIS-B traffic data because
> they have not yet developed the capability to handle the relatively
> imprecise TIS-B position reports (and maybe other technical issues
> like target ghosting/deduplication) and/or since TIS-B is not
> important in a device in Europe and they have chosen to delay
> implementing TIS-B support. (The question would then be when is this
> support coming?).
>
> It would not be good for an ADS-B receiver devices for sale in the USA
> to not support TIS-B. It's already a confusing enough mess out there
> (have I proven that yet?? :-)) without having devices selectively not
> implement this. However given that we don't have ADS-B ground
> infrastructure widely deployed at the moment, if this device
> limitation was clearly explained by the vendor with a "coming in a
> firmware update in future" promise then that would be a different
> matter.
>
> Again please get specific answers from Butterfly/PowerFLARM or
> Funkwerks etc. I have never used either vendors ADS-B products.
>
> Regards
>
> Darryl

jcarlyle

July 14th 10, 03:57 PM

Butterfly has very good customer support friendly and prompt!

They told me that PowerFLARM does not yet display TIS-B information.
The hardware supports it, but their target for displaying TIS-B is
Summer 2011, via a software update.

Reinforcing what Darryl has said, to get TIS-B data sent to <your>
plane you need a proper GPS connected to a Mode S transponder, with
the transponder configured to (1) send ADS-B Out with position data
and (2) send the ADS-B In capability bit.

-John

On Jul 13, 4:35 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Darryl,
>
> The item C and D corrections were exactly what I had in mind - thank
> you! The extra comments are much appreciated, too. The situation is
> truly a confusing mess; thanks for trying to make sense of it all for
> us.
>
> Regarding the ability of PowerFLARM to display TIS-B, I'll follow your
> advice and send an e-mail to Butterfly. The previous message in this
> thread from Urs of FLARM strongly hints that PowerFLARM is intended
> mainly for the US market, so presumably PowerFLARM either does (or
> will shortly) support TIS-B.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Jul 13, 2:29 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > John
>
> > I'm not sure I corrected C and D to what you meant, but here goes.
>
> > On Jul 13, 6:55 am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> > > Darryl,
>
> > > A question arising from your reply to Walt, specifically concerning
> > > TIS-B. From your reply and PowerFLARM's literature:
>
> > > A. It appears that this unit will give accurate direction, range and
> > > relative altitude info to FLARM equipped planes, and it also will
> > > broadcast FLARM signals to other aircraft.
>
> > > B. It also appears that it will give you estimated range, relative
> > > altitude, but no direction to Mode C and Mode S transponders <that are
> > > being interrogated>.
>
> > > C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
> > > transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
> > > altitude info to ADS-B data-out equipped planes once a second <around
> > > other aircraft>.
>
> > CORRECTED C. If your aircraft <does not> have a Mode S with ADS-B out
> > transponder, you will still get accurate direction, range and relative
> > altitude info *FROM* all 1090ES data-out eqipped aircraft once per
> > second.
> > You *MAY ALSO IF LUCKY* see *UAT* data-out equipped planes once a
> > second
> > but only <around other *SUITABLY EQUIPPED* aircraft>.
>
> > I'd hope people look at that scenario as completely unreliable since
> > the proximity/threat cylinder used by the ground infrastucture while
> > reasonably large in radius is likely relatively limited in altitude so
> > you could easily not "see" traffic via ADS-R and TIS-B even if you
> > might otherwise think it is relatively close. I am not sure there is a
> > hard commitment for this "threat cylinder" or service volume size but
> > typical numbers are around 15 nautical mile radius but only +/- 3,500'
> > around an suitable equipped aircraft. So the other nearby ADS-B data-
> > out equipped aircraft has to be relatively close to your altitude for
> > this to work. Think of it working "by accident" at times but not
> > something we should not every think about relying on.
>
> > It also will only work if the aircraft you are "close" enough to
> > either has 1090ES or UAT data-out and is transmitting the 1090ES
> > capability code bit -- that will cause the ground infrastructure to
> > transmit TIS-B around that aircraft. The ground infrastructure would
> > also transmit ADS-R data for UAT equipped target aircraft around that
> > other receiver equipped aircraft -- unless that other receiving
> > aircraft also happens to have a UAT receiver and is properly
> > transmitting the UAT capability code bit. In which case the ground
> > infrastructure should suppress the ADS-R data because the other
> > aircraft would receive the UAT data directly. Confused yet? :-) Repeat
> > after me... for ADS-B receivers to work properly in the USA your
> > aircraft must also have an ADS-B transmitter sending your GPS location
> > and have properly configured capability class bits (to describe your
> > aircraft's ADS-B receiver link type).
>
> > BTW it is also maybe worth noting that above FL180 all aircraft will
> > be assumed to have 1090ES (not UAT) data-out as required in the ADS-B
> > mandate and therefore I expect the ground infrastructure won't do ADS-
> > R for UAT or TIS-B to UAT receivers at these altitudes. That seems to
> > be backed up by some documentation I've seen. That may make UAT
> > devices in gliders useless in wave windows for traffic awareness/
> > avoidance (and the issue there may really be glider traffic staying
> > outside the wave window).
>
> > > D. If your aircraft <does> have a Mode S with ADS-B out transponder,
> > > you will get accurate direction, range and relative altitude info to
> > > nearby aircraft with ADS-B data-out transponders once a second <around
> > > your aircraft>.
>
> > Yes that is correct but technically an over-requirement. If you have a
> > PowerFLARM with a 1090ES receiver you will directly see other 1090ES
> > transmitting aircraft and in that specific scenario you do not need a
> > local 1090ES transponder to receive that other traffic since it comes
> > via ADS-B direct not ADS-R. However clearly the the other aircraft
> > have no chance of seeing you via 1090ES, and having a 1090ES receiver
> > while not transmitting any ADS-B data-out signals is a huge problem
> > for ADS-R and TIS-B as I've hopefully flogged to death already.
>
> > > We'd like point D2 to <also> include getting TIS-B data, meaning "SSR
> > > radar (or multilateration) traffic information retransmitted on ADS-
> > > B", but I can't find anywhere that PowerFLARM claims to do this. I
> > > have an e-mail from Dr. Thomas Wittig, the developer of a competing
> > > product (Funkwerk TM250 Traffic Monitor), that says his system
> > > supports "ADS-B IN via Mode S 1090, but not TIS-B or TIS".
>
> > > Does PowerFLARM really do TIS-B?
>
> > I cannot speak for PowerFLARM specifically but any device that has a
> > 1090ES receiver essentially gets TIS-B and ADS-R for "free" if the
> > aircraft also has the proper ADS-B data-out equipment - which yes, is
> > not "free" to you since you gave to buy that ADS-B data-out device.
> > The receiver can tell from the data if a traffic message is ADS-B
> > direct, ADS-R or TIS-B. The SSR radar (or multilateration) derived
> > positional accuracy of TIS-B is much worse that the GPS derived ADS-B
> > direct or ADS-R positional data and I have no idea how specific
> > traffic awareness/collision avoidance products will handle display and
> > warning for TIS-B traffic. Remember the portable avionics market is
> > the wild-west there is no strict standard how any of this traffic data
> > is handled or displayed. One option would be to ignore all TIS-B
> > traffic but I would be very surprised by a vendor doing this. This
> > problem is similar to and a bit more complex than the same problem
> > with the positional accuracy of Mode S TIS where the TIS system is
> > careful to display a threat "on top of you" when it is gets close to
> > you within a reasonable margin of error.
>
> > To the Funkwerk comment...
>
> > "TIS" means the Mode S TIS used in the USA where *some* terminal/
> > approach radars communicate SSR radar traffic to aircraft equipped
> > with Mode S transponders that have TIS capabilities. I never would
> > expect an add-on receiver box to do Mode S TIS. That capability
> > requires the Mode S transponder to broadcast it has TIS receive
> > capability and then the TIS ground infrastructure sends directed
> > messages to that transponder about the relative position of nearby
> > Mode C or Mode S equipped traffic. Because of how this works it
> > happens within the Mode S transponder. Most modern Mode S transponders
> > will support TIS. Likely of most interest in the USA is the Trig
> > TT21/22 transponders that do support Mode S TIS, and there are some
> > glider pilots in the USA starting to play with TIS traffic data from
> > their TT21 transponders. Clearly this is only of interest around busy
> > terminal/approach radar coverage areas and getting that traffic
> > displayed is an issue since it not the glider defacto-standard Flarm
> > serial port data protocol.
>
> > "Does no support TIS-B" could mean several things and it may be worth
> > clarifying the vendor's statement...
>
> > 0. The information from the vendor could be wrong (I've managed to get
> > clearly wrong capability claims/misinformation from vendors in this
> > early market). But presumably given the source of this claim it is
> > accurate that the device does not support TIS-B.
> > 1. The vendor does not want to claim TIS-B support becasue they do not
> > know for sure your aircraft has the proper ADS-B data-out capability
> > to support this.
> > 2. The vendor has decided to suppress all TIS-B traffic data because
> > they do not want to handle the relative imprecise or otherwise
> > problematic TIS-B position reports (that would surprise me). For
> > European manufactures that TIS-B is not important in Europe may be a
> > factor here.
> > 3. The vendor has decided to suppresses all TIS-B traffic data because
> > they have not yet developed the capability to handle the relatively
> > imprecise TIS-B position reports (and maybe other technical issues
> > like target ghosting/deduplication) and/or since TIS-B is not
> > important in a device in Europe and they have chosen to delay
> > implementing TIS-B support. (The question would then be when is this
> > support coming?).
>
> > It would not be good for an ADS-B receiver devices for sale in the USA
> > to not support TIS-B. It's already a confusing enough mess out there
> > (have I proven that yet?? :-)) without having devices selectively not
> > implement this. However given that we don't have ADS-B ground
> > infrastructure widely deployed at the moment, if this device
> > limitation was clearly explained by the vendor with a "coming in a
> > firmware update in future" promise then that would be a different
> > matter.
>
> > Again please get specific answers from Butterfly/PowerFLARM or
> > Funkwerks etc. I have never used either vendors ADS-B products.
>
> > Regards
>
> > Darryl

Darryl Ramm

July 14th 10, 06:09 PM

On Jul 14, 7:57*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Butterfly has very good customer support friendly and prompt!
>
> They told me that PowerFLARM does not yet display TIS-B information.
> The hardware supports it, but their target for displaying TIS-B is
> Summer 2011, via a software update.
>
> Reinforcing what Darryl has said, to get TIS-B data sent to <your>
> plane you need a proper GPS connected to a Mode S transponder, with
> the transponder configured to (1) send ADS-B Out with position data
> and (2) send the ADS-B In capability bit.

Just to be clear on terminology. With the ADS-B "-B" revision devices
i.e. DO-260B (1090ES) and DO-282B (UAT) which we will all really be
dealing with there is not an "ADS-B In" capability bit, there are
separate capability code bits for 1090ES-in and UAT-in. The Mode S/
1090ES transponder or UAT transmitter/transceiver needs to be
configured to transmit the correct capability code bit (or bits) that
reflects what ADS-B receiver(s) with traffic display/warning
capabilities are in use. In the case of having a PowerFLARM in your
cockpit you would set the "1090ES-in" bit in whatever ADS-B
transmitter(s) you have on board.

"-A" rev devices currently on the market will have an "ADS-B in"
capability bit, say in a Mode S/1090ES transponder that says the
aircraft has a 1090ES receiver. The Trig TT21/22 is such an example,
and I understand Trig will be coming out with a "-B" firmware update
(until then nothing stops TT21/22 users playing with ADS-B/109ES if
they want to including with a PowerFLARM when available, it should all
work fine). And kudos to Trig for making it very easy to configure the
capability code, with a simple menu on the Transponder and having this
clearly documented.

--

BTW remembering this is the wild west, there is no standard for how
you set these bits, or even a guarantee that the end-user can
configure this in their ADS-B transmitters as they say add or remove a
portable device like a PowerFLARM in their cockpit (this is likely an
issue that should be looked at in whatever the SSA is doing with ADS-
B). Some modern glass panel aircraft might well just not allow the
pilot to change these bits in their 1090ES transponder so a portable
1090ES or UAT *receiver* just won't work properly in that aircraft.
Not that there is likely anything that will clue the hapless pilot
into this. Something all the makers of portable ADS-B receiver only
traffic systems should be being clear to potential users about (and
maybe related to why some of those UAT receiver vendors seem to be
repositioning their products to be mostly weather vs. traffic
awareness products). ADS-B receiver products should also be at least
looking at their own link-layer and confirming the local aircraft is
transmitting the capability code bit for that receiver and clearly
warning the user if it can't detect this. You would think this is
actually a RTCA standards requirement, or at least an obvious safety
issue and simple to do so vendors would be doing this,.... ah don't
hold your breath (likely another issue that should be looked at in
whatever the SSA is working on with ADS-B).

Darryl