TCAD Installations in Gliders? [Archive]

BTIZ

October 18th 03, 01:06 AM

I have not seen one.. but I would think the battery drain would be
tremendous.. it's hard enough getting them into light twin engine aircraft..

News bulletin: Glider pilot installs mega$$ TCAS system, into $8000 SGS
1-26.. :)

BT

"Jim Kellett" > wrote in message
t...
> Just curious - anyone ever heard of a US glider with a TCAD (such as
Ryan's
> 8800 Gold) installed? Love to get a "user's report" if so . . .
>
> Jim Kellett, Resident Curmudgeon
> Chief Flight Instructor, Skyline Soaring Club
> Captain and CFI(G), Civil Air Patrol
> Chairman, Classic Division, Vintage Sailplane Association
> Webmaster, Open Cirrus Website
> "If Flying Were the Language of Man, Soaring Would be its Poetry"
>
>
>

HL Falbaum

October 18th 03, 02:18 AM

The most recent AARP magazine had an article about Curmudgeons. Very
interesting reading. The gist is that a Curmudgeon truly worth the name
would have none of that "high tech" foolishness! In truth, it would sure be
nice to haver, if and when a practical one is available!

--
Hartley Falbaum

"Jim Kellett" > wrote in message
t...
> Just curious - anyone ever heard of a US glider with a TCAD (such as
Ryan's
> 8800 Gold) installed? Love to get a "user's report" if so . . .
>
> Jim Kellett, Resident Curmudgeon
> Chief Flight Instructor, Skyline Soaring Club
> Captain and CFI(G), Civil Air Patrol
> Chairman, Classic Division, Vintage Sailplane Association
> Webmaster, Open Cirrus Website
> "If Flying Were the Language of Man, Soaring Would be its Poetry"
>
>
>

Buck Wild

October 18th 03, 05:02 AM

Jim Kellett

October 18th 03, 02:46 PM

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:fu%jb.49054$La.18760@fed1read02...
> I have not seen one.. but I would think the battery drain would be
> tremendous.. it's hard enough getting them into light twin engine
aircraft..

Not TCAS, TCAD. Like TPAS, it's passive, so there's no big power drain for
a transmitter . . some of the low end TPAS units run on AA cells,
independent of the airplane's power supply . . .
(These units depend on the target's transponder responding to some OTHER
radar interrogation . . ) That's what made me think SOMEONE om a g;oder out
there might be trying one of the TCAD units, which apparently has a little
better logic circuit in it that TPAS. . . .

Jim K

Eric Greenwell

October 18th 03, 07:53 PM

In article >,
says...

> Not TCAS, TCAD. Like TPAS, it's passive, so there's no big power drain for
> a transmitter . . some of the low end TPAS units run on AA cells,
> independent of the airplane's power supply . . .
> (These units depend on the target's transponder responding to some OTHER
> radar interrogation . . ) That's what made me think SOMEONE om a g;oder out
> there might be trying one of the TCAD units, which apparently has a little
> better logic circuit in it that TPAS. . . .

Are you talking about the Ryan TCAD system? It's quite large, power
hungry (1.2 amps), and expensive (>$10,000) for a glider, I think. See

http://www.ryan-tcad.com/products/traffic_9900B.html

It's the only TCAD system I'm aware of.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

John Morgan

October 19th 03, 05:17 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message >
> http://www.ryan-tcad.com/products/traffic_9900B.html
>
> It's the only TCAD system I'm aware of.

Eric ('n all),

There's also "Skywatch", I think by BF Goodrich. Same problem though,
expensive and consumes too much power for a glider. What would be *really*
good is if they came out with a portable ADS-B for cheap! But since that
won't happen soon - or ever, the only game left I'm aware of is passive
transponder detectors . . . and these have gotten mixed reviews until just
recently. The following is cut from a post on the Mooney tech group:

"Just got my TrafficScope TPAS VRX from Surecheck last week and
had a chance to fly with it.
Absolutely a first-rate product!!! Much, much better/different
than the earlier TPAS RX-110 version.

http://www.surecheck.net . . ."

The problem with previous passive detectors is they were based on signal
strength only, no bearing or altitude info. That, and some users experienced
a lot of falses. The new version mentioned above still doesn't give bearing,
but it *does* give altitude of the target and since it decodes this info,
can eliminate much of the falsing, alerts from overhead airliners etc.

I have no connection with the above company and don't have one of these
things to play with - yet. At $1200 . . . figured I'd wait some until there
are more happy customers.
--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003

Thierry

October 19th 03, 11:43 AM

Hello,
At 13.8v the ProXalert R5 device needs only ONE watt compared to
nearly 5 watts for the Trafficscope(c). It displays up to three
threats including squawk, altitude and distance. It also features a
built in altitude alerter.
It will be available mid November. See our Website
www.proxalert.com

Have safe flight,

Regards,

"John Morgan" > wrote in message >...
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message >
> > http://www.ryan-tcad.com/products/traffic_9900B.html
> >
> > It's the only TCAD system I'm aware of.
>
>
> Eric ('n all),
>
> There's also "Skywatch", I think by BF Goodrich. Same problem though,
> expensive and consumes too much power for a glider. What would be *really*
> good is if they came out with a portable ADS-B for cheap! But since that
> won't happen soon - or ever, the only game left I'm aware of is passive
> transponder detectors . . . and these have gotten mixed reviews until just
> recently. The following is cut from a post on the Mooney tech group:
>
> "Just got my TrafficScope TPAS VRX from Surecheck last week and
> had a chance to fly with it.
> Absolutely a first-rate product!!! Much, much better/different
> than the earlier TPAS RX-110 version.
>
> http://www.surecheck.net . . ."
>
> The problem with previous passive detectors is they were based on signal
> strength only, no bearing or altitude info. That, and some users experienced
> a lot of falses. The new version mentioned above still doesn't give bearing,
> but it *does* give altitude of the target and since it decodes this info,
> can eliminate much of the falsing, alerts from overhead airliners etc.
>
> I have no connection with the above company and don't have one of these
> things to play with - yet. At $1200 . . . figured I'd wait some until there
> are more happy customers.
> --
> bumper - ZZ >
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> to reply, the last half is right to left
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003

Eric Greenwell

October 19th 03, 05:09 PM

In article >,
says...
> Hello,
> At 13.8v the ProXalert R5 device needs only ONE watt compared to
> nearly 5 watts for the Trafficscope(c). It displays up to three
> threats including squawk, altitude and distance. It also features a
> built in altitude alerter.
> It will be available mid November. See our Website
> www.proxalert.com

It's an interesting unit. The low power is ideal for gliders, but the
lack of a speaker is a problem. We don't use headsets most of the
time, so we'd need to add a speaker with an amplifier to the glider.
The price ($1500) is also quite high for most glider pilots.

A web site suggestion: this text blinks in a very annoying fashion
when I use Netscape 7.0 --

"World first affordable aircraft proximity alerter
displaying threat aircraft altitude, distance and squawk !"

I'd suggest removing the <blink> code from the html text. For some
reason, the <blink> code doesn't make it blink in IE 6. The menus also
seem to load very slowly in both browsers.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Mike Borgelt

October 19th 03, 10:34 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:17:53 GMT, "John Morgan" >
wrote:
What would be *really*
>good is if they came out with a portable ADS-B for cheap! But since that
>won't happen soon - or ever, the only game left I'm aware of is passive
>transponder detectors . . .

ADS -B is currently being trialled just north of me around Bundaberg.
There are plans afoot in Australia to fit the entire fleet as our
radar sensors are due for retirement or replacement in 2008. It seems
that fitting the entire civil fleet with ADS-B for free or heavily
subsidised is cheaper than replacing the radar sensors.

We currently have in operation the placement of 20 ADS-B ground
stations so we get radar like coverage over the whole continent above
20000 feet. Radars require too much power and maintenance in remote
locations. Most of Aus is pretty empty, it isn't called GAFA for
nothing.

Mike Borgelt

Thierry

October 20th 03, 10:51 AM

Eric,
The Proxalert R5 does have an internal buzzer so no need for an extra
external speaker and amplifier.
If you pre-order before Nov 15th, 2003 you get our introductory price
of 1195 USD?
Thanks for your feedback concerning our website.

Regards,

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Hello,
> > At 13.8v the ProXalert R5 device needs only ONE watt compared to
> > nearly 5 watts for the Trafficscope(c). It displays up to three
> > threats including squawk, altitude and distance. It also features a
> > built in altitude alerter.
> > It will be available mid November. See our Website
> > www.proxalert.com
>
> It's an interesting unit. The low power is ideal for gliders, but the
> lack of a speaker is a problem. We don't use headsets most of the
> time, so we'd need to add a speaker with an amplifier to the glider.
> The price ($1500) is also quite high for most glider pilots.
>
> A web site suggestion: this text blinks in a very annoying fashion
> when I use Netscape 7.0 --
>
> "World first affordable aircraft proximity alerter
> displaying threat aircraft altitude, distance and squawk !"
>
> I'd suggest removing the <blink> code from the html text. For some
> reason, the <blink> code doesn't make it blink in IE 6. The menus also
> seem to load very slowly in both browsers.

Gavin Goudie

October 20th 03, 01:45 PM

How about the original Mark One Eyeball - most folk
have two inbuilt units and they provide a damn sure
fire way to avoid a collision.

LOOKOUT!

Gav

At 10:48 19 October 2003, Thierry wrote:
>Hello,
>At 13.8v the ProXalert R5 device needs only ONE watt
>compared to
>nearly 5 watts for the Trafficscope(c). It displays
>up to three
>threats including squawk, altitude and distance. It
>also features a
>built in altitude alerter.
>It will be available mid November. See our Website
>
>www.proxalert.com
>
>Have safe flight,
>
>Regards,
>
>
>'John Morgan' wrote in message news:...
>> 'Eric Greenwell' wrote in message >
>> > http://www.ryan-tcad.com/products/traffic_9900B.html
>> >
>> > It's the only TCAD system I'm aware of.
>>
>>
>> Eric ('n all),
>>
>> There's also 'Skywatch', I think by BF Goodrich. Same
>>problem though,
>> expensive and consumes too much power for a glider.
>>What would be *really*
>> good is if they came out with a portable ADS-B for
>>cheap! But since that
>> won't happen soon - or ever, the only game left I'm
>>aware of is passive
>> transponder detectors . . . and these have gotten
>>mixed reviews until just
>> recently. The following is cut from a post on the
>>Mooney tech group:
>>
>> 'Just got my TrafficScope TPAS VRX from Surecheck
>>last week and
>> had a chance to fly with it.
>> Absolutely a first-rate product!!! Much, much better/different
>> than the earlier TPAS RX-110 version.
>>
>> http://www.surecheck.net . . .'
>>
>> The problem with previous passive detectors is they
>>were based on signal
>> strength only, no bearing or altitude info. That,
>>and some users experienced
>> a lot of falses. The new version mentioned above still
>>doesn't give bearing,
>> but it *does* give altitude of the target and since
>>it decodes this info,
>> can eliminate much of the falsing, alerts from overhead
>>airliners etc.
>>
>> I have no connection with the above company and don't
>>have one of these
>> things to play with - yet. At $1200 . . . figured
>>I'd wait some until there
>> are more happy customers.
>> --
>> bumper - ZZ
>> 'Dare to be different . . . circle in sink.'
>> to reply, the last half is right to left
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date:
>>10/9/2003
>

John Morgan

October 20th 03, 05:55 PM

"Gavin Goudie" > wrote in message
...
> How about the original Mark One Eyeball - most folk
> have two inbuilt units and they provide a damn sure
> fire way to avoid a collision.
>
> LOOKOUT!
>
> Gav

"Damn sure fire way to avoid a collision" might be true if they were only
hooked up to something with a better processor than the Mark One Brain. Even
so, they can only cover a relatively small portion of the potential threat
area at a time as they are the predator, forward looking binocular vision
version (instead of the more preferred, side-mounted prey version). From the
accident stats, "see and avoid" and "big sky principal" are anything but
damn sure.

"LOOKOUT!" is good advice, the best tool we all have, but it ain't the
be-all-end-all . . . if it were, deer wouldn't need ears.
--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003

Eric Greenwell

October 20th 03, 06:01 PM

In article >,
says...
> Eric,
> The Proxalert R5 does have an internal buzzer so no need for an extra
> external speaker and amplifier.

Good - that makes it compatible with a glider!

> If you pre-order before Nov 15th, 2003 you get our introductory price
> of 1195 USD?

A more interesting price! However, USA pilots are cautious bunch, and
those that are interested will still wait until it is available from a
US dealer and can be easily returned if it is not satisfactory. This
is not your fault, but because some of the earlier units (TPAS, etc)
did not work as well as claimed.

Also, because it is a new company, others will wait they hear from
pilots that have tried one, or read a review in a magazine or on-line
somewhere. I hope the reviews are good, because some areas of our
country where gliders fly have plenty of traffic. The low power and
the "L" shaped mounting will let it fit into most gliders.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Kirk Stant

October 20th 03, 08:37 PM

Gavin Goudie > wrote in message >...
> How about the original Mark One Eyeball - most folk
> have two inbuilt units and they provide a damn sure
> fire way to avoid a collision.
>
> LOOKOUT!
>
> Gav

Most of the time, the Mk 1 Mod 0 Eyeball works fine - IF you can look
in the direction of the threat. Fine during thermalling (plus you are
easy to see, assuming the other guy is also looking out...). But
during long glides between thermals, you CANNOT SEE the threat running
you down from behind. I would love to have a traffic warning device -
and a transponder - but havn't found anything yet that I can afford
(yet).

Then there is the problem of all the neat gadgets in the cockpit now:
Glide computers, PDA's with moving maps, handheld GPS's. Real easy to
spend way too much time heads down; so the admonition to LOOKOUT! is
still absolutely valid!

I guess a lot depends on where, what, and how you fly. Hanging around
the gliderport in the house thermal, the biggest threat is the student
in the same thermal staring at his variometer. Flying XC in the
western US (or Oz, etc) my biggest fear is some doctor in his Baron
hitting me from behind. Of course, as long as I keep my cruise speed
up, I can eliminate the threat from most Cessnas and Pipers!

Kirk
LS6-b "66"

Buck Wild

October 20th 03, 11:53 PM

"Jim Kellett" > wrote in message >...
> Just curious - anyone ever heard of a US glider with a TCAD (such as Ryan's
> 8800 Gold) installed? Love to get a "user's report" if so . . .
>
> Jim Kellett, Resident Curmudgeon
> Chief Flight Instructor, Skyline Soaring Club
> Captain and CFI(G), Civil Air Patrol
> Chairman, Classic Division, Vintage Sailplane Association
> Webmaster, Open Cirrus Website
> "If Flying Were the Language of Man, Soaring Would be its Poetry"

Having used a Ryan TCAD for a few years, then upgrading to TCAS, I
would say that TCAD is not very reliable. Rather than looking at the
display, wondering where the target really is, better to be looking
out the window. If you're anywhere near busy airspace, the display
will get very cluttered & hard to interpret, and your head is down &
locked while you look. Never tried thermalling with one, but im sure
it would be useless while circling.
I still remember the guy in the 102 at Truckee who got knocked from
the sky by an Aerostar (I think) who just departed & was head down &
locked programming his GPS. The glider pilot lived in spite of not
wearing a chute.
WIthout transponders, nobody else can see gliders, & lots of em
(Al)are flying around looking at
their...PDA/L-nav/S-nav/varios/GPS/MP3/etc. ad-nauseum.
Turn it all off & look out the window!
My o2 cents worth.
-Dan

Robert Ehrlich

October 21st 03, 11:56 AM

Kirk Stant wrote:
> ...
> Most of the time, the Mk 1 Mod 0 Eyeball works fine - IF you can look
> in the direction of the threat. Fine during thermalling (plus you are
> easy to see, assuming the other guy is also looking out...). But
> during long glides between thermals, you CANNOT SEE the threat running
> you down from behind.
> ...

Yes, I remember a huge glider (well, only 15 m, but so close it seemed
really huge) coming just above my head during such a glide, because
it left the same slope as myself just a few seconds after me, just a
few meters higher and flew just a little faster than me. None of us
could see the other glider just up to this moment.

But there is a simple device that could help in this case, which is
fitted in most motor gliders with a retracting prop: a small rear
facing mirror. I wonder why we don't have such a mirror on every glider.

Thierry

October 21st 03, 07:14 PM

At Proxalert our TCAD definition is : See what you can't see.

Once properly set you simply forget it until the unit will alert you
someone is around close to your altitude. Our device extract the
threat altitude from the threat reply. Our unit also provide a
tendancy information (threat climbing, descending from below or above
your own altitude).

I agree previous generation affordable device were unable to filter
out traffic flying 20,000 ft above. This is no more the case.

Obviously no TCAD, TCAS or even sharp eyes will ever be 100% sure. So
sometime this little percentage these devices add will help save your
and other lifes.

Furthermore as most gliders don't 'wear' any transponder nobody see
you and the collision risk is even higher.

Expensive : Assuming a 1000 hours life span it will add a dollar (Our
beer back earth :) ) or so to get this additional extra help.

Regards

Terry

See us at www.proxalert.com

(Buck Wild) wrote in message >...
> "Jim Kellett" > wrote in message >...
> > Just curious - anyone ever heard of a US glider with a TCAD (such as Ryan's
> > 8800 Gold) installed? Love to get a "user's report" if so . . .
> >
> > Jim Kellett, Resident Curmudgeon
> > Chief Flight Instructor, Skyline Soaring Club
> > Captain and CFI(G), Civil Air Patrol
> > Chairman, Classic Division, Vintage Sailplane Association
> > Webmaster, Open Cirrus Website
> > "If Flying Were the Language of Man, Soaring Would be its Poetry"
>
> Having used a Ryan TCAD for a few years, then upgrading to TCAS, I
> would say that TCAD is not very reliable. Rather than looking at the
> display, wondering where the target really is, better to be looking
> out the window. If you're anywhere near busy airspace, the display
> will get very cluttered & hard to interpret, and your head is down &
> locked while you look. Never tried thermalling with one, but im sure
> it would be useless while circling.
> I still remember the guy in the 102 at Truckee who got knocked from
> the sky by an Aerostar (I think) who just departed & was head down &
> locked programming his GPS. The glider pilot lived in spite of not
> wearing a chute.
> WIthout transponders, nobody else can see gliders, & lots of em
> (Al)are flying around looking at
> their...PDA/L-nav/S-nav/varios/GPS/MP3/etc. ad-nauseum.
> Turn it all off & look out the window!
> My o2 cents worth.
> -Dan

Eric Greenwell

October 27th 03, 09:59 PM

In article >,
says...
> Yes, I remember a huge glider (well, only 15 m, but so close it seemed
> really huge) coming just above my head during such a glide, because
> it left the same slope as myself just a few seconds after me, just a
> few meters higher and flew just a little faster than me. None of us
> could see the other glider just up to this moment.
>
> But there is a simple device that could help in this case, which is
> fitted in most motor gliders with a retracting prop: a small rear
> facing mirror. I wonder why we don't have such a mirror on every glider.

I've tried mirrors several times over the past 20 years, but haven't
been able to find one that showed a wide enough view and still had a
big enough image of the glider I was trying to see. Perhaps one that
simply showed only what was above and a little behind would work for
the situation you describe, but I think it would frequently be
reflecting the sun into your eyes. The one on my motorglider certainly
does, unless I tip it down.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Jim Kellett

October 29th 03, 07:19 PM

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
Most of the time, the Mk 1 Mod 0 Eyeball works fine - IF you can look in the
direction of the threat. Fine during thermalling (plus you are easy to see,
assuming the other guy is also looking out...). . . .
__________________________________________________ __________________________
________

Some background on the original question . . . Between 1982 and 2003, there
were, according to the NTSB, ca. 400 MACs in the United States, of which 18
involved gliders, of which 10 - count'em - ten - were glider/glider in a
thermal!* There were others that were not reported.** Two more were
glider/glider in the pattern. We're not doing such a good job of
see-and-avoid even in the situation(s) where see-and-avoid is the ONLY
practical way to avoid a MAC. B U T . . . .

The ORIGINAL question, about TPAS/TCAD, was focussed on trying to get a
better grip on the risk of MACs which are not all that obvious from the
historical record, but which loom menacingly over the horizon - e.g., with
an airliner (TCAS equipped) or other large (transponder equipped) airplane
(or, in the latter case, maybe even a glider). These are instances where
see-and-avoid is not really working and is not going to work (e.g., the
airliner coming up on your six, which HAS led to NMACs.). There's a growing
list of anecdotally reported MACs between airliners and/or military aircraft
and gliders.

So, anyone know of a pilot who's actually installed or used a TCAD unit in a
glider? (Or a TPAS, for that matter . . .)

Jim Kellett, Resident Curmudgeon
Chief Flight Instructor, Skyline Soaring Club
Captain and CFI(G), Civil Air Patrol
Chairman, Classic Division, Vintage Sailplane Association
Webmaster, Open Cirrus Website
"If Flying Were the Language of Man, Soaring Would be its Poetry"

* Query on the downloaded NTSB accident database.
** Personal communication

Eric Greenwell

October 30th 03, 01:05 AM

In article >,
says...

> So, anyone know of a pilot who's actually installed or used a TCAD unit in a
> glider? (Or a TPAS, for that matter . . .)

Jim, have you experimented any with flight following? I've not used
it, but allegedly, ATC with warn you of other transponder equipped
aircraft. It's not the same as carrying a warning device in the
glider, but it might have some utility, and it's cheap!

Of course, you wouldn't be on the glider frequencies anymore, but
another transceiver would take care of that.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Mark James Boyd

November 3rd 03, 06:23 AM

>Jim, have you experimented any with flight following? I've not used
>it, but allegedly, ATC with warn you of other transponder equipped
>aircraft. It's not the same as carrying a warning device in the
>glider, but it might have some utility, and it's cheap!

ATC doesn't generally LIKE it, but they've given me
flight following before with no transponder. I let them know
who I am by doing a 360 (easier than trying to turn
to a compass heading THEY call out).