Case Study Near Mid Air Glider and C421 - Benefits of PowerFlarm and Transponders

[WaltWX[_2_]]

With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.

Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0

The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0

According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.

When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information.. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.

In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.

Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A

[WaltWX[_2_]]

I forgot one more thing... my analysis of the radar ATC video/audio:

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/xbxo0k4zlzoii9g/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarATC_Voice_Analys is.txt?dl=0

Walt Rogers WX

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 07:24 20 January 2016, WaltWX wrote:
>I forgot one more thing... my analysis of the radar ATC video/audio:
>
>https://dl.dropbox.com/s/xbxo0k4zlzoii9g/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarATC_Voice_Analys is.txt?dl=0
>
>Walt Rogers WX

Wow. To the lay man this looks just like the controller was waiting for and
watching a collision happen. You were right on track and they didn't tell
the guy to turn away. What is the point of watching the screen if you do
not take action?

Were you turning all the time? If so you should have been easy to see.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:09:34 AM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
>
> Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions.

I've a Trig T21. An ATC controller told me that I might be filtered/deleted from his display when circling or flying in wave due to my low ground speed.

Does your display on the radar have anything to do with the low traffic where you were flying or ATC knowledge of glider traffic in that area?

More generally, I'd like to have a better idea of when a Mode-S equipped glider is visible to ATC and when it is not visible.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:09:34 AM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
>
> Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0
>
> The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
> horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0
>
> According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.
>
> When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.
>
> I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.
>
> In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.
>
> Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A

Wow, sorta scary watching it and listening to what ATC did/didn't say to the other aircraft.

Curious to see if anything else develops on this.

BTW, you "may" want to hide your address/contact info in the PDF.

Oh, glad to see you're still around to discuss this.

[Christopher Giacomo]

The speed at which gliders typically fly is less than the normal filter for radar tracking. If you don't have a transponder, it is unlikely that they will be able to pick you up.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 7:14:24 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:09:34 AM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
> >
> > Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions.
>
> I've a Trig T21. An ATC controller told me that I might be filtered/deleted from his display when circling or flying in wave due to my low ground speed.
>
> Does your display on the radar have anything to do with the low traffic where you were flying or ATC knowledge of glider traffic in that area?
>
> More generally, I'd like to have a better idea of when a Mode-S equipped glider is visible to ATC and when it is not visible.

The controller was misunderstanding that you have a transponder, or badly misunderstanding how radar works. The 'velocity-doppler filter" is very important and is on primary radar not SSR/transponder returns.

Transponders are the backbone of the ATC surveillance systems, aircraft with them just don't disappear because they slow down.

For gliders without transponders you damn well bet you can disappear from primary radar, especially if the radar needs the velocity-doppler filter turned up to reduce noise, that might be to help filter ou general ground scatter, cars on freeways/highways, wind generator farms, etc. Talking to your local ATC radar facility and seeing what they can and can't see on primary radar is usually interesting, and frequently an eye opener for folks in busy areas to get a damn transponder.

A Mode S or C transponder is "visible" to ATC when you are flying within SSR coverage and the transponder is turned on and correctly working.

[Darryl Ramm]

Walt, thanks for the great info, and thanks for following up with this with he FAA. That radar tape is frustrating to watch. Mr. Golden Eagle maybe ought to be investing in some ADS-B Out/In (and/or TCAS/TCAD) technology.

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 11:09:34 PM UTC-8, WaltWX wrote:

> When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.

I'm not sure the PowerFLARM would receive this, if it is a TIS-B style message, my understanding is it would not. But yes ideally for lots of reasons the FAA would have thought all this through a decade ago and just broadcast blind TIS-B transponder traffic conflicts like this on both ADS-B links. That would likely be a useful safety improvement for lots of GA traffic.... I would hope not, but I do would not be totally surprised in the past if some factions within the FAA may have been concerned about doing that as it decreases incentives for traffic to equip with complaint ADS-B Out.

I know lots of the glider pilots who fly in your area are fantastic at working working with ATC, Joshua Approach etc. One thing that listening to that tape that maybe shows is the benefit of having a airband radio with channel monitoring listening to ATC. Now overall is that distraction worth it? Maybe, maybe not. In some hotspots I'm sure it is. If I was buying a radio now, that feature be on my want-list.

A local SF bay Area hot-spot for GA traffic is near Travis AFB where there are lots of GA traffic exiting under the SFO Class B. Travis Approach/RAPCON are usually great to work with. Listening to them give traffic advisories about gliders etc. is eye opening. There is just a lot of frigging traffic there. And they may be totally blind to any non-transponder equipped traffic (because of doppler noise from lots of wind farms near Travis AFB). and calling 'em up and requesting flight following for gliders. Oh yes and lots of USAF C-5 Galaxies flying around (all with TCAS II.. so definitely transponder material).

[Dan Marotta]

That was very good watching, Walt. I wonder why the ATC controller did
not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a warning of a
conflict. This also shows that it's not a bad idea to monitor Approach
and Departure frequencies when you're in or near standard routes. Glad
there was nothing more than some unnecessary excitement!

On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:
> With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
>
> Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0
>
> The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
> horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0
>
> According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.
>
> When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.
>
> I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.
>
> In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.
>
> Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A

--
Dan, 5J

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 11:10:13 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:

>

> I'm not sure the PowerFLARM would receive this, if it is a TIS-B style message, my understanding is it would not. But yes ideally for lots of reasons the FAA would have thought all this through a decade ago and just broadcast blind TIS-B transponder traffic conflicts like this on both ADS-B links. That would likely be a useful safety improvement for lots of GA traffic..... I would hope not, but I do would not be totally surprised in the past if some factions within the FAA may have been concerned about doing that as it decreases incentives for traffic to equip with complaint ADS-B Out.

One argument for equipping glider with a transponder and/or ADS-B for all it's cost... would be that we get something in return... namely Collision Advisory "CA" alerts like the controllers get. Your probably right, it would likely come in the form of a TIS-B packet which is not detected by PowerFlarm at this time on both ADS-B channels. By only doing it for "CA"'s, bandwidth would not be an issue. Do you think the PowerFlarm people could easily add TIB-B and ADS-R packets?

>
> I know lots of the glider pilots who fly in your area are fantastic at working working with ATC, Joshua Approach etc. One thing that listening to that tape that maybe shows is the benefit of having a airband radio with channel monitoring listening to ATC. Now overall is that distraction worth it? Maybe, maybe not. In some hotspots I'm sure it is. If I was buying a radio now, that feature be on my want-list.
>

Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble. You know something fast and big is in the area, but do not have any idea where... just like receiving PCAS alerts.

Walt Rogers

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."

Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!

Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
> did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
> warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
> monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
> standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
> excitement!
>
>
>
>
> On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:
>
>
>
> With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
>
> Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0
>
> The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
> horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0
>
> According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.
>
> When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.
>
> I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.
>
> In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.
>
> Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."
>
> Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic.. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!
>
> Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.
>
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
> > did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
> > warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
> > monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
> > standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
> > excitement!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
> >
> > Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.
> >
> > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0
> >
> > The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
> > horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.
> >
> > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0
> >
> > According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.
> >
> > When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.
> >
> > I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.
> >
> > In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.
> >
> > Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dan, 5J

Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.

I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)

9B

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."
> >
> > Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!
> >
> > Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
> > > did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
> > > warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
> > > monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
> > > standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
> > > excitement!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
> > >
> > > Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.
> > >
> > > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0
> > >
> > > The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
> > > horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.
> > >
> > > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0
> > >
> > > According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.
> > >
> > > When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.
> > >
> > > I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.
> > >
> > > In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.
> > >
> > > Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Dan, 5J
>
> Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.
>
> I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)
>
> 9B

For a TSO GPS source you can't do it over NMEA. You can do TABS Class B over NMEA. Pretty sure I've been over this before, sigh, many times. At this point its just a memory retention/IQ test.

Look FLARM is just not ever going to produce a TSO- or "meets TSO" or even TABS spec GPS device... that would be effectively be a lot of work just for the tiny USA market. Even something as simple as TABS requires a manufacture used to dealing with TSO approval, engineering and paperwork teams, GPS constellation testers, folks to write test suites,... not the stuff that a small nimble company like FLARM which plays in the unregulated electronics space is ever likely to do, or anybody in the glider community should be asking them to do. And yes I now some parts of their OEMs do play in this space, but the economics and hassle required is just awful. Bad bad waste of their resources. All this stuff will likely come from GPS vendors used to doing this regulatory approval dance. If I heard rumors of FLARM wanting to do even TABS certification, I'd be banging on them pointing out how that is likely a lot of work and a bad business decision. I like for good companies doing good stuff to make smart decisions and be around in future.

[Darryl Ramm]

Oh and on TABS. We have no relevant installation or use regulations *at all* yet do we? So getting too worried about any of that stuff now is kinda premature. It may work out that there is no way this can be done in practice and actually installed in a glider even if FLARM wanted to.

I know just waiting and seeing must be *SO* hard...

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:10:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > Well there are good controllers and not so good. I have had many very close calls, while flying under flight following, IFR plan, or under the Tower's control. Four of my nearest (one within inches) happened within several hundred or less feet of actually taking off, and still over the runway. Burbank, Santa Barbra (twice), and El Cajon. The one in Burbank also involved an United Airlines MD80, in Santa Barbra the control tower actually was ****ed off at the C414 pilot that loudly complained he had to take sudden low altitude evasive manouvers (we both did!) and go around because the control tower had directed me (departing in a helicopter) nose to nose with the C414 on short final. To this day I can hear the controller with a very annoyed tone, "yeah just go around, cleared to land..."
> > >
> > > Another time flying a C340 through the Owens valley on flight following, Joshua approach in a harried/worried tone informed me that two F/A-18's were converging on my position from behind, then he asked if I had the traffic. Told him I did not have much rear visibility. He then told me in a worried tone "they are approaching fast!" I asked him for a course to deviated, it was like he had never thought of that! I do not include this as a near miss, I have had so many. Some you cannot control like the AS---le that flew underneath me (i could see him via Mode S traffic display on my HSI/map/traffic instrument) and as he dove to go under I turned 90 degrees only to see him zoom up where I had been. I think this fool was trying to fly under me then scare me by zooming up from underneath, however, had I not turned, he would have hit me as he did not have vision above. I am in full support of anything that gives me the most situational awareness as possible!
> > >
> > > Perhaps a better use of Flarm resources rather than to develop a stealth mode would be to certify the Flarm GPS for use with trig and garrecht transponders that have ADS-B out and then output the data so our computers will display all traffic from any acronym source. I already have three GPS' I am hoping I will not have to buy a fourth to get ADS-B.
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > > That was very good watching, Walt.* I wonder why the ATC controller
> > > > did not give the 421 a slight turn rather than simply issuing a
> > > > warning of a conflict.* This also shows that it's not a bad idea to
> > > > monitor Approach and Departure frequencies when you're in or near
> > > > standard routes.* Glad there was nothing more than some unnecessary
> > > > excitement!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/20/2016 12:09 AM, WaltWX wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With all the discussion about FLARM, ADS-B and the Pros/Cons, I thought the time is right to bring some facts into the discussion. Last September I had a near mid air with a C421. Since I had recently equipped over the previous winter with a Mode S transponder (Trig T22), I was curious whether: 1) It was working... 2)Did the FAA use my target to call traffic.
> > > >
> > > > Turned out the answer was yes! to both questions. I filed a near mid report to the FAA which resulted in two interviews and this radar ARTCC video with ATC controller audio. I think you'll find it quite interesting.
> > > >
> > > > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/k8ph9wogyifvjsf/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_RadarVideo_N53LK_N821 TT.wmv?dl=0
> > > >
> > > > The FAA statement incorrectly identified the twin as a King Air with only (my visual esimate)
> > > > horizontal separation estimate of 500ft.
> > > >
> > > > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/e6gvhn6dybxg6n3/NearMidAir_SBA19NNE_20150920_StatementToFAA.pdf?dl =0
> > > >
> > > > According to the radar we passed by at 10,000msl zero vertical and 1300ft horizontal. By pure luck and good scanning technique, I sighted the C421 15 seconds before crossing. PowerFlarm PCAS went off 2-3 seconds later.. PowerFlarm would have got my attention if my visual scanning had failed me. No evasive action occurred on my part.
> > > >
> > > > When you listen to the audio/video you will see a red "CA" meaning Conflict Alert going off for the controller. This went off at 33 seconds. If FAA modified their ADS-B ERAM software, they could send out ADS-B packets for aircraft on a collision course. PowerFlarm would then have given plenty of warning without cluttering the bandwidth of ADS-B with unnecessary information. This recommendation was made to the FSDO FAA representative who interviewed me.
> > > >
> > > > I am complete agreement with Darryl Ramm's analysis of this whole transponder (Mode S) PowerFlarm recommendation. They complement each other quite well... and this is the best solution for the time being. As he has said, the whole ADS-B thing with TABS looming in the near future is in a state of flux. I wouldn't be surprised to see combined Mode-S/ADS-B transponders coming onto the market in abundance within 3 or 4 years.
> > > >
> > > > In case you are wondering ... I did NOT recommend in my response to the FAA NPRM immediately equipage of gliders with transponders. Instead, utilize good airspace practices, training and a short "wait and see" for more affordable equipment to become available. However, if you have the money.... by all means equip with a transponder and PowerFlarm.
> > > >
> > > > Walter Rogers "WX" Discus 2A
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Dan, 5J
> >
> > Flarm only outputs NMEA over a serial port. What does a Mode S Transponder with ADS-B Out capability look for as an input for GPS? I don't think the physical or logical interfaces are compatible are they? Also - the Flarm GPS is an off the shelf consumer unit so it is not clear to me that it would ever be able to be certified and may not even qualify for TABS.
> >
> > I'm mostly asking (waiting for Darryl...)
> >
> > 9B
>
> For a TSO GPS source you can't do it over NMEA. You can do TABS Class B over NMEA. Pretty sure I've been over this before, sigh, many times. At this point its just a memory retention/IQ test.
>
> Look FLARM is just not ever going to produce a TSO- or "meets TSO" or even TABS spec GPS device... that would be effectively be a lot of work just for the tiny USA market. Even something as simple as TABS requires a manufacture used to dealing with TSO approval, engineering and paperwork teams, GPS constellation testers, folks to write test suites,... not the stuff that a small nimble company like FLARM which plays in the unregulated electronics space is ever likely to do, or anybody in the glider community should be asking them to do. And yes I now some parts of their OEMs do play in this space, but the economics and hassle required is just awful. Bad bad waste of their resources. All this stuff will likely come from GPS vendors used to doing this regulatory approval dance. If I heard rumors of FLARM wanting to do even TABS certification, I'd be banging on them pointing out how that is likely a lot of work and a bad business decision. I like for good companies doing good stuff to make smart decisions and be around in future.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote on 1/20/2016 7:14 AM:
> I've a Trig T21. An ATC controller told me that I might be
> filtered/deleted from his display when circling or flying in wave due
> to my low ground speed.

I know primary radar signals might be filtered based on speed to remove
ground clutter, but never heard that would be done to a transponder
equipped aircraft. Gliders in wave aren't the only thing that can move
slowly - consider helicopters and balloons.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! :)) Having said that, one day I flew above LA class Bravo airspace without speaking with control (above 10,000 ft). I was tuned into LA approach and could hear them telling airliners, "I think it is a helicopter, or maybe a small Cessna, but I doubt that". I think back then I still had a mode C transponder.

I have many times been parked in a glider in wave over Julian VOR speaking with ATC who had me on radar, could confirm altitude and position. I would have had nearly zero ground speed and no transponder.
Same in Owens valley, no transponder and no problem with ATC seeing me, circling or not.

I now have a mode S transponder in the glider, plus a power Flarm. Looks like to get ADS-B out I will have to get a fourth GPS.


On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:12:34 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> son_of_flubber wrote on 1/20/2016 7:14 AM:
> > I've a Trig T21. An ATC controller told me that I might be
> > filtered/deleted from his display when circling or flying in wave due
> > to my low ground speed.
>
> I know primary radar signals might be filtered based on speed to remove
> ground clutter, but never heard that would be done to a transponder
> equipped aircraft. Gliders in wave aren't the only thing that can move
> slowly - consider helicopters and balloons.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:51:56 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! :))

Depends which helicopter. the Hughes/Schweizer/whatever 300 cruises at 160 km/h. I believe there are plenty of 300+ km glider flights done at higher average speed.

The R22 is a little faster, 90 knots or 167 km/h. I've blasted past them a few times, climbing, with both of us in ridge lift.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:50:09 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:

>Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble.

So you did not hear ATC communicating with the C421 about the conflict? Was there any way for ATC to contact you by radio?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

My only piston helicopter time is 3 hours in a Bell 47, amazing easy to fly bird, that can actually glide (very unusual for a helicopter). And comparing a piston copter to a glass glider is unfair, they should be compared to Ka-6, 1-26..etc. I believe the 300 and 22 both beat the older birds.

In the turbine machines, a bit more of the same era as glass gliders, cruise is 110 to 150 knots. Not many 200 - 400 nm mile flights in glider are in that speed range. Even in a lowly MD 500 at 64% power (top of green 89%) I would cruise at 120 knots, want to race? :)



On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:56:45 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:51:56 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! :))
>
> Depends which helicopter. the Hughes/Schweizer/whatever 300 cruises at 160 km/h. I believe there are plenty of 300+ km glider flights done at higher average speed.
>
> The R22 is a little faster, 90 knots or 167 km/h. I've blasted past them a few times, climbing, with both of us in ridge lift.

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:00:49 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:50:09 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
>
> >Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble.
>
> So you did not hear ATC communicating with the C421 about the conflict? Was there any way for ATC to contact you by radio?

I was not monitoring ATC frequency. It was in ARTCC airspace and the frequency was not obvious unless you have an IFR map or are "in the system". There was another glider a mile or two away with a transponder, so ... I suppose it would have alerted me to increase my scanning for traffic. But, there is no way to know which direction to look and that is the basis for my original comment that monitoring ATC frequencies doesn't help that much for collision awareness. I was just lucky that my scanning caught the C421 while in a right turn, but the PowerFlarm PCAS went off a second or two later.

Walt Rogers

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, I heard them. IIRC, they informed the 421 of the presence of the
glider but gave no vector for spacing. I'm assuming the 421 was on an
IFR flight plan and therefore had to maintain his assigned heading. Of
course, he could have asked for a vector to avoid traffic. I've done
that many times. He did not, or at least I did not hear it.

On 1/21/2016 10:00 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:50:09 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
>
>> Monitoring of local ARTCC or Approach frequencies for traffic, I've found is not worth the trouble.
> So you did not hear ATC communicating with the C421 about the conflict? Was there any way for ATC to contact you by radio?

--
Dan, 5J

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> ... I'm assuming the 421 was
> on an IFR flight plan and therefore had to maintain his assigned
> heading.* Of course, he could have asked for a vector to avoid
> traffic.*

IRRC ATC is not tasked to maintain IFR to VFR separation (?) (only IFR to IFR). So according to protocol, was ATC waiting for 421 to request vector to avoid traffic?

(I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'd like to understand this scenario.)

[JS]

Thanks, Walt.
With transponder and on ATC frequency you will hear other pilots being warned of your position relative to theirs, just as the 421 in this case. Typically "traffic, a glider, (distance, relative direction, altitude), maneuvering". Personally haven't heard detail on climb, whether rate or just "climbing".
Flying with another glider, each using discrete codes ATC has not issued maneuvering instructions in my experience. Perhaps just "do you see the other glider?"
The controller would assume an aicraft squawking VFR was on another frequency.
Even before the 1201 then 1202 VFR codes, controllers could tell a glider squawking 1200 from other aircraft. A fiberglass glider without transponder could be invisible to radar.
If something like this happens to you, it's possible to submit a NASA form which is supposed to be anonymous and used to help prevent future occurrences.
Jim

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:44:08 PM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> My only piston helicopter time is 3 hours in a Bell 47, amazing easy to fly bird, that can actually glide (very unusual for a helicopter). And comparing a piston copter to a glass glider is unfair, they should be compared to Ka-6, 1-26..etc. I believe the 300 and 22 both beat the older birds.
>
> In the turbine machines, a bit more of the same era as glass gliders, cruise is 110 to 150 knots. Not many 200 - 400 nm mile flights in glider are in that speed range. Even in a lowly MD 500 at 64% power (top of green 89%) I would cruise at 120 knots, want to race? :)
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:56:45 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:51:56 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > Eric, I take offense to that statement, helicopters are as fast as gliders, in fact they have a high cruise speed! :))
> >
> > Depends which helicopter. the Hughes/Schweizer/whatever 300 cruises at 160 km/h. I believe there are plenty of 300+ km glider flights done at higher average speed.
> >
> > The R22 is a little faster, 90 knots or 167 km/h. I've blasted past them a few times, climbing, with both of us in ridge lift.

I'd NEVER describe a 500D as "lowly!"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKWvsS-z9PU

When this was shot, deer hunters were writing off on average one 500D a month in NZ, and *still* making a fortune.

[[email protected]]

I had a similar near miss over Reno when a light twin passed about 500 feet below me. We were both monitoring center freq and squawking appropriate codes (1201 & VFR). After giving it some thought, I realized the controllers didn't know who we were. No flight plan and neither had asked for flight following. This was before FLARM.......keep your head on a swivel!

The closest I ever came to another ship was over Mono Lake at 16,000 when I suddenly saw a B-52 off to my left and climbing. Much too late to maneuver, I watched in disbelief as it flew right below me............how close? I could see the co-pilot was reading his check-list!
Keep your head on a swivel,
JJ

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I agree, in fact I have over 2,000 hour in one particular MD 500 series aircraft. I thought it was the best, however in the helicopter community they look for bigger payloads and more people haulers. The best and most fun flying I did was in a MD 500!

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:57:27 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> I'd NEVER describe a 500D as "lowly!"!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKWvsS-z9PU
>
> When this was shot, deer hunters were writing off on average one 500D a month in NZ, and *still* making a fortune.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I had an experience I did not consider a near miss as I had a visual for several miles and more as my Sandel showed the traffic long before, but I was flying a C340 at 16,500 with flight following and a turboprop regional airliner was flying at 17,000 we crossed exactly on path only 500 ft in altitude difference at 45 degree convergence, pretty sure the airliner never saw me, but when the airline pilot called control to complain about not receiving a traffic warning I could hear in the background his traffic alert blaring. The controller, was verbally annoyed he has been called to task, only stating, "that wasn't a conflict you had altitude separation." The same controller should have also warned me.

I have had too many close, and I mean CLOSE calls to count. Have had them in the sky and just above the runway. This is why I am against stealth mode in Flarm! I want all the situational awareness I can get!

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:55:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> I had a similar near miss over Reno when a light twin passed about 500 feet below me. We were both monitoring center freq and squawking appropriate codes (1201 & VFR). After giving it some thought, I realized the controllers didn't know who we were. No flight plan and neither had asked for flight following. This was before FLARM.......keep your head on a swivel!
>
> The closest I ever came to another ship was over Mono Lake at 16,000 when I suddenly saw a B-52 off to my left and climbing. Much too late to maneuver, I watched in disbelief as it flew right below me............how close? I could see the co-pilot was reading his check-list!
> Keep your head on a swivel,
> JJ

[ZP]

I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?

Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
> I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?
>
> Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.

Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?

The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.

Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).

So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.

A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.

An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.

Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.

So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.

And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

[Sarah[_2_]]

Hi Darryl,

You say:

>An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? >That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers >in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or >TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).

That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.

I've posted this before:

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/media/TISB_service_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webV2.pdf

I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.

https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs

--Sarah Anderson


On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
> > I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?
> >
> > Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.
>
> Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?
>
> The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.
>
> Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).
>
> So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.
>
> A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.
>
> An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.
>
> Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.
>
> So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.
>
> And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> Hi Darryl,
>
> You say:
>
> >An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? >That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers >in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or >TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).
>
> That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.
>

Actually what I said is correct. But you are adding another layer of detail.. And I've posted that link before as well and described how it does not mean what many folks assume it does.

So to recap and avoid confusion, a glider using PowerFLARM as a GPS source for ADS-B Out...

Certified ADS-B In traffic systems will *not* receive/display ADS-B (direct) from that glider

(the point Sarah is making): The FAA ground infrastructure will now/beginning soon broadcast a TIS-B target for that non-complaint ADS-B Out system equipped glider (it knows it has a non-complaint ADS-B Out system from it's ADS-B data) to all ADS-B client aircraft -- just exactly as if the glider was not ADS-B Out equipped at all. All that is doing is removing a loop-hole where it did not used to do this because the target had ADS-B out.. yet a flavor of ADS-B Out that ADS-B In certified systems were not allowed to see. Oh doh, no you cannot make this stuff up. This is just TIS-B, you need to be in SSR radar and ADS-B coverage. So the glider with PowerFLARM GPS source in this case has no better traffic warning to certified ADS-B In systems than if it just had a transponder. It has a lot better warning to portable ADS-B systems and PowerFLARM etc. that will receive this "non compliant" ADS-B In. The safety things to remember here is other aircraft with certified ADS-B In are *not* seeing the gliders's ADS-B Out. So say meet a King Air with 1090ES ADS-B In traffic system out at some busy GA airport with no low-level TIS-B coverage and it can run right over you without any indication from their ADS-B In system.

The glider will not be a client for the ADS-B Ground infrastructure, so will not receive reliable ADS-R or TIS-B (not interesting to most glider pilots anyhow since PowerFLARM won't display that). If you do want to use TIS-B or ADS-R with some other traffic display system, you *must* have a compliant ADS-B Out system in your glider. Relying on other ADS-B clients to "paint traffic" is dangerous and can get very confusing.

That system would not meet 2020 ADS-B carriage mandates.

---

And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.

Darryl


> I've posted this before:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/media/TISB_service_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webV2.pdf
>
> I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs
>
> --Sarah Anderson
>
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
> > > I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?
> > >
> > > Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.
> >
> > Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?
> >
> > The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.
> >
> > Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).
> >
> > So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.
> >
> > A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.
> >
> > An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.
> >
> > Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.
> >
> > So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.
> >
> > And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.

Actually what I said maybe should have been a little stronger: if anything the FAA is kind of more heading in the reverse direction from what AOPA and some others want (they want open-broadcast of TIS-B for example with no client aircraft needed)... the FAA is making non-complaint ADS-B Out aircraft no longer work as TIS-B and ADS-R clients. And how all this is being presented by AOPA in particular can be confusing. They want something but describe the FAA doing somewhat the reverse. e.g. I have seen this AOPA article cause some confusion: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/January/04/FAA-announces-changes-to-TIS-B.

And starting around now non-complaint ADS-B out systems will stop being clients for TIS-B and ADS-R. If anybody here is relying on that *pay attention*, it it going to stop working for you. I expect that mostly affects folks in powered experimental airplanes.

[Sarah[_2_]]

Hi Darryl,

Sorry. Ok, you're technically correct, the best way to be correct. I was not thinking about the cases where a "TSO'd ADSB-IN" receiver would discard a "NPE" signal.

My point was just that the FAA *would* rebroadcast a NPE target on TIS-B.

Not something I'd mess with personally. You'd have to be very sure you had all the NACp, NACv, NIC, SDA and SIL parameters set correctly on your 1090es input. As some guy named Darryl explained in 2012:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/hLWCnIS-HUU/Ecl9lIRkCoQJ

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:53:20 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> > Hi Darryl,
> >
> > You say:
> >
> > >An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want.... but will it work? >That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers >in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or >TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you).
> >
> > That is half correct. The FAA has decided to grant "target status" to uncertified NPE ADSB-out emitters, but is changing or has changed the rules to disallow "client status" for them.
> >
>
> Actually what I said is correct. But you are adding another layer of detail. And I've posted that link before as well and described how it does not mean what many folks assume it does.
>
> So to recap and avoid confusion, a glider using PowerFLARM as a GPS source for ADS-B Out...
>
> Certified ADS-B In traffic systems will *not* receive/display ADS-B (direct) from that glider
>
> (the point Sarah is making): The FAA ground infrastructure will now/beginning soon broadcast a TIS-B target for that non-complaint ADS-B Out system equipped glider (it knows it has a non-complaint ADS-B Out system from it's ADS-B data) to all ADS-B client aircraft -- just exactly as if the glider was not ADS-B Out equipped at all. All that is doing is removing a loop-hole where it did not used to do this because the target had ADS-B out.. yet a flavor of ADS-B Out that ADS-B In certified systems were not allowed to see. Oh doh, no you cannot make this stuff up. This is just TIS-B, you need to be in SSR radar and ADS-B coverage. So the glider with PowerFLARM GPS source in this case has no better traffic warning to certified ADS-B In systems than if it just had a transponder. It has a lot better warning to portable ADS-B systems and PowerFLARM etc. that will receive this "non compliant" ADS-B In. The safety things to remember here is other aircraft with certified ADS-B In are *not* seeing the gliders's ADS-B Out. So say meet a King Air with 1090ES ADS-B In traffic system out at some busy GA airport with no low-level TIS-B coverage and it can run right over you without any indication from their ADS-B In system.
>
> The glider will not be a client for the ADS-B Ground infrastructure, so will not receive reliable ADS-R or TIS-B (not interesting to most glider pilots anyhow since PowerFLARM won't display that). If you do want to use TIS-B or ADS-R with some other traffic display system, you *must* have a compliant ADS-B Out system in your glider. Relying on other ADS-B clients to "paint traffic" is dangerous and can get very confusing.
>
> That system would not meet 2020 ADS-B carriage mandates.
>
> ---
>
> And maybe the most important point on that link Sarah gave is it does *not* grant ADS-B client status to non-complaint ADS-B Out systems (i.e. they are not clients to receive ADS-R and TIS-B), that is a frequent point of confusion with some folks (and is not the point that Sarah was making). This confusion is worsened by AOPA and others talking about how they *want* that behavior (but that is not what the FAA is doing), including at the same time they discuss this change documented in that link---what the FAA is actually doing.
>
> And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.
>
> Darryl
>
>
> > I've posted this before:
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/media/TISB_service_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webV2.pdf
> >
> > I copied to here also, as when I checked the above link the FAA site was down. Must be the snow.
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/l/s/Zr0Ik3xoA0xzvK1mKcbMgs
> >
> > --Sarah Anderson
> >
> >
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:39:28 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-8, ZP wrote:
> > > > I have one question getting back to Andy's question about FLARM GPS being fed into a transponder for ADS-B out usage (and Darryl, I apologize in advance if you already answered this).... But, "in a hypothetical world where cats and dogs sleep together, and the FAA decided to allow non-TSO'd GPSs to be used for VFR operations".... would there be anything technically missing that would prevent a FLARM GPS from being used as a GPS source for ADS-B out (e.g. protocol or some missing information in the data sentences that would result in the transponder from forwarding the GPS data?
> > > >
> > > > Better change that to ..."in a hypothetical world where Hillary and Trump sleep together". I'm just trying to understand when someone says "Can't do it" whether that is based on technical or regulation reasons.
> > >
> > > Covered before already on r.a.s. in many posts. Did you try searching?
> > >
> > > The FAA is not going to allow any old GPS source for ADS-B. That should be absolutely frigging obvious. I've been over this many times. The *only* thing on the horizon is TSO-C199/TABS Class B GPS related regulations (if they happen). And TABS is *not* about you using any random GPS source. And I've explained just in this thread why it's unreasonable to expect FLARM to pursue TABS approval of their devices.
> > >
> > > Is stuff missing in a NEMA source like FLARM? Yes stuff is missing. I kind of mentioned that in this very thread ("you can't do it over NMEA"... technically stuff is missing, but it's not even up to anybody to worry about for a certified aircraft, there you have to follow an approved install/pairing of GPS and ADS-B Out to obtain FSDO field approval).
> > >
> > > So for actual installation using PowerFLARM GPS to drive ADS-B out.
> > >
> > > A certified aircraft? Can't be done. You have no choice.
> > >
> > > An experimental aircraft. You can do relatively speaking what you want... but will it work? That depends on how you define "work". It won't be seen by certified ADS-B In receivers in other aircraft (maybe a really bad thing), it won't (as of around now) trigger ADS-R or TIS-B ground services for your client aircraft (which may or may not matter at all to you). You have to know what you are doing when this is configured and get it wrong and the FAA may come looking for you. And you certainly can not use this to meet 2020 Carriage mandates, say when/if gliders lose the ADS-B Out carriage exemption.
> > >
> > > Wanting to use PowerFLARM GPS to power ADS-B Out is the *wrong* thing to want. A complete waste of your and everybody else's and FLARMs time. What if anything changes moving forward is going to depend on TABS/TSO-C199C GPS devices. TSO-C199 *was* the FAA's response to folks wanting to use low-cost GPS sources--and it certainly does not just let you connect any GPS source up to ADS-B out, never was going to and nobody should have ever expected it to.
> > >
> > > So yet again, just wait until we see what effect TABS carriage and installation regulations have in this area. If you have something specific now that makes any sense to worry about, like a specific transponder in a specific certified/experiential glider, a pressing need to get 1090ES Out and maybe willingness to spend some money. Cough up the actual details and question and you'll get help.
> > >
> > > And get along to the SSA convention and listen to Dave Nadler's talk, he's much nicer than me.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I am hoping the SSA, David or someone videos David's presentation and puts it on youtube so those of us that cannot go to the convention might still have the opportunity to see this important presentation!


On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:53:20 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>......
> And a reminder again to folks interested, get along to Dave Nadlers' talk at the SSA convention.
>
> Darryl
>
>