NATS to enable ADS-B transponder functionality for GA

[WaltWX[_2_]]

The UK ATC authority, NATS, has implemented a trial with AOPA UK to test a low cost ADS-B out capability. Basically, they are allowing non-certified GPS to interface with the Mode S 1090ES which gives ADS-B out.

Some people have (illegally) tested this with their Trig and other transponders in the U.S and other places:

This is as much as I know...

http://www.nats.aero/news/nats-enable-ads-b-transponder-functionality-ga-community/

Hope this pans out... and FAA is listening.

Walt Rogers WX

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 6:31:04 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> The UK ATC authority, NATS, has implemented a trial with AOPA UK to test a low cost ADS-B out capability. Basically, they are allowing non-certified GPS to interface with the Mode S 1090ES which gives ADS-B out.
>
> Some people have (illegally) tested this with their Trig and other transponders in the U.S and other places:
>
> This is as much as I know...
>
> http://www.nats.aero/news/nats-enable-ads-b-transponder-functionality-ga-community/
>
> Hope this pans out... and FAA is listening.
>
> Walt Rogers WX

Finally someone with brains made a decision that can benefit GA. I don't understand why we would not do this in US say below 10,000 and outside class C or B. Makes sense, but it is unlikely our bureaucrats will ever take notice. They are busy writing more rules. They are busy preventing rather than enabling.

[[email protected]]

Traffic Awareness Beacon System (TABS):

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/1600DF588A6F53AE86257D710070D105?OpenDocument

Marc

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:31:04 PM UTC-8, WaltWX wrote:
> The UK ATC authority, NATS, has implemented a trial with AOPA UK to test a low cost ADS-B out capability. Basically, they are allowing non-certified GPS to interface with the Mode S 1090ES which gives ADS-B out.
>
> Some people have (illegally) tested this with their Trig and other transponders in the U.S and other places:
>
> This is as much as I know...
>
> http://www.nats.aero/news/nats-enable-ads-b-transponder-functionality-ga-community/
>
> Hope this pans out... and FAA is listening.
>
> Walt Rogers WX

I am not aware of anybody, at least in the soaring community, *illegally* testing ADS-B Out. There are very small numbers of folks with experimental gliders who have configured ADS-B Out with non TSO GPS sources, and they have every "legal" right to do so as long as they correctly configure some of the GPS data fields. And those "non-complaint" ADS-B outputs won't likely now, and certainly won't in future, let those aircraft receive the usual slew of ADS-B services like ADS-R and TIS-B, but geeky glider pilots may want to do this, for exampel to provide longer-range tracking with PowerFLARM 1090ES receivers or tracking with ground based ADS-B receivers.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:47:58 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Traffic Awareness Beacon System (TABS):
>
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/1600DF588A6F53AE86257D710070D105?OpenDocument
>
> Marc

Marc beat me to the same post.

Now we will need to see if any manufactures will actually be able to justify doing the work needed to ship a TSO-C199 system. The negative view of this yet more ADS-B fragmentation for a small USA market. But the GPS direction in TSO-C199 is a great improvement... it is an opportunity for a manufacture to do qualifications needed to ship a TSO-C199 based system that could use a much simpler GPS that requiring a full TSO IFR GPS source as currently required. But that system would then still *not* meet the 2020 carriage mandate requirement for ADS-B Out (which gliders are exempt from anyhow) -- so it does not help GA in the USA in any way--although if stuff worked really well there it might help put pressure on changing other requirements.

TSO-C199 devices are a reduced feature Mode-S (and optionally 1090ES Out) based traffic saftey beacon system hopefully suitable for gliders, balloons and maybe UAVs inter-operating with GA and above aircraft equipped with PCAS/TCAD/TCAS/ADS-B In. And to be clear TSO-C199 is not and never will be an invitation for aircraft owners to connect COTS (common off the shelf) GPS systems to an ADS-B Out transmitter. It is really important that TSO-C199 is based on transponder technology, that makes any TSO-C199 based system, if it is developed, compatible with TCAS, ... remember the ASG-29 and (TCAS equipped) Hawker 800 midair out of Minden a few years ago, TSO-C199 is a direct response from the FAA to the NTSB findings in that accident.

[George Haeh]

In Europe, Garrecht sells an ADS-B receiver that can also provide Classic
Flarm GPS data to a Mode S transponder for 680 Euros.

http://www.butterfly-store.de/en/TRX-1090+-+ADS-B+and+Transponder-receiver,i4.htm

PowerFlarm already receives ADS-B and Mode C/S; so all that's needed is
filtering out the non-GPS data from the PF or other GPS feeds such as
advanced varios: Air Glide, CNV, LX.

The Europeans are waaaaay ahead on this.

If you peruse the Trig TT-2x Transponder Installation manual, you will
find configuration parameters for stuff such as wingspan, fuselage length,
location on airframe etc.

It's all great for ensuring wingtips don't snag some other airframe on
adjacent taxiways and aprons at major airports. 3m accuracy or better gets
critical in this case.

Once airborne 50m accuracy from the little guys would be just fine for the
heavy stuff that doesn't want to come within half a mile of any of us.

It's a real surprise to see the FAA's head firmly stuck in the sand while
the Europeans are producing solutions that will work for GA.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:00:10 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> In Europe, Garrecht sells an ADS-B receiver that can also provide Classic
> Flarm GPS data to a Mode S transponder for 680 Euros.
>
> http://www.butterfly-store.de/en/TRX-1090+-+ADS-B+and+Transponder-receiver,i4.htm
>
> PowerFlarm already receives ADS-B and Mode C/S; so all that's needed is
> filtering out the non-GPS data from the PF or other GPS feeds such as
> advanced varios: Air Glide, CNV, LX.
>
> The Europeans are waaaaay ahead on this.
>
> If you peruse the Trig TT-2x Transponder Installation manual, you will
> find configuration parameters for stuff such as wingspan, fuselage length,
> location on airframe etc.
>
> It's all great for ensuring wingtips don't snag some other airframe on
> adjacent taxiways and aprons at major airports. 3m accuracy or better gets
> critical in this case.
>
> Once airborne 50m accuracy from the little guys would be just fine for the
> heavy stuff that doesn't want to come within half a mile of any of us.
>
> It's a real surprise to see the FAA's head firmly stuck in the sand while
> the Europeans are producing solutions that will work for GA.

I think I've got pretty good grasp on the technology here and I'm having trouble following what you are talking about.

The exact same capability as in the TRX 1090 is already included in the PowerFLARM (with 1090ES receiver).

> PowerFlarm already receives ADS-B and Mode C/S; so all that's needed is
> filtering out the non-GPS data from the PF or other GPS feeds such as
> advanced varios: Air Glide, CNV, LX.

This sentence makes no technical sense, maybe you mistyped something. Filtering out non-GPS data from the PowerFLARM? For what? If all you want is a GPS output as good as PowerFLARM or simmilar devices you can do that for a pretty low component cost. Getting that COTS GPS signal is not the issue, the issue is whether you can use that signal to transmit a ADS-B signal. You cannot do so in the USA in a certified aircraft. And any aircraft you did it in would not meet the 2020 ADS-B Out carriage mandate.

Europe is ahead of the USA? I'd rather look at it as so far Europe has not done some of the particularly stupid things the FAA has done like making ADS-B dual-link, but in other ways Europe is further behind the USA, e.g. there is no European mandate for ADS-B adoption in light/GA aircraft and I hope when it eventually happens it is a lot more sensible than the roll out in the USA.

I'm not sure where 50m accuracy number comes from, but the FAA would tell you their concerns about positional accuracy of a non TSO GPS has worse case concerns greater than this. Its a much more complex discussion, but yes there is a place in this space for a non TSO/IFR GPS receiver, and that is directly acknowledged by TSO-C199, so I'd say the FAA's head is not entirely stuck in the ground, they've looked at this exactly, worked with vendors experienced with COTS GPS technology and this new TSO is the result.

All this ADS-B stuff is largely futureware, not something most pilots should get over-excited about, if you fly gliders in the USA and are worried about fast jets and airliners (and GA aircraft) install a transponder, worried about gliders install a PowerFLARM.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:27:36 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:00:10 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> > In Europe, Garrecht sells an ADS-B receiver that can also provide Classic
> > Flarm GPS data to a Mode S transponder for 680 Euros.
> >
> > http://www.butterfly-store.de/en/TRX-1090+-+ADS-B+and+Transponder-receiver,i4.htm
> >
> > PowerFlarm already receives ADS-B and Mode C/S; so all that's needed is
> > filtering out the non-GPS data from the PF or other GPS feeds such as
> > advanced varios: Air Glide, CNV, LX.
> >
> > The Europeans are waaaaay ahead on this.
> >
> > If you peruse the Trig TT-2x Transponder Installation manual, you will
> > find configuration parameters for stuff such as wingspan, fuselage length,
> > location on airframe etc.
> >
> > It's all great for ensuring wingtips don't snag some other airframe on
> > adjacent taxiways and aprons at major airports. 3m accuracy or better gets
> > critical in this case.
> >
> > Once airborne 50m accuracy from the little guys would be just fine for the
> > heavy stuff that doesn't want to come within half a mile of any of us.
> >
> > It's a real surprise to see the FAA's head firmly stuck in the sand while
> > the Europeans are producing solutions that will work for GA.
>
> I think I've got pretty good grasp on the technology here and I'm having trouble following what you are talking about.
>
> The exact same capability as in the TRX 1090 is already included in the PowerFLARM (with 1090ES receiver).
>
> > PowerFlarm already receives ADS-B and Mode C/S; so all that's needed is
> > filtering out the non-GPS data from the PF or other GPS feeds such as
> > advanced varios: Air Glide, CNV, LX.
>
> This sentence makes no technical sense, maybe you mistyped something. Filtering out non-GPS data from the PowerFLARM? For what? If all you want is a GPS output as good as PowerFLARM or simmilar devices you can do that for a pretty low component cost. Getting that COTS GPS signal is not the issue, the issue is whether you can use that signal to transmit a ADS-B signal. You cannot do so in the USA in a certified aircraft. And any aircraft you did it in would not meet the 2020 ADS-B Out carriage mandate.
>
> Europe is ahead of the USA? I'd rather look at it as so far Europe has not done some of the particularly stupid things the FAA has done like making ADS-B dual-link, but in other ways Europe is further behind the USA, e.g. there is no European mandate for ADS-B adoption in light/GA aircraft and I hope when it eventually happens it is a lot more sensible than the roll out in the USA.
>
> I'm not sure where 50m accuracy number comes from, but the FAA would tell you their concerns about positional accuracy of a non TSO GPS has worse case concerns greater than this. Its a much more complex discussion, but yes there is a place in this space for a non TSO/IFR GPS receiver, and that is directly acknowledged by TSO-C199, so I'd say the FAA's head is not entirely stuck in the ground, they've looked at this exactly, worked with vendors experienced with COTS GPS technology and this new TSO is the result.
>
> All this ADS-B stuff is largely futureware, not something most pilots should get over-excited about, if you fly gliders in the USA and are worried about fast jets and airliners (and GA aircraft) install a transponder, worried about gliders install a PowerFLARM.

ADS-B is NOT futureware. It exists today and is fully functional. Virtually all the ground stations are up and running. ADS-B IN solutions are widely available at very reasonable price points. The only problem is the lack of low cost 2020 certified ADS-B OUT solutions.

Telling glider pilots to ignore this technology is stupid. This is going to be THE collision avoidance technology in the US. Anyone buying equipment today needs to keep an eye on this, so their short term investments fit into the ADS-B environment on a long term basis.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:58:39 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:

>>This is going to be THE collision avoidance technology in the US.

Except for gliders, where it does't address the primary collision scenarios today and won't in the future.

ADS-B is architected to complement the ATC 5 mile/1000' separation philosophy. It's not good at close-in, dynamic collision warning the way PowerFlarm is. It doesn't doesn't do position prediction so it can't handle dropped packets the way PowerFlarm can (important close-in). In short it's not at all good for the glider-glider scenario and isn't adaptable to that scenario in the future.

Unless you have a transponder, carrying ADS-B won't light up TCAS carried on all large jets and most corporate jets and turboprops. TCAS will continue to be the primary (and perhaps only) collision warning system on these aircraft even after the 2020 carriage mandate. ADS-B fits in as traffic advisory and leaves TCAS to do collision avoidance.

If you want to stay clear of gliders get a PowerFlarm - that's the ONLY thing you can do today. IF the FAA pursues changes to allow lower cost GPS sources then if you are carrying a suitable Mode-S transponder (like the Trig TT22) you MIGHT be able to upgrade to an affordable full ADS-B 1090 ES In/Out system that would allow you to see/be seen by other ADS-B carrying traffic AND will provide TCAS collision warnings to all TCAS-equipped aircraft.

Stay away from all that ADS-B UAT stuff (unless you want to get a cheap UAT In device to get free aviation weather). Virtually no one is carrying ADS-B UAT Out today and there's no point in carrying a transponder AND an ADS-B UAT Out device when you can just add GPS to your Mode S transponder - which you need anyway for TCAS.

Cheap GPS sources would really finish out the collision avoidance technology picture for glider pilots by allowing glider pilots to install Mode S and PowerFlarm (Core, rather than Core Pure) today and upgrade to add ADS-B 1090 ES Out in the future.

9B

[Dan Marotta]

Good points, Andrzej. I would only ask that the altitude be raised to
18,000' (minus 1, of course). Ten thousand feet can get a bit nerve
wracking in the high western desert.


On 1/30/2015 5:18 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 6:31:04 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
>> The UK ATC authority, NATS, has implemented a trial with AOPA UK to test a low cost ADS-B out capability. Basically, they are allowing non-certified GPS to interface with the Mode S 1090ES which gives ADS-B out.
>>
>> Some people have (illegally) tested this with their Trig and other transponders in the U.S and other places:
>>
>> This is as much as I know...
>>
>> http://www.nats.aero/news/nats-enable-ads-b-transponder-functionality-ga-community/
>>
>> Hope this pans out... and FAA is listening.
>>
>> Walt Rogers WX
> Finally someone with brains made a decision that can benefit GA. I don't understand why we would not do this in US say below 10,000 and outside class C or B. Makes sense, but it is unlikely our bureaucrats will ever take notice. They are busy writing more rules. They are busy preventing rather than enabling.

--
Dan Marotta

[George Haeh]

The Europeans can use ADS-B Out today in gliders. There may be elements
similar to FAA TSO-C199 which I just heard about.

I still question why WAAS GPS is/will be the price of admission to
controlled airspace at least in VFR. Yes on a Cat III ILS, WAAS is
warranted.

http://www.glidertracking.com/connecting-ads-b/

"René de Dreu from the Glider Pilot Shop has put together a document which
examines possible ADS-B connections between all Mode-S transponders and LX
flight computers / equipment. "

Unfortunately dead link for time being:

http://www.gliderpilotshop.nl/winkel/product_info.php?cPath=110_97&products_id=490

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:06:32 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:58:39 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> >>This is going to be THE collision avoidance technology in the US.
>
> Except for gliders, where it does't address the primary collision scenarios today and won't in the future.
>
> ADS-B is architected to complement the ATC 5 mile/1000' separation philosophy. It's not good at close-in, dynamic collision warning the way PowerFlarm is. It doesn't doesn't do position prediction so it can't handle dropped packets the way PowerFlarm can (important close-in). In short it's not at all good for the glider-glider scenario and isn't adaptable to that scenario in the future.
>
> Unless you have a transponder, carrying ADS-B won't light up TCAS carried on all large jets and most corporate jets and turboprops. TCAS will continue to be the primary (and perhaps only) collision warning system on these aircraft even after the 2020 carriage mandate. ADS-B fits in as traffic advisory and leaves TCAS to do collision avoidance.
>
> If you want to stay clear of gliders get a PowerFlarm - that's the ONLY thing you can do today. IF the FAA pursues changes to allow lower cost GPS sources then if you are carrying a suitable Mode-S transponder (like the Trig TT22) you MIGHT be able to upgrade to an affordable full ADS-B 1090 ES In/Out system that would allow you to see/be seen by other ADS-B carrying traffic AND will provide TCAS collision warnings to all TCAS-equipped aircraft.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:00:07 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> The Europeans can use ADS-B Out today in gliders. There may be elements
> similar to FAA TSO-C199 which I just heard about.
>
> I still question why WAAS GPS is/will be the price of admission to
> controlled airspace at least in VFR. Yes on a Cat III ILS, WAAS is
> warranted.
>
> http://www.glidertracking.com/connecting-ads-b/
>
> "René de Dreu from the Glider Pilot Shop has put together a document which
> examines possible ADS-B connections between all Mode-S transponders and LX
> flight computers / equipment. "
>
> Unfortunately dead link for time being:
>
> http://www.gliderpilotshop.nl/winkel/product_info.php?cPath=110_97&products_id=490

Right, but it's kind of the reason that the Europeans can use 1090ES Out in gliders today is there are no applicable ADS-B services they interface to (including ATC) and no regulations beyond the most basic transponder/1090ES out requirements they have to meet. In a way it is not too different than the non-certified gliders in the USA, those owners can install any GPS source with the same 1090ES capable transponders.... but in the USA that has limited use as it is not enough to get the FAA ADS-B ground stations to want to send you ADS-R and TIS-B services and you likely won't even show up on traffic displays of aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. In Europe where there are ADS-B Out requirements/standards for high-performance aircraft which require Certified IFR GPS sources. So just kind of a worse case paranoid warning: what Europe exactly will do in future is not guaranteed. If say they were to mandate ADS-B Out for lower performance aircraft than the current ADS-B Out mandate for high-performance (which is just rolling out) then who knows what might be required as a GPS source in those aircraft. But yes, damn it, things like testing/encouraging current COTS GPS use in the UK is great.

The issue that the FAA would argue with requiring a TSO/IFR/WAAS GPS source is not ultra-precision as it is with GPS reliability and failure detection.. I am just saying what they would argue :-)

BTW European agencies should be well aware of the stuff behind TSO-C199. Actually that TSO has some European roots back to low power Mode-S transponders... which in the past tied in with some concern about UK airspace restrictions/mandatory Transponder (or low-powered Transponder) carriage. So the other warning here is be careful what you wish/want to encourage without watching out for what might end up encouraging/enabling excessive mandatory use/restrictions.

And again the technical part of actually connecting together this stuff is not the problem, its actually pretty simple. And you can do that today in an experimental glider in the USA. You must be careful and properly set up the ADS-B out to report it is not using an IFR/TSO GPS source, and as a result it has limited use, you won't receive those services you might expect and it does not allow flight in airspace that would require a 2020 Mandate compliant ADS-B out system (gliders have exemptions for some airspace, but a non-compliant install won't get you into the other airspace). But geeks with experimental gliders may still want to do this (and a few have).

I'm not defending the FAA, but they had huge issues with ADS-B being everything to everybody and ADS-B is a key part of the ambitious and underfunded NEXGEN project. But the highly complex dual-link ADS-B approach in the USA is a mess and was a very bad idea for many reasons. Not allowing a COTS GPS for VFR traffic (at least outside certain airspace) was also a bad idea. TSO-C199 is interesting, I take it overall as a good sign, but it is unclear at least to me where it will end up and what products will actually come from it. It could also hopefully be a model for future broader changes to allow more use of non-TSO GPS for general ADS-B Out. And I still have some paranoid reservations where TSO-C199 could lead long term as mentioned above. Europeans pushing ahead with COTS GPS trials/encouraging use is a great sign as well, but again, does not mean they won't end up in future requiring higher-spec ADS-B Out installs in GA and gliders etc. (but we all hope they do not, and so far in what they actually have and have not done with ADS-B shows a lot more modest/overall rational/pragmatic thought than in the USA).

This ADS-B mess is still mostly futureware(*) for glider pilots in the USA, we just don't know exactly where this will end up, whether we'll ever see say TSO-C199 devices, whether ADS-B Out GPS requirements will be relaxed, etc. And Transponders and/or PowerFLARM are very useful, pretty well understood and realtively easy to deploy traffic awareness and collision avoidance assistance actually available and usable today. And since ADS-B Out is not even mandatory for gliders in 2020 it's just not worth most glider pilots worrying about.

(*) the part that of ADS-B that is not futureware for USA glider pilots is of course that the PowerFLARM with 1090ES In capability can "see" aircraft nearby that are transmitting 1090ES Out.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:00:07 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> > The Europeans can use ADS-B Out today in gliders. There may be elements
> > similar to FAA TSO-C199 which I just heard about.
> >
> > I still question why WAAS GPS is/will be the price of admission to
> > controlled airspace at least in VFR. Yes on a Cat III ILS, WAAS is
> > warranted.
> >
> > http://www.glidertracking.com/connecting-ads-b/
> >
> > "René de Dreu from the Glider Pilot Shop has put together a document which
> > examines possible ADS-B connections between all Mode-S transponders and LX
> > flight computers / equipment. "
> >
> > Unfortunately dead link for time being:
> >
> > http://www.gliderpilotshop.nl/winkel/product_info.php?cPath=110_97&products_id=490
>
> Right, but it's kind of the reason that the Europeans can use 1090ES Out in gliders today is there are no applicable ADS-B services they interface to (including ATC) and no regulations beyond the most basic transponder/1090ES out requirements they have to meet. In a way it is not too different than the non-certified gliders in the USA, those owners can install any GPS source with the same 1090ES capable transponders.... but in the USA that has limited use as it is not enough to get the FAA ADS-B ground stations to want to send you ADS-R and TIS-B services and you likely won't even show up on traffic displays of aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. In Europe where there are ADS-B Out requirements/standards for high-performance aircraft which require Certified IFR GPS sources. So just kind of a worse case paranoid warning: what Europe exactly will do in future is not guaranteed. If say they were to mandate ADS-B Out for lower performance aircraft than the current ADS-B Out mandate for high-performance (which is just rolling out) then who knows what might be required as a GPS source in those aircraft. But yes, damn it, things like testing/encouraging current COTS GPS use in the UK is great.
>
> The issue that the FAA would argue with requiring a TSO/IFR/WAAS GPS source is not ultra-precision as it is with GPS reliability and failure detection. I am just saying what they would argue :-)
>
> BTW European agencies should be well aware of the stuff behind TSO-C199. Actually that TSO has some European roots back to low power Mode-S transponders... which in the past tied in with some concern about UK airspace restrictions/mandatory Transponder (or low-powered Transponder) carriage. So the other warning here is be careful what you wish/want to encourage without watching out for what might end up encouraging/enabling excessive mandatory use/restrictions.
>
> And again the technical part of actually connecting together this stuff is not the problem, its actually pretty simple. And you can do that today in an experimental glider in the USA. You must be careful and properly set up the ADS-B out to report it is not using an IFR/TSO GPS source, and as a result it has limited use, you won't receive those services you might expect and it does not allow flight in airspace that would require a 2020 Mandate compliant ADS-B out system (gliders have exemptions for some airspace, but a non-compliant install won't get you into the other airspace). But geeks with experimental gliders may still want to do this (and a few have).
>
> I'm not defending the FAA, but they had huge issues with ADS-B being everything to everybody and ADS-B is a key part of the ambitious and underfunded NEXGEN project. But the highly complex dual-link ADS-B approach in the USA is a mess and was a very bad idea for many reasons. Not allowing a COTS GPS for VFR traffic (at least outside certain airspace) was also a bad idea. TSO-C199 is interesting, I take it overall as a good sign, but it is unclear at least to me where it will end up and what products will actually come from it. It could also hopefully be a model for future broader changes to allow more use of non-TSO GPS for general ADS-B Out. And I still have some paranoid reservations where TSO-C199 could lead long term as mentioned above. Europeans pushing ahead with COTS GPS trials/encouraging use is a great sign as well, but again, does not mean they won't end up in future requiring higher-spec ADS-B Out installs in GA and gliders etc. (but we all hope they do not, and so far in what they actually have and have not done with ADS-B shows a lot more modest/overall rational/pragmatic thought than in the USA).
>
> This ADS-B mess is still mostly futureware(*) for glider pilots in the USA, we just don't know exactly where this will end up, whether we'll ever see say TSO-C199 devices, whether ADS-B Out GPS requirements will be relaxed, etc. And Transponders and/or PowerFLARM are very useful, pretty well understood and realtively easy to deploy traffic awareness and collision avoidance assistance actually available and usable today. And since ADS-B Out is not even mandatory for gliders in 2020 it's just not worth most glider pilots worrying about.
>
> (*) the part that of ADS-B that is not futureware for USA glider pilots is of course that the PowerFLARM with 1090ES In capability can "see" aircraft nearby that are transmitting 1090ES Out.

Non-certified aircraft that transmit ADS-B OUT signals using non-TSO'd GPS sources do apparently trigger TIS-B transmissions from ADS-B ground stations, according to the people I have talked to at Dynon and pilots who have Dynon systems installed in their aircraft. The Dynon system uses a proprietary version of the Trig 21 transponder and does transmit a 1090ES ADS-B out signal. The pilots I have talked to who have this system installed in their aircraft (RV-8 and Phoenix Motorgliders), consistently see all of the transponder equipped aircraft in their vicinity as a result of this capability.. The guys I have talked to say this it is a real eye opener on how much traffic is there that they would otherwise never see visually.

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:23:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> There is nothing inherent in FLARM that makes it superior
> to ADS-B in terms of its capability to detect potential glider
> to glider collisions. Both technologies transmit the aircraft
> location once per second. The resolution of both is limited by
> the accuracy of the GPS source. What currently makes FLARM
> superior are the collision detection algorithms in the receiver,
> which are specifically designed for a glider environment.
> There is nothing preventing software developers from developing
> similar solutions for use with ADS-B receivers.

The above is utter nonsense.
FLARM transmits the PROJECTED PATH of the aircraft using knowledge
of aircraft type and maneuvering.
ADS-B cannot possibly ever match the collision-avoidance performance
of FLARM for gliders, for this and numerous other reasons.

For anybody interested in actual FACTS as opposed
to authoratively-spoken nonsense on RAS, please see:
http://www.gliderpilot.org/Flarm-WhatDoesItDo

Good Grief...

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 6:23:22 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> This totally depends on what kind of flying you do. If you are flying in contests at remote locations, FLARM may very well be the way to go. If you are flying recreationaly, near major metropolitan areas, ADS-B is definitely of interest if you are concerned about seeing GA or airline traffic.

Here we go again. Mike, we all know you think PowerFLARM is a waste of electrons and that ADS-B is the solution to all the worlds problems, but you are just flat wrong.

With my PowerFLARM, today, I see all transponder (mode C/S) and 1090ES ADS-B aircraft near me, as well as getting really good collision warnings from other PF-equipped gliders.

Since certified aircraft HAVE to have a transponder, in addition to ADS-B (either 1090ES or UAT), there is very little benefit to adding a separate ADS-B in. And if I had a mode S transponder (on the wish list), then there would be NO benefit to having ADS-B out.


> There is nothing inherent in FLARM that makes it superior to ADS-B in terms of its capability to detect potential glider to glider collisions. Both technologies transmit the aircraft location once per second. The resolution of both is limited by the accuracy of the GPS source. What currently makes FLARM superior are the collision detection algorithms in the receiver, which are specifically designed for a glider environment. There is nothing preventing software developers from developing similar solutions for use with ADS-B receivers.

Wrong. What is inherently different between FLARM and ADS-B is that FLARM is designed to prevent collisions between cooperating gliders, while ADS-B just gives approximate location without predictive collision warning. ADS-B is not TCAS - which is why transponders are still required!

> The key thing to remember is that the ADS-B receivers purely pass along the position data for aircraft targets in the area, whether the data comes directly from an ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft, or via TIS-B from an ADS-B ground station (which also shows transponder equipped aircraft). The logic to detect potential collisions is provided by whatever equipment you plug into the receiver. There are going to be lots of opportunities for innovation in this space as this technology gets deployed in the next couple of years..

You completely ignore the fact that gliders tend to congregate and fly together, while power planes tend to avoid each other. So any ADS-B collision warning system would go ape-**** in a gaggle - and with the size of our glider market, I seriously doubt anyone will come out with an ADS-B anti-collision device specifically for gliders, especially since one already exists - FLARM!

For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.

Kirk
66

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:23:22 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> There is nothing inherent in FLARM that makes it superior to ADS-B in terms of its capability to detect potential glider to glider collisions. Both technologies transmit the aircraft location once per second. The resolution of both is limited by the accuracy of the GPS source. What currently makes FLARM superior are the collision detection algorithms in the receiver, which are specifically designed for a glider environment. There is nothing preventing software developers from developing similar solutions for use with ADS-B receivers.
>

According to the Flarm technical guys I've spoken to this is not a correct statement.

They have told me directly that the position prediction happens on the transmit side not the receive side. This makes Flarm less prone to errors due to latency and dropped packets - unlike ADS-B. This is one reason why if a Flarm receives a Flarm packet and and ADS-B packet from the same aircraft, it ignores the ADS-B packet.

In any case - you can buy a Flarm now and then wait and see whether Garmin decided to implement glider-specific anti-collision algorithms. Might be a long wait.

Hope is hardly ever a very good strategy.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:51:09 AM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:23:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > There is nothing inherent in FLARM that makes it superior
> > to ADS-B in terms of its capability to detect potential glider
> > to glider collisions. Both technologies transmit the aircraft
> > location once per second. The resolution of both is limited by
> > the accuracy of the GPS source. What currently makes FLARM
> > superior are the collision detection algorithms in the receiver,
> > which are specifically designed for a glider environment.
> > There is nothing preventing software developers from developing
> > similar solutions for use with ADS-B receivers.
>
> The above is utter nonsense.
> FLARM transmits the PROJECTED PATH of the aircraft using knowledge
> of aircraft type and maneuvering.
> ADS-B cannot possibly ever match the collision-avoidance performance
> of FLARM for gliders, for this and numerous other reasons.
>
> For anybody interested in actual FACTS as opposed
> to authoratively-spoken nonsense on RAS, please see:
> http://www.gliderpilot.org/Flarm-WhatDoesItDo
>
> Good Grief...

Thank Dave (who wrote the Flarm software for those out of the loop).

Anyone who has been in close quarters with one or more other gliders can understand the importance of not having multi-second lags in likely flight path conflicts. The prediction engine on the transmitting aircraft is the only way to sort in-close traffic (as opposed to 5mi/1000' traffic).

Mike is right in the sense that the appropriate solution depends on the kind of flying you do. If you fly your glider like a power plane - mostly constant cruise altitude, long straight flight paths, 5mi/1000' separation from other traffic, then ADS-B (when available for installation) might be just fine. But if that's how you fly it might be debatable whether you are a glider pilot in practice.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

> For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.
>

What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.

9B

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:57:05 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:00:07 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> > > The Europeans can use ADS-B Out today in gliders. There may be elements
> > > similar to FAA TSO-C199 which I just heard about.
> > >
> > > I still question why WAAS GPS is/will be the price of admission to
> > > controlled airspace at least in VFR. Yes on a Cat III ILS, WAAS is
> > > warranted.
> > >
> > > http://www.glidertracking.com/connecting-ads-b/
> > >
> > > "René de Dreu from the Glider Pilot Shop has put together a document which
> > > examines possible ADS-B connections between all Mode-S transponders and LX
> > > flight computers / equipment. "
> > >
> > > Unfortunately dead link for time being:
> > >
> > > http://www.gliderpilotshop.nl/winkel/product_info.php?cPath=110_97&products_id=490
> >
> > Right, but it's kind of the reason that the Europeans can use 1090ES Out in gliders today is there are no applicable ADS-B services they interface to (including ATC) and no regulations beyond the most basic transponder/1090ES out requirements they have to meet. In a way it is not too different than the non-certified gliders in the USA, those owners can install any GPS source with the same 1090ES capable transponders.... but in the USA that has limited use as it is not enough to get the FAA ADS-B ground stations to want to send you ADS-R and TIS-B services and you likely won't even show up on traffic displays of aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. In Europe where there are ADS-B Out requirements/standards for high-performance aircraft which require Certified IFR GPS sources. So just kind of a worse case paranoid warning: what Europe exactly will do in future is not guaranteed. If say they were to mandate ADS-B Out for lower performance aircraft than the current ADS-B Out mandate for high-performance (which is just rolling out) then who knows what might be required as a GPS source in those aircraft. But yes, damn it, things like testing/encouraging current COTS GPS use in the UK is great.
> >
> > The issue that the FAA would argue with requiring a TSO/IFR/WAAS GPS source is not ultra-precision as it is with GPS reliability and failure detection. I am just saying what they would argue :-)
> >
> > BTW European agencies should be well aware of the stuff behind TSO-C199.. Actually that TSO has some European roots back to low power Mode-S transponders... which in the past tied in with some concern about UK airspace restrictions/mandatory Transponder (or low-powered Transponder) carriage. So the other warning here is be careful what you wish/want to encourage without watching out for what might end up encouraging/enabling excessive mandatory use/restrictions.
> >
> > And again the technical part of actually connecting together this stuff is not the problem, its actually pretty simple. And you can do that today in an experimental glider in the USA. You must be careful and properly set up the ADS-B out to report it is not using an IFR/TSO GPS source, and as a result it has limited use, you won't receive those services you might expect and it does not allow flight in airspace that would require a 2020 Mandate compliant ADS-B out system (gliders have exemptions for some airspace, but a non-compliant install won't get you into the other airspace). But geeks with experimental gliders may still want to do this (and a few have).
> >
> > I'm not defending the FAA, but they had huge issues with ADS-B being everything to everybody and ADS-B is a key part of the ambitious and underfunded NEXGEN project. But the highly complex dual-link ADS-B approach in the USA is a mess and was a very bad idea for many reasons. Not allowing a COTS GPS for VFR traffic (at least outside certain airspace) was also a bad idea. TSO-C199 is interesting, I take it overall as a good sign, but it is unclear at least to me where it will end up and what products will actually come from it. It could also hopefully be a model for future broader changes to allow more use of non-TSO GPS for general ADS-B Out. And I still have some paranoid reservations where TSO-C199 could lead long term as mentioned above. Europeans pushing ahead with COTS GPS trials/encouraging use is a great sign as well, but again, does not mean they won't end up in future requiring higher-spec ADS-B Out installs in GA and gliders etc. (but we all hope they do not, and so far in what they actually have and have not done with ADS-B shows a lot more modest/overall rational/pragmatic thought than in the USA).
> >
> > This ADS-B mess is still mostly futureware(*) for glider pilots in the USA, we just don't know exactly where this will end up, whether we'll ever see say TSO-C199 devices, whether ADS-B Out GPS requirements will be relaxed, etc. And Transponders and/or PowerFLARM are very useful, pretty well understood and realtively easy to deploy traffic awareness and collision avoidance assistance actually available and usable today. And since ADS-B Out is not even mandatory for gliders in 2020 it's just not worth most glider pilots worrying about.
> >
> > (*) the part that of ADS-B that is not futureware for USA glider pilots is of course that the PowerFLARM with 1090ES In capability can "see" aircraft nearby that are transmitting 1090ES Out.
>
> Non-certified aircraft that transmit ADS-B OUT signals using non-TSO'd GPS sources do apparently trigger TIS-B transmissions from ADS-B ground stations, according to the people I have talked to at Dynon and pilots who have Dynon systems installed in their aircraft. The Dynon system uses a proprietary version of the Trig 21 transponder and does transmit a 1090ES ADS-B out signal. The pilots I have talked to who have this system installed in their aircraft (RV-8 and Phoenix Motorgliders), consistently see all of the transponder equipped aircraft in their vicinity as a result of this capability. The guys I have talked to say this it is a real eye opener on how much traffic is there that they would otherwise never see visually.

The FAA had allowed TIS-B and other services to work in the past, the
implication seem to be that this and other things were not going to be supported with non certified GPS inputs in future. But that is not entirely clear.

But I'd be very careful of anecdotal observations, it is very easy to look at a traffic display and see lots of icons flying around, but it's hard to know if you are looking at traffic appearing there via TIS-B, ADS-R or ADS-B direct -- the Dynon Sykwatch provide *no* way for a user to tell. The danger especially with TIS-B is you'll definitely expect to receive TIS-B broadcasts within the service volume around other aircraft who are transmitting a ADS-B with certified GPS and the capability code set to who they have ADS-B UAT In.

Oh Dynon Skywatch, shudder, they use Trig transponder technology, great, but their Skywatch is a crazy split-brain 1090ES Out, UAT In system, something the FAA has consistently warned against. Sure it lets them provide a FIS-B weather etc. product, but as a traffic solution it is just a bad idea. There are much better options out there from better vendors who have realized the best approach in the USA dual-link environment is 1090ES Out and dual 1090ES In and UAT In. The idea that you could have two Dynon Skywatch equipped aircraft right next to each out at a remote airport and both could run into each other with no traffic warning is just bat**** crazy, hopefully they will go dual-link ADS-B In in future and existing users will have an easy upgrade path.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:00:36 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> Thank Dave (who wrote the Flarm software for those out of the loop).
>
I probably should have said "re-wrote the PowerFLARM code" to be more precise. The Flarm team in Switzerland wrote the original code of course. It is pretty amazing what it can do given how closely gliders fly together.

9B

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:46:49 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:57:05 AM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:00:07 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> > > > The Europeans can use ADS-B Out today in gliders. There may be elements
> > > > similar to FAA TSO-C199 which I just heard about.
> > > >
> > > > I still question why WAAS GPS is/will be the price of admission to
> > > > controlled airspace at least in VFR. Yes on a Cat III ILS, WAAS is
> > > > warranted.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.glidertracking.com/connecting-ads-b/
> > > >
> > > > "René de Dreu from the Glider Pilot Shop has put together a document which
> > > > examines possible ADS-B connections between all Mode-S transponders and LX
> > > > flight computers / equipment. "
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately dead link for time being:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gliderpilotshop.nl/winkel/product_info.php?cPath=110_97&products_id=490
> > >
> > > Right, but it's kind of the reason that the Europeans can use 1090ES Out in gliders today is there are no applicable ADS-B services they interface to (including ATC) and no regulations beyond the most basic transponder/1090ES out requirements they have to meet. In a way it is not too different than the non-certified gliders in the USA, those owners can install any GPS source with the same 1090ES capable transponders.... but in the USA that has limited use as it is not enough to get the FAA ADS-B ground stations to want to send you ADS-R and TIS-B services and you likely won't even show up on traffic displays of aircraft with certified ADS-B In systems. In Europe where there are ADS-B Out requirements/standards for high-performance aircraft which require Certified IFR GPS sources. So just kind of a worse case paranoid warning: what Europe exactly will do in future is not guaranteed. If say they were to mandate ADS-B Out for lower performance aircraft than the current ADS-B Out mandate for high-performance (which is just rolling out) then who knows what might be required as a GPS source in those aircraft.. But yes, damn it, things like testing/encouraging current COTS GPS use in the UK is great.
> > >
> > > The issue that the FAA would argue with requiring a TSO/IFR/WAAS GPS source is not ultra-precision as it is with GPS reliability and failure detection. I am just saying what they would argue :-)
> > >
> > > BTW European agencies should be well aware of the stuff behind TSO-C199. Actually that TSO has some European roots back to low power Mode-S transponders... which in the past tied in with some concern about UK airspace restrictions/mandatory Transponder (or low-powered Transponder) carriage. So the other warning here is be careful what you wish/want to encourage without watching out for what might end up encouraging/enabling excessive mandatory use/restrictions.
> > >
> > > And again the technical part of actually connecting together this stuff is not the problem, its actually pretty simple. And you can do that today in an experimental glider in the USA. You must be careful and properly set up the ADS-B out to report it is not using an IFR/TSO GPS source, and as a result it has limited use, you won't receive those services you might expect and it does not allow flight in airspace that would require a 2020 Mandate compliant ADS-B out system (gliders have exemptions for some airspace, but a non-compliant install won't get you into the other airspace). But geeks with experimental gliders may still want to do this (and a few have).
> > >
> > > I'm not defending the FAA, but they had huge issues with ADS-B being everything to everybody and ADS-B is a key part of the ambitious and underfunded NEXGEN project. But the highly complex dual-link ADS-B approach in the USA is a mess and was a very bad idea for many reasons. Not allowing a COTS GPS for VFR traffic (at least outside certain airspace) was also a bad idea. TSO-C199 is interesting, I take it overall as a good sign, but it is unclear at least to me where it will end up and what products will actually come from it. It could also hopefully be a model for future broader changes to allow more use of non-TSO GPS for general ADS-B Out. And I still have some paranoid reservations where TSO-C199 could lead long term as mentioned above. Europeans pushing ahead with COTS GPS trials/encouraging use is a great sign as well, but again, does not mean they won't end up in future requiring higher-spec ADS-B Out installs in GA and gliders etc. (but we all hope they do not, and so far in what they actually have and have not done with ADS-B shows a lot more modest/overall rational/pragmatic thought than in the USA).
> > >
> > > This ADS-B mess is still mostly futureware(*) for glider pilots in the USA, we just don't know exactly where this will end up, whether we'll ever see say TSO-C199 devices, whether ADS-B Out GPS requirements will be relaxed, etc. And Transponders and/or PowerFLARM are very useful, pretty well understood and realtively easy to deploy traffic awareness and collision avoidance assistance actually available and usable today. And since ADS-B Out is not even mandatory for gliders in 2020 it's just not worth most glider pilots worrying about.
> > >
> > > (*) the part that of ADS-B that is not futureware for USA glider pilots is of course that the PowerFLARM with 1090ES In capability can "see" aircraft nearby that are transmitting 1090ES Out.
> >
> > Non-certified aircraft that transmit ADS-B OUT signals using non-TSO'd GPS sources do apparently trigger TIS-B transmissions from ADS-B ground stations, according to the people I have talked to at Dynon and pilots who have Dynon systems installed in their aircraft. The Dynon system uses a proprietary version of the Trig 21 transponder and does transmit a 1090ES ADS-B out signal. The pilots I have talked to who have this system installed in their aircraft (RV-8 and Phoenix Motorgliders), consistently see all of the transponder equipped aircraft in their vicinity as a result of this capability. The guys I have talked to say this it is a real eye opener on how much traffic is there that they would otherwise never see visually.
>
> The FAA had allowed TIS-B and other services to work in the past, the
> implication seem to be that this and other things were not going to be supported with non certified GPS inputs in future. But that is not entirely clear.
>
> But I'd be very careful of anecdotal observations, it is very easy to look at a traffic display and see lots of icons flying around, but it's hard to know if you are looking at traffic appearing there via TIS-B, ADS-R or ADS-B direct -- the Dynon Sykwatch provide *no* way for a user to tell. The danger especially with TIS-B is you'll definitely expect to receive TIS-B broadcasts within the service volume around other aircraft who are transmitting a ADS-B with certified GPS and the capability code set to who they have ADS-B UAT In.
>
> Oh Dynon Skywatch, shudder, they use Trig transponder technology, great, but their Skywatch is a crazy split-brain 1090ES Out, UAT In system, something the FAA has consistently warned against. Sure it lets them provide a FIS-B weather etc. product, but as a traffic solution it is just a bad idea. There are much better options out there from better vendors who have realized the best approach in the USA dual-link environment is 1090ES Out and dual 1090ES In and UAT In. The idea that you could have two Dynon Skywatch equipped aircraft right next to each out at a remote airport and both could run into each other with no traffic warning is just bat**** crazy, hopefully they will go dual-link ADS-B In in future and existing users will have an easy upgrade path.

I'm not suggesting that Dynon is a perfect solution. Dual band ADS-B receivers are important for the reasons that you indicate. There are a number of very reasonably priced ADS-B IN solutions available that are dual band, providing full visibility of all ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft in addition to supporting TIS-B if you are transmitting an ADS-B OUT signal and are within range of an ADS-B ground station.

I'm not disputing that FLARM is a better solution for glider to glider collision avoidance, when both gliders are appropriately equipped. What I have a lot of difficulty understanding is why PowerFLARM doesn't support TIS-B. If that were supported this would be a great solution today for all glider pilots, whether they are flying in contests, or recreationally where they are interested in seeing other GA and airline traffic.

Without TIS-B support PowerFLARM is of no interest to me. PowerFlarm's ability to see transponder equipped aircraft only provides altitude and an approximate estimate of the range of conflicting traffic with absolutely no indication of where the A/C is located. Virtually every other ADS-B IN solution out there supports TIS-B which shows you the exact location and track of all transponder equipped A/C that are visible to ATC.

If the PowerFLARM community really wants to solve the bigger collision avoidance problem, they need to get serious about supporting TIS-B. Otherwise, PowerFLARM's long term future is going to be limited to a very small niche market.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.
> >
>
> What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.
>
> 9B

PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> >
> > > For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.
> > >
> >
> > What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.
> >
> > 9B
>
> PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.

And without that affordable and deployable ADS-B out solution that is largely irrelevant. So it's a discussion about futureware again. Would it be nice if PowerFLARM supported TIS-B for that long term future for some pilots, sure -- but even then what it can do would need to be tailored to the glider user, be able to handle the relatively large positional uncertainty in TIS-B, dedupe FLARM/TIS-B and appropriately suppress TIS-B warnings etc. when in say a gaggle. If I was FLARM none of that would be near my company's top priority, especially not as it only affects some very small number of glider pilots in the USA (those are equipped with ADS-B Out). And eventually TIS-B just goes away as something interesting as more aircraft equip with ADS-B Out. But today PowerFLARM does a fantastic job for the niche market (glider pilots, us!) it was designed for.

What is especially painful is the continued nitpicking of something aimed at the glider pilot community that does so well for that community. If you are not after a glider oriented solution then just go buy somethign like a *great* Garmin dual-link ADS-B In based system maybe with a Trig TT-22 1090ES Out system and be done with your whining. If your aircraft is certificated then just pay for a real TSO GPS Out, after all this whining surely it must be worth a few $k for you to get what you keep saying here you need?

You've spent years on r.a.s. pushing one ADS-B thing after another, small battery powered UATs Out vaporware, power hungry GA oriented UAT Out, TIS-B etc. if there is a market for folks craving whatever ideas you are selling now why don't you actually show people what is usable, what exactly can be installed and actually works, the benefits and limitations of that, and describe your own experiences with using that system? What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.


That is a pointless argument in more ways that I can possibly describe.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> > >
> > > > For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.
> > >
> > > 9B
> >
> > PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.
>
> And without that affordable and deployable ADS-B out solution that is largely irrelevant. So it's a discussion about futureware again. Would it be nice if PowerFLARM supported TIS-B for that long term future for some pilots, sure -- but even then what it can do would need to be tailored to the glider user, be able to handle the relatively large positional uncertainty in TIS-B, dedupe FLARM/TIS-B and appropriately suppress TIS-B warnings etc. when in say a gaggle. If I was FLARM none of that would be near my company's top priority, especially not as it only affects some very small number of glider pilots in the USA (those are equipped with ADS-B Out). And eventually TIS-B just goes away as something interesting as more aircraft equip with ADS-B Out. But today PowerFLARM does a fantastic job for the niche market (glider pilots, us!) it was designed for.
>
> What is especially painful is the continued nitpicking of something aimed at the glider pilot community that does so well for that community. If you are not after a glider oriented solution then just go buy somethign like a *great* Garmin dual-link ADS-B In based system maybe with a Trig TT-22 1090ES Out system and be done with your whining. If your aircraft is certificated then just pay for a real TSO GPS Out, after all this whining surely it must be worth a few $k for you to get what you keep saying here you need?
>
> You've spent years on r.a.s. pushing one ADS-B thing after another, small battery powered UATs Out vaporware, power hungry GA oriented UAT Out, TIS-B etc. if there is a market for folks craving whatever ideas you are selling now why don't you actually show people what is usable, what exactly can be installed and actually works, the benefits and limitations of that, and describe your own experiences with using that system? What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:50:01 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:03:08 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For gliders, the ideal solution would be a combination of PowerFLARM and a mode S transponder hooked up to transmit 1090ES position, without the need for a TSOd WAAS GPS. All the hardware is present, just need the FAA to wake up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What Kirk said. This is settled science, to borrow a phrase.
> > > >
> > > > 9B
> > >
> > > PowerFLARM still doesn't support TIS-B, so you can't accurately see non ADS-B out equipped A/C.
> >
> > And without that affordable and deployable ADS-B out solution that is largely irrelevant. So it's a discussion about futureware again. Would it be nice if PowerFLARM supported TIS-B for that long term future for some pilots, sure -- but even then what it can do would need to be tailored to the glider user, be able to handle the relatively large positional uncertainty in TIS-B, dedupe FLARM/TIS-B and appropriately suppress TIS-B warnings etc. when in say a gaggle. If I was FLARM none of that would be near my company's top priority, especially not as it only affects some very small number of glider pilots in the USA (those are equipped with ADS-B Out). And eventually TIS-B just goes away as something interesting as more aircraft equip with ADS-B Out. But today PowerFLARM does a fantastic job for the niche market (glider pilots, us!) it was designed for.
> >
> > What is especially painful is the continued nitpicking of something aimed at the glider pilot community that does so well for that community. If you are not after a glider oriented solution then just go buy somethign like a *great* Garmin dual-link ADS-B In based system maybe with a Trig TT-22 1090ES Out system and be done with your whining. If your aircraft is certificated then just pay for a real TSO GPS Out, after all this whining surely it must be worth a few $k for you to get what you keep saying here you need?
> >
> > You've spent years on r.a.s. pushing one ADS-B thing after another, small battery powered UATs Out vaporware, power hungry GA oriented UAT Out, TIS-B etc. if there is a market for folks craving whatever ideas you are selling now why don't you actually show people what is usable, what exactly can be installed and actually works, the benefits and limitations of that, and describe your own experiences with using that system? What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?
>
> What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

What of all technology you keep talking about have you actually got installed and actually flow with in what aircraft?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:50:01 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:

> What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

Sorry for your pain Mike, but you keep making unsubstantiated assertions that are contrary to known facts. That is at minimum a disservice to your fellow pilots and in some cases potentially dangerous to them as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that over the past 20 years 60 percent of the 20 reported midair collisions involving gliders have been glider-glider and 75 percent have been glider-glider or glider-towplane. There was one towplane-GA and four glider-GA collisions over the same period. Contests are not by a long shot the only circumstances where gliders come together. 40 percent of collisions were in a contest environment, 60 percent were not. Even if you never fly a contest two-thirds of the collisions have been with another glider and of the the other one-third one was with a J-3 Cub which would likely never have had ADS-B installed, one was between a glider with a transponder that was turned off and a business jet. I'd have to look up the circumstance of the other two.

The simple fact of the matter is that the biggest risk for glider midair collision is another glider, so the scenario you describe of a glider pilot who doesn't fly out of a gliderport or near a gliderport is actually the sub-niche market. The vast majority of people flying gliders need to look out primarily for other gliders and secondarily for towplanes. Those aircraft, if they have any GPS-based collision technology at all, are equipped with a PowerFLARM. If you want to avoid conflict with jets and turboprops and other aircraft by all means get a Mode S transponder too - that'll be your second best investment.

Facts and analysis based on data please - especially when it comes to decisions that affect people's safety.

9B

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 1:50:01 AM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:

> What is just as painful is listening to the constant koolaid on how PowerFLARM is the answer for all glider pilots. It is NOT. It may be a good solution for the sub-niche market of contest glider pilots (which is at most 1/4 of the overall glider community). It is not a good solution for those of us who are concerned about traffic conflicts with non-glider traffic.

Bull****.

With PF I get real time (not delayed, like TIS-B)1090ES position on fast movers, and real time altitude and approx range for Mode C/S traffic, which is good enough to start looking, and if necessary avoid, gen av traffic.

And I've had it in my glider for 2 years.

To get TIS-B into my cockpit, I would need ADS-B out and in. And displays. And be in range of ground stations. And hope that the data latency isn't too great. And I still could get hit in a gaggle by another glider without warning! Or even under that one nice Cu in the middle of nowhere...

Talk about drinking the coolaid - you are just plain in denial!

Kirk
66

[Ramy[_2_]]

Obviously Mike didn't read or understood Andy's article in soaring magazine..
That said I learn something new from Mike, that since I am not a contest pilot I must have been imagining that powerflarm is useful and helpful for me during the last 3 years I am using it, and I be better off selling it to a contest pilot and install ADS-B instead...

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Why has this informational thread turning into an either/or argument with personal attacks? It seems to me that it is possible to install both with cost being the only real concern and I expect that as we get closer to 2020 affordable GPS WAAS sources will emerge. Take a look at the Trig TN70 and FreeFlight Systems 1201 boxes. Small, less than US$3000, and bound to come down in price as similar competitors emerge. (Note that the are pretty much identical boxes and may even be built by the same manufacturer - for example, Trig makes Mode S transponders for Bendix King.) In fact, given the prolific/agile/inventive soaring community, it would not surprise me if someone put out such a device as an IGC approved data logger with FLARM!