First TSO-C199 "TABS" device

[Sarah[_2_]]

http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/

This should be available Q1 2017 - it's already popping up on aircraftSpruce & the like, at a sub- $400 price. Quite interesting for those of us with Trig transponders.

In the US, all airspace is "outside of designated ADS-B out airspace" for gliders. Or motorgliders I presume.

[Sarah[_2_]]

I should clarify after some study of 91.225 for gliders.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=8137158693744ba666e318c1f474d81b&node=se14.2.91_1225&rgn=div8

TABS is always voluntary.

After 2020 a TSO-C166b 1090es ADS-B out (not just TABS or UAT) will be required

- In class A, above FL180. Presumably IFR without a wave-window.

Either 1090es or UAT (but not TABS) is acceptable

- Inside class B or class C airspace, or within that lateral boundary above 10,000' MSL (or the airspace ceiling, whichever is lower.)

Otherwise as with a transponder today, ADSB-out of any kind will not be required within the class B "veil" or generally in controlled airspace between 10,000' and 18,000' MSL.

Whew!

[WaltWX[_2_]]

Sarah,

Thanks for the explanation... but... I'm still confused. Try explaining it one more time.

It sounds like having TABS with your Trig in a glider will make you more visible to other aircraft who can track ADS-B out messages. The Mode S transponder already gives an equipped glider visibility to TCAS.

Now, in a Mode S equipped glider, I can request a clearance to enter Class A,B, C, or restricted airspace ... but in the future after 2020... will that clearance be denied UNLESS I have a TSO-C166B ADS-B out device? I would hope that FAA or ATC would allow clearances to enter/transit Class A,B,C and restricted airspace WITH a TABS device.

So, to me... this sounds like a very minimally beneficial upgrade to my Trig setup. I wonder... will TABS devices be visible to the satellite based ADS-B tracking service? If so, it might replace other satellite tracking devices like Spot and Delorme/Garmin InReach.

My two cents...

Walt Rogers WX

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> I should clarify after some study of 91.225 for gliders.
>
> http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=8137158693744ba666e318c1f474d81b&node=se14.2.91_1225&rgn=div8
>
> TABS is always voluntary.
>
> After 2020 a TSO-C166b 1090es ADS-B out (not just TABS or UAT) will be required
>
> - In class A, above FL180. Presumably IFR without a wave-window.
>
> Either 1090es or UAT (but not TABS) is acceptable
>
> - Inside class B or class C airspace, or within that lateral boundary above 10,000' MSL (or the airspace ceiling, whichever is lower.)
>
> Otherwise as with a transponder today, ADSB-out of any kind will not be required within the class B "veil" or generally in controlled airspace between 10,000' and 18,000' MSL.
>
> Whew!

[Sarah[_2_]]

Hi Walt,

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-6, WaltWX wrote:

> It sounds like having TABS with your Trig in a glider will make you more visible to other aircraft who can track ADS-B out messages. The Mode S transponder already gives an equipped glider visibility to TCAS.

Right. It would make you visible on all those GA ADSB-in devices & ipads. That's something. It should also make your position visible to powerflarm users, but I have not verified that.

> Now, in a Mode S equipped glider, I can request a clearance to enter Class A,B, C, or restricted airspace ... but in the future after 2020... will that clearance be denied UNLESS I have a TSO-C166B ADS-B out device?

That's how I read 91.225. I'd love to be corrected. If you really need to enter class A IFR, you'll need something much more expensive and harder to fit in a glider, a 1090es/TSO-C166 device. A TSO'd UAT is enough for class B or C. If you have an experimental glider non-TSO'd equipment is OK but you have to be careful.
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4
I'm not an expert in these areas - see other posts on RAS or page Darryl Ramm.

>I would hope that FAA or ATC would allow clearances to enter/transit Class A,B,C and restricted airspace WITH a TABS device.

One can always hope.


> So, to me... this sounds like a very minimally beneficial upgrade to my Trig setup. I wonder... will TABS devices be visible to the satellite based ADS-B tracking service? If so, it might replace other satellite tracking devices like Spot and Delorme/Garmin InReach.

I don't know. I suspect they would be as visible as any other ADSB-out device, but I'm not certain.

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/
>
> This should be available Q1 2017 - it's already popping up on aircraftSpruce & the like, at a sub- $400 price. Quite interesting for those of us with Trig transponders.
>
> In the US, all airspace is "outside of designated ADS-B out airspace" for gliders. Or motorgliders I presume.

What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?

[Richard[_9_]]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 5:56:54 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> > http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/
> >
> > This should be available Q1 2017 - it's already popping up on aircraftSpruce & the like, at a sub- $400 price. Quite interesting for those of us with Trig transponders.
> >
> > In the US, all airspace is "outside of designated ADS-B out airspace" for gliders. Or motorgliders I presume.
>
> What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?

Probably none. Except visits from the FCC & airport police.

I will have the TN72 in the first quarter of 2017 per the distributor.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:11:53 PM UTC-5, Sarah wrote:
> Hi Walt,
>
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-6, WaltWX wrote:
>
> > It sounds like having TABS with your Trig in a glider will make you more visible to other aircraft who can track ADS-B out messages. The Mode S transponder already gives an equipped glider visibility to TCAS.
>
> Right. It would make you visible on all those GA ADSB-in devices & ipads. That's something. It should also make your position visible to powerflarm users, but I have not verified that.
>
> > Now, in a Mode S equipped glider, I can request a clearance to enter Class A,B, C, or restricted airspace ... but in the future after 2020... will that clearance be denied UNLESS I have a TSO-C166B ADS-B out device?
>
> That's how I read 91.225. I'd love to be corrected. If you really need to enter class A IFR, you'll need something much more expensive and harder to fit in a glider, a 1090es/TSO-C166 device. A TSO'd UAT is enough for class B or C. If you have an experimental glider non-TSO'd equipment is OK but you have to be careful.
> https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4
> I'm not an expert in these areas - see other posts on RAS or page Darryl Ramm.
>
> >I would hope that FAA or ATC would allow clearances to enter/transit Class A,B,C and restricted airspace WITH a TABS device.
>
> One can always hope.
>
>
> > So, to me... this sounds like a very minimally beneficial upgrade to my Trig setup. I wonder... will TABS devices be visible to the satellite based ADS-B tracking service? If so, it might replace other satellite tracking devices like Spot and Delorme/Garmin InReach.
>
> I don't know. I suspect they would be as visible as any other ADSB-out device, but I'm not certain.

The big advantage of having a TN72 coupled with a Trig transponder is that it will trigger the ADS-B ground stations to generate TIS-B and ADS-R broadcasts so that you can reliably see other aircraft if you are ADS-B IN equipped. Without an ADS-B OUT signal, you will not see any transponder equipped aircraft unless they are ADS-B OUT equipped, nor will you see ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft that are using a different frequency than your ADS-B receiver (not an issue if you have a dual frequency ADS-B receiver).

[Renny[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 6:56:54 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> > http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/
> >
> > This should be available Q1 2017 - it's already popping up on aircraftSpruce & the like, at a sub- $400 price. Quite interesting for those of us with Trig transponders.
> >
> > In the US, all airspace is "outside of designated ADS-B out airspace" for gliders. Or motorgliders I presume.
>
> What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?

I had inquired directly with Trig on the potential use of the TT21 and the TN72 and this was their response in a message back to me on Dec 7th...

"Thank you for your interest in our TN72 GPS receiver.

The TN72 is compatible with your TT21 transponder and is an ideal choice for your glider.
TABS exists to allow exempt aircraft like yours to participate in ADS-B.
Your TT21 transponder exceeds the technical requirements of TABS and so does not require upgrading.

The TN72 will be shipping in early 2017 and will be available through all Trig dealers."

[Sarah[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:56:54 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:

> What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?

I would think either would be fine. They are almost identical except in power output. There are actually no TABS regulations other than the TSO.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.227

goes on and on about UAT and TSO-166 specifications but doesn't mention TABS.

We will see when more information comes out of Trig. For instance - It would be really nice if the required antenna wasn't larger than the TN72 and more expensive.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:46:25 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:56:54 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
>
> > What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?
>
> I would think either would be fine. They are almost identical except in power output. There are actually no TABS regulations other than the TSO.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.227
>
> goes on and on about UAT and TSO-166 specifications but doesn't mention TABS.
>
> We will see when more information comes out of Trig. For instance - It would be really nice if the required antenna wasn't larger than the TN72 and more expensive.

Available for preorder

http://www.craggyaero.com/nav_com.htm

First quarter of 2017

More information to follow on website

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Darryl Ramm]

TSO-C166 *is* TABS.

Some of the rest of this stuff has been discussed on r.a.s. before.

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 6:56:54 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> > > http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/
> > >
> > > This should be available Q1 2017 - it's already popping up on aircraftSpruce & the like, at a sub- $400 price. Quite interesting for those of us with Trig transponders.
> > >
> > > In the US, all airspace is "outside of designated ADS-B out airspace" for gliders. Or motorgliders I presume.
> >
> > What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?
>
> I had inquired directly with Trig on the potential use of the TT21 and the TN72 and this was their response in a message back to me on Dec 7th...
>
> "Thank you for your interest in our TN72 GPS receiver.
>
> The TN72 is compatible with your TT21 transponder and is an ideal choice for your glider.
> TABS exists to allow exempt aircraft like yours to participate in ADS-B.
> Your TT21 transponder exceeds the technical requirements of TABS and so does not require upgrading.
>
> The TN72 will be shipping in early 2017 and will be available through all Trig dealers."

Renny, thanks. That makes uncommon sense for the rule makers. What happens on a Flarm display that sees both a Flarm and an ADS-B return from a glider? Is Flarm capable of disambiguating the result?

[Sarah[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:50:13 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> TSO-C166 *is* TABS.
>
> Some of the rest of this stuff has been discussed on r.a.s. before.

What hasn't been discussed on ras before? It is January.

And the TN72 is new, < $400 and TSO'd source for ADSB-out.
They were tricky, flipping the digits upside down.

TSO-C199 != TSO-C166

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:15:53 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:50:13 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > TSO-C166 *is* TABS.
> >
> > Some of the rest of this stuff has been discussed on r.a.s. before.
>
> What hasn't been discussed on ras before? It is January.
>
> And the TN72 is new, < $400 and TSO'd source for ADSB-out.
> They were tricky, flipping the digits upside down.
>
> TSO-C199 != TSO-C166

Oops my bad in flipping the 6 and 9. TSO-C166 is UAT, not relevant to TABS TSO-C199.

The TN72 has been discussed on r.a.s in detail before. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/Q8p-zVz7DL8. The actual availability and low price is great news.

It's confusing to say this is a "certified" device, that makes some people incorrectly think it's suitable for use for ADS-B Out to meet 2020 carriage mandates or can be installed in a certified glider today (hopefully that is coming... but there is currently no way to actually do that AFAIK... hopefully something he FAA and manufactures are working on creating an STC for and/or streamlining field approval for).

The price is great news, and anybody interested in ADS-B Out who has an experimental glider and a Trig TT-21 or TT-22 may want to get a TN72 installed before the flying season. better visibility to GA aircraft equipping with ADS-B In and longer-range (than PowerFLARM-PowerFLARM) visibility to other gliders with PowerFLARM.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 6:56:54 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> > > > http://www.trig-avionics.com/new-tn72-gps-receiver-launched-at-flyer-live/
> > > >
> > > > This should be available Q1 2017 - it's already popping up on aircraftSpruce & the like, at a sub- $400 price. Quite interesting for those of us with Trig transponders.
> > > >
> > > > In the US, all airspace is "outside of designated ADS-B out airspace" for gliders. Or motorgliders I presume.
> > >
> > > What are the consequences of having a Trig 21 vs 22, in both the TABS regulations and pure functionality? I understand that a Trig 21 may not meet TABS regulations, if there ever comes to be some. But will it actually function, if wired to the Trig TN72 source?
> >
> > I had inquired directly with Trig on the potential use of the TT21 and the TN72 and this was their response in a message back to me on Dec 7th...
> >
> > "Thank you for your interest in our TN72 GPS receiver.
> >
> > The TN72 is compatible with your TT21 transponder and is an ideal choice for your glider.
> > TABS exists to allow exempt aircraft like yours to participate in ADS-B..
> > Your TT21 transponder exceeds the technical requirements of TABS and so does not require upgrading.
> >
> > The TN72 will be shipping in early 2017 and will be available through all Trig dealers."
>
> Renny, thanks. That makes uncommon sense for the rule makers. What happens on a Flarm display that sees both a Flarm and an ADS-B return from a glider? Is Flarm capable of disambiguating the result?

PowerFLARM knows to de-duplicate those targets... if you have properly set up the PowerFLARM to use the ICAO address of your glider, that way the FLARM and ADS-B Out signals will have the same ICAO aircraft address and a receiving PowerFLARM device knows its the same aircraft. That's already used today to suppress Mode-S PCAS alerts for a target glider with Mode-S and PowerFLARM. And that's why PowerFLARM cannot suppress PCAS alerts as well for targets that have Mode C transponders (Mode C does not transmit an ICAO address).

[Sarah[_2_]]

Thanks for the link to the previous thread, I totally missed that one in early December. Funny a newsgroup search didn't bring it up, I looked for "TN72".

I hope FAA clarifies the situation w/r/to certificated gliders. The regs are silent about TSO-199 TABS, but I would hope it would be installable somehow.

The numbering is confusing. See the quick links of this page for an overview of regs, TSOs, etc

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/

TSO-166b is 1090es
TSO-199 is TABS
TSO-154c is UAT

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:42:35 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:15:53 PM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:50:13 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > TSO-C166 *is* TABS.
> > >
> > > Some of the rest of this stuff has been discussed on r.a.s. before.
> >
> > What hasn't been discussed on ras before? It is January.
> >
> > And the TN72 is new, < $400 and TSO'd source for ADSB-out.
> > They were tricky, flipping the digits upside down.
> >
> > TSO-C199 != TSO-C166
>
> Oops my bad in flipping the 6 and 9. TSO-C166 is UAT, not relevant to TABS TSO-C199.
>
> The TN72 has been discussed on r.a.s in detail before. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/Q8p-zVz7DL8. The actual availability and low price is great news.
>
> It's confusing to say this is a "certified" device, that makes some people incorrectly think it's suitable for use for ADS-B Out to meet 2020 carriage mandates or can be installed in a certified glider today (hopefully that is coming... but there is currently no way to actually do that AFAIK... hopefully something he FAA and manufactures are working on creating an STC for and/or streamlining field approval for).
>
> The price is great news, and anybody interested in ADS-B Out who has an experimental glider and a Trig TT-21 or TT-22 may want to get a TN72 installed before the flying season. better visibility to GA aircraft equipping with ADS-B In and longer-range (than PowerFLARM-PowerFLARM) visibility to other gliders with PowerFLARM.

[Sarah[_2_]]

And to reply to myself...

in Addition to https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/

Current installation "instructions", including the clarifying March 2nd 2016 letter.
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/installing/

Installation of ADS-B out for certificated aircraft of any sort isn't trivial.
You almost need a lawyer + A&P

[Darryl Ramm]

Yes thanks for the TSO corrections. Don't know what went wrong here. Trying to post from a iPhone was not helping.

[Darryl Ramm]

On 1/3/17 7:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:11:53 PM UTC-5, Sarah wrote:
>> Hi Walt,
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-6, WaltWX wrote:
>>
>>> It sounds like having TABS with your Trig in a glider will make you more visible to other aircraft who can track ADS-B out messages. The Mode S transponder already gives an equipped glider visibility to TCAS.
>>
>> Right. It would make you visible on all those GA ADSB-in devices & ipads. That's something. It should also make your position visible to powerflarm users, but I have not verified that.
>>
>>> Now, in a Mode S equipped glider, I can request a clearance to enter Class A,B, C, or restricted airspace ... but in the future after 2020... will that clearance be denied UNLESS I have a TSO-C166B ADS-B out device?
>>
>> That's how I read 91.225. I'd love to be corrected. If you really need to enter class A IFR, you'll need something much more expensive and harder to fit in a glider, a 1090es/TSO-C166 device. A TSO'd UAT is enough for class B or C. If you have an experimental glider non-TSO'd equipment is OK but you have to be careful.
>> https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4
>> I'm not an expert in these areas - see other posts on RAS or page Darryl Ramm.

(To be careful here, you strictly don't need a "TSO'd UAT" (or 1090ES
Out) for class B or C. An *experimental* aircraft just needs a "Meets
performance requirement of TSO..." device.).

I agree that is what the regulations say, and the intent around
TABS/TSO-C199 was aiming at collision avoidance and deliberately not at
ATC applications. If planning on obtaining IFR clearances into Class A
airspace I'd be planning on equipping a glider with a 2020 Complaint
1090ES Out system... but I'd also talk with your local FSDO.

I have some questions around this myself and am trying to find answers
and will post updates if I can.


>>
>>> I would hope that FAA or ATC would allow clearances to enter/transit Class A,B,C and restricted airspace WITH a TABS device.
>>
>> One can always hope.
>>
>>
>>> So, to me... this sounds like a very minimally beneficial upgrade to my Trig setup. I wonder... will TABS devices be visible to the satellite based ADS-B tracking service? If so, it might replace other satellite tracking devices like Spot and Delorme/Garmin InReach.
>>
>> I don't know. I suspect they would be as visible as any other ADSB-out device, but I'm not certain.
>
> The big advantage of having a TN72 coupled with a Trig transponder is that it will trigger the ADS-B ground stations to generate TIS-B and ADS-R broadcasts so that you can reliably see other aircraft if you are ADS-B IN equipped. Without an ADS-B OUT signal, you will not see any transponder equipped aircraft unless they are ADS-B OUT equipped, nor will you see ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft that are using a different frequency than your ADS-B receiver (not an issue if you have a dual frequency ADS-B receiver).
>

Since TABS/TSO-C199 and is all based on 1090ES Out I expect this will
just work. But you would want to ask (future) providers like Aireon, but
lots of things about their future service offerings including pricing,
data availability, etc are unclear to me. Their initial focus seems much
more airlines and trans-oceanic ATC applications.

It will be interesting to watch what is happening here over the next
decade or so but I do not expect Spot and Inreach devices to be replaced
any time soon by any ADS-B technology. The messaging capability with
InReach especially won't be replaced by ADS-B tracking.

Terrestrial crowd sourced tracking systems like Flightradar24 should
have no problems technically receiving TABS/TSO-C199 based devices as
long as they have local receiver coverage. Now whether those services
decide to publish tracks for all GA aircraft or gliders in the future
who knows.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On 1/3/17 7:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:11:53 PM UTC-5, Sarah wrote:
> >> Hi Walt,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-6, WaltWX wrote:
> >>
> >>> It sounds like having TABS with your Trig in a glider will make you more visible to other aircraft who can track ADS-B out messages. The Mode S transponder already gives an equipped glider visibility to TCAS.
> >>
> >> Right. It would make you visible on all those GA ADSB-in devices & ipads. That's something. It should also make your position visible to powerflarm users, but I have not verified that.
> >>
> >>> Now, in a Mode S equipped glider, I can request a clearance to enter Class A,B, C, or restricted airspace ... but in the future after 2020... will that clearance be denied UNLESS I have a TSO-C166B ADS-B out device?
> >>
> >> That's how I read 91.225. I'd love to be corrected. If you really need to enter class A IFR, you'll need something much more expensive and harder to fit in a glider, a 1090es/TSO-C166 device. A TSO'd UAT is enough for class B or C. If you have an experimental glider non-TSO'd equipment is OK but you have to be careful.
> >> https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4
> >> I'm not an expert in these areas - see other posts on RAS or page Darryl Ramm.
>
> (To be careful here, you strictly don't need a "TSO'd UAT" (or 1090ES
> Out) for class B or C. An *experimental* aircraft just needs a "Meets
> performance requirement of TSO..." device.).
>
> I agree that is what the regulations say, and the intent around
> TABS/TSO-C199 was aiming at collision avoidance and deliberately not at
> ATC applications. If planning on obtaining IFR clearances into Class A
> airspace I'd be planning on equipping a glider with a 2020 Complaint
> 1090ES Out system... but I'd also talk with your local FSDO.
>
> I have some questions around this myself and am trying to find answers
> and will post updates if I can.
>
>
> >>
> >>> I would hope that FAA or ATC would allow clearances to enter/transit Class A,B,C and restricted airspace WITH a TABS device.
> >>
> >> One can always hope.
> >>
> >>
> >>> So, to me... this sounds like a very minimally beneficial upgrade to my Trig setup. I wonder... will TABS devices be visible to the satellite based ADS-B tracking service? If so, it might replace other satellite tracking devices like Spot and Delorme/Garmin InReach.
> >>
> >> I don't know. I suspect they would be as visible as any other ADSB-out device, but I'm not certain.
> >
> > The big advantage of having a TN72 coupled with a Trig transponder is that it will trigger the ADS-B ground stations to generate TIS-B and ADS-R broadcasts so that you can reliably see other aircraft if you are ADS-B IN equipped. Without an ADS-B OUT signal, you will not see any transponder equipped aircraft unless they are ADS-B OUT equipped, nor will you see ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft that are using a different frequency than your ADS-B receiver (not an issue if you have a dual frequency ADS-B receiver).
> >
>
> Since TABS/TSO-C199 and is all based on 1090ES Out I expect this will
> just work. But you would want to ask (future) providers like Aireon, but
> lots of things about their future service offerings including pricing,
> data availability, etc are unclear to me. Their initial focus seems much
> more airlines and trans-oceanic ATC applications.
>
> It will be interesting to watch what is happening here over the next
> decade or so but I do not expect Spot and Inreach devices to be replaced
> any time soon by any ADS-B technology. The messaging capability with
> InReach especially won't be replaced by ADS-B tracking.
>
> Terrestrial crowd sourced tracking systems like Flightradar24 should
> have no problems technically receiving TABS/TSO-C199 based devices as
> long as they have local receiver coverage. Now whether those services
> decide to publish tracks for all GA aircraft or gliders in the future
> who knows.

Now for the rest of the story.

An amplified GPS antenna is need that meets ETSO C190
Trig TA70 Antenna $318 + Trig TN72 TABS GPS $359 = $677

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[SF]

Is there any way to get one GPS antenna for everything?
Pretty easy to amass quite a collection of them
CNFD, CNV, CA302, Flarm, TABS

SF

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On 1/3/17 7:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:11:53 PM UTC-5, Sarah wrote:
> >> Hi Walt,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-6, WaltWX wrote:
> >>
> >>> It sounds like having TABS with your Trig in a glider will make you more visible to other aircraft who can track ADS-B out messages. The Mode S transponder already gives an equipped glider visibility to TCAS.
> >>
> >> Right. It would make you visible on all those GA ADSB-in devices & ipads. That's something. It should also make your position visible to powerflarm users, but I have not verified that.
> >>
> >>> Now, in a Mode S equipped glider, I can request a clearance to enter Class A,B, C, or restricted airspace ... but in the future after 2020... will that clearance be denied UNLESS I have a TSO-C166B ADS-B out device?
> >>
> >> That's how I read 91.225. I'd love to be corrected. If you really need to enter class A IFR, you'll need something much more expensive and harder to fit in a glider, a 1090es/TSO-C166 device. A TSO'd UAT is enough for class B or C. If you have an experimental glider non-TSO'd equipment is OK but you have to be careful.
> >> https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4
> >> I'm not an expert in these areas - see other posts on RAS or page Darryl Ramm.
>
> (To be careful here, you strictly don't need a "TSO'd UAT" (or 1090ES
> Out) for class B or C. An *experimental* aircraft just needs a "Meets
> performance requirement of TSO..." device.).
>
> I agree that is what the regulations say, and the intent around
> TABS/TSO-C199 was aiming at collision avoidance and deliberately not at
> ATC applications. If planning on obtaining IFR clearances into Class A
> airspace I'd be planning on equipping a glider with a 2020 Complaint
> 1090ES Out system... but I'd also talk with your local FSDO.
>
> I have some questions around this myself and am trying to find answers
> and will post updates if I can.
>
>
> >>
> >>> I would hope that FAA or ATC would allow clearances to enter/transit Class A,B,C and restricted airspace WITH a TABS device.
> >>
> >> One can always hope.
> >>
> >>
> >>> So, to me... this sounds like a very minimally beneficial upgrade to my Trig setup. I wonder... will TABS devices be visible to the satellite based ADS-B tracking service? If so, it might replace other satellite tracking devices like Spot and Delorme/Garmin InReach.
> >>
> >> I don't know. I suspect they would be as visible as any other ADSB-out device, but I'm not certain.
> >
> > The big advantage of having a TN72 coupled with a Trig transponder is that it will trigger the ADS-B ground stations to generate TIS-B and ADS-R broadcasts so that you can reliably see other aircraft if you are ADS-B IN equipped. Without an ADS-B OUT signal, you will not see any transponder equipped aircraft unless they are ADS-B OUT equipped, nor will you see ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft that are using a different frequency than your ADS-B receiver (not an issue if you have a dual frequency ADS-B receiver).
> >
>
> Since TABS/TSO-C199 and is all based on 1090ES Out I expect this will
> just work. But you would want to ask (future) providers like Aireon, but
> lots of things about their future service offerings including pricing,
> data availability, etc are unclear to me. Their initial focus seems much
> more airlines and trans-oceanic ATC applications.
>
> It will be interesting to watch what is happening here over the next
> decade or so but I do not expect Spot and Inreach devices to be replaced
> any time soon by any ADS-B technology. The messaging capability with
> InReach especially won't be replaced by ADS-B tracking.
>
> Terrestrial crowd sourced tracking systems like Flightradar24 should
> have no problems technically receiving TABS/TSO-C199 based devices as
> long as they have local receiver coverage. Now whether those services
> decide to publish tracks for all GA aircraft or gliders in the future
> who knows.

Sorry to rain on the parade but!

An amplified GPS antenna is needed that meets ETSO C190
Trig TA70 Antenna $318 + Trig TN72 TABS GPS $359 = $677

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 10:34:52 AM UTC-8, SF wrote:
> Is there any way to get one GPS antenna for everything?
> Pretty easy to amass quite a collection of them
> CNFD, CNV, CA302, Flarm, TABS
>
> SF

One GPS antenna for 3 or 4 or 5 devices.

The problem is that each GPS provides power to the antenna, so just splitting the wire does not work and will damage something. Some have tried to use DC blockers on all devices but one.

I troubleshot one system that had a DC blocker on two inputs and an Air Avionics Vario, ClearNav, PowerFlarm.
Problem not all the instruments worked correctly. Tried switching the connections but nothing worked. When I went to 3 seperate GPS antennas all worked.

So in theory yes but practice maybe not.

Richard
www.craggyaero.

[JS]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-8, Richard wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 10:34:52 AM UTC-8, SF wrote:
> > Is there any way to get one GPS antenna for everything?
> > Pretty easy to amass quite a collection of them
> > CNFD, CNV, CA302, Flarm, TABS
> >
> > SF
>
> One GPS antenna for 3 or 4 or 5 devices.
>
> The problem is that each GPS provides power to the antenna, so just splitting the wire does not work and will damage something. Some have tried to use DC blockers on all devices but one.
>
> I troubleshot one system that had a DC blocker on two inputs and an Air Avionics Vario, ClearNav, PowerFlarm.
> Problem not all the instruments worked correctly. Tried switching the connections but nothing worked. When I went to 3 seperate GPS antennas all worked.
>
> So in theory yes but practice maybe not.
>
> Richard
> www.craggyaero.

I know this is slightly derailing the thread so I'll make another one.
Jim

[[email protected]]

It seems to me the real benefit of adsb will come when gliders can have a sunlight-readable adsb-traffic display in the panel (I find ipad and iphone displays too hard to read in sunlight). I did find a European instrument that seems promising: its the Funke TM250. It seems to be a combined GPS, adsb-in receiver and panel-mounted traffic display for transponder, flarm and adsb targets. Price is about $1200. I'm not sure if its suitable for the USA, but it shows the sort of combined flarm/adsb plus display instruments that will be coming for gliding. This uncertain future path makes me hesitant to buy a TN72.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Depends on the computer. My 7" screen on the LX9070 displays traffic beautifully, really helps with situational awareness. Traffic is well displayed on many varios too i.e., Butterfly LXnav 80,8, 10,etc.

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:03:02 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> It seems to me the real benefit of adsb will come when gliders can have a sunlight-readable adsb-traffic display in the panel (I find ipad and iphone displays too hard to read in sunlight). I did find a European instrument that seems promising: its the Funke TM250. It seems to be a combined GPS, adsb-in receiver and panel-mounted traffic display for transponder, flarm and adsb targets. Price is about $1200. I'm not sure if its suitable for the USA, but it shows the sort of combined flarm/adsb plus display instruments that will be coming for gliding. This uncertain future path makes me hesitant to buy a TN72.

[Dan Marotta]

Same with the ClearNav II. ...But all ADS-B targets are displayed with
a B-52 silhouette!

On 1/5/2017 5:52 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Depends on the computer. My 7" screen on the LX9070 displays traffic beautifully, really helps with situational awareness. Traffic is well displayed on many varios too i.e., Butterfly LXnav 80,8, 10,etc.
>
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:03:02 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> It seems to me the real benefit of adsb will come when gliders can have a sunlight-readable adsb-traffic display in the panel (I find ipad and iphone displays too hard to read in sunlight). I did find a European instrument that seems promising: its the Funke TM250. It seems to be a combined GPS, adsb-in receiver and panel-mounted traffic display for transponder, flarm and adsb targets. Price is about $1200. I'm not sure if its suitable for the USA, but it shows the sort of combined flarm/adsb plus display instruments that will be coming for gliding. This uncertain future path makes me hesitant to buy a TN72.

--
Dan, 5J

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:03:02 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> It seems to me the real benefit of adsb will come when gliders can have a sunlight-readable adsb-traffic display in the panel (I find ipad and iphone displays too hard to read in sunlight). I did find a European instrument that seems promising: its the Funke TM250. It seems to be a combined GPS, adsb-in receiver and panel-mounted traffic display for transponder, flarm and adsb targets. Price is about $1200. I'm not sure if its suitable for the USA, but it shows the sort of combined flarm/adsb plus display instruments that will be coming for gliding. This uncertain future path makes me hesitant to buy a TN72.

The Craggy Aero Ultimate Le /le57 a very sunlight readable display running SeeYou PNA also displays flarm and ADS-B targets.

http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimates.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Sarah[_2_]]

Just to clarify ... all the people chiming in about traffic display options (LX, CNV, Oudie...) have a powerflarm ADSB/Flarm receiver, right?

I have very limited room. Adding TN72 is possible, but adding a powerflarm also would be very difficult. Maybe I could if I take out my varios.


On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 6:52:27 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Depends on the computer. My 7" screen on the LX9070 displays traffic beautifully, really helps with situational awareness. Traffic is well displayed on many varios too i.e., Butterfly LXnav 80,8, 10,etc.

[Dan Marotta]

Hi Sarah,

Think about stalk mounting off panel. A cheap universal automotive cell
phone cradle works great! Cut off the base and attach it to the top or
side of your panel with two Adel clamps. Here's a picture of how I
mounted a Dell Streak in my crowded LAK-17a:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d61t34oz6x8ert6/panel.jpg?dl=0

BTW, the ClearNav does not have a built-in FLARM receiver. I mounted a
PowerFLARM portable to the top of the glare shield of my Stemme and feed
the ClearNav via serial cable. I have a friend who mounts his PF
portable AND an LX9000 (I think) on stalks in his LAK-17bfes. Maybe
he'll share a picture.

Good luck!
Dan


On 1/6/2017 9:01 AM, Sarah wrote:
> Just to clarify ... all the people chiming in about traffic display options (LX, CNV, Oudie...) have a powerflarm ADSB/Flarm receiver, right?
>
> I have very limited room. Adding TN72 is possible, but adding a powerflarm also would be very difficult. Maybe I could if I take out my varios.
>
>
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 6:52:27 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>> Depends on the computer. My 7" screen on the LX9070 displays traffic beautifully, really helps with situational awareness. Traffic is well displayed on many varios too i.e., Butterfly LXnav 80,8, 10,etc.

--
Dan, 5J

[Renny[_2_]]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:14:54 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Hi Sarah,
>
> Think about stalk mounting off panel. A cheap universal automotive cell
> phone cradle works great! Cut off the base and attach it to the top or
> side of your panel with two Adel clamps. Here's a picture of how I
> mounted a Dell Streak in my crowded LAK-17a:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/d61t34oz6x8ert6/panel.jpg?dl=0
>
> BTW, the ClearNav does not have a built-in FLARM receiver. I mounted a
> PowerFLARM portable to the top of the glare shield of my Stemme and feed
> the ClearNav via serial cable. I have a friend who mounts his PF
> portable AND an LX9000 (I think) on stalks in his LAK-17bfes. Maybe
> he'll share a picture.
>
> Good luck!
> Dan
>
>
> On 1/6/2017 9:01 AM, Sarah wrote:
> > Just to clarify ... all the people chiming in about traffic display options (LX, CNV, Oudie...) have a powerflarm ADSB/Flarm receiver, right?
> >
> > I have very limited room. Adding TN72 is possible, but adding a powerflarm also would be very difficult. Maybe I could if I take out my varios.
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 6:52:27 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> >> Depends on the computer. My 7" screen on the LX9070 displays traffic beautifully, really helps with situational awareness. Traffic is well displayed on many varios too i.e., Butterfly LXnav 80,8, 10,etc.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Indeed, Dan is correct..You can see my LX9000 on a RAM mount here...

http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav/LX9000-RAM-Renny-1.jpg

A RAM mount also supports my PowerFlarm. You can see that photo at this link. Please note that the Oudie 2 was replaced by the LX9000 in this older photo...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8381/8540815162_9a5941fafc_o.jpg

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:01:48 AM UTC-8, Sarah wrote:
> Just to clarify ... all the people chiming in about traffic display options (LX, CNV, Oudie...) have a powerflarm ADSB/Flarm receiver, right?
>
> I have very limited room. Adding TN72 is possible, but adding a powerflarm also would be very difficult. Maybe I could if I take out my varios.
>
>
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 6:52:27 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Depends on the computer. My 7" screen on the LX9070 displays traffic beautifully, really helps with situational awareness. Traffic is well displayed on many varios too i.e., Butterfly LXnav 80,8, 10,etc.

If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.

Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.

2nd display solves that problem.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Richard[_9_]]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
> > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
>
> Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
>
> 2nd display solves that problem.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8



The Ultimate Le/Le57 running SeeYou PNA gives you text and voice warnings for the close in targets and you have seen the target coming for quite a while. I believe the large display is much better for traffic avoidance than many small flarm displays.

Air Avionics has a new display the Air Traffic Display that is one of the best small displays on the market.

http://www.craggyaero.com/atd.htm

http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimates.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2017 18:12:19 UTC+1 schrieb jfitch:

>
> ... That makes uncommon sense for the rule makers. What happens on a Flarm display that sees both a Flarm and an ADS-B return from a glider? Is Flarm capable of disambiguating the result?

Only if the FLARM ID is set to ICAO-32-bit-address used for the ADS-B out.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
> > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
>
> Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
>
> 2nd display solves that problem.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Again, if the display has a "good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets", you don't need the Flarm display in my opinion. Close target are automatically made more noticeable, and very close targets are warned of with audio and graphics. This is *substantially* more obvious on my tactical display than on the Flarm display. A good tactical display will be context sensitive and take care of this for you. It really shouldn't be showing you all the places you can glide to, if you are about to hit a 737.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> >
> > > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
> >
> > Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
> >
> > 2nd display solves that problem.
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Again, if the display has a "good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets", you don't need the Flarm display in my opinion. Close target are automatically made more noticeable, and very close targets are warned of with audio and graphics. This is *substantially* more obvious on my tactical display than on the Flarm display. A good tactical display will be context sensitive and take care of this for you. It really shouldn't be showing you all the places you can glide to, if you are about to hit a 737.

All modern glide computers with a flarm interface do a decent job of collision warning. I haven't compared them all, but some are quite excellent. That problem has been well addressed in the marketplace.

The problem that still exists is the simultaneous depiction of non-threatening flarm traffic (your buddy at 1/2 mile, seven o'clock) and 30 miles of terrain, your course, alternate landing sites. Modern flight computers give you one, or the other (depending on zoom level). If you don't see that as a problem, never mind! Changing the zoom level is just another cockpit distraction I seek to avoid. All those little seconds in the cockpit add up. I want my eyes and attention out the window.

All of the powerflarm/butterfly display are pretty dreadful imo. Any of the LXNav flarmview series would be preferred for a dedicated flarm display.

best,
Evan

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > >
> > > > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
> > >
> > > Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
> > >
> > > 2nd display solves that problem.
> > >
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > Again, if the display has a "good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets", you don't need the Flarm display in my opinion. Close target are automatically made more noticeable, and very close targets are warned of with audio and graphics. This is *substantially* more obvious on my tactical display than on the Flarm display. A good tactical display will be context sensitive and take care of this for you. It really shouldn't be showing you all the places you can glide to, if you are about to hit a 737.
>
> All modern glide computers with a flarm interface do a decent job of collision warning. I haven't compared them all, but some are quite excellent. That problem has been well addressed in the marketplace.
>
> The problem that still exists is the simultaneous depiction of non-threatening flarm traffic (your buddy at 1/2 mile, seven o'clock) and 30 miles of terrain, your course, alternate landing sites. Modern flight computers give you one, or the other (depending on zoom level). If you don't see that as a problem, never mind! Changing the zoom level is just another cockpit distraction I seek to avoid. All those little seconds in the cockpit add up.. I want my eyes and attention out the window.
>
> All of the powerflarm/butterfly display are pretty dreadful imo. Any of the LXNav flarmview series would be preferred for a dedicated flarm display..
>
> best,
> Evan

I guess you have not seen the new Air Avionics "Butterfly Display" Air Traffic Display. It is the best I have seen.

http://www.craggyaero.com/atd.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[JS]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > >
> > > > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
> > >
> > > Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
> > >
> > > 2nd display solves that problem.
> > >
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > Again, if the display has a "good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets", you don't need the Flarm display in my opinion. Close target are automatically made more noticeable, and very close targets are warned of with audio and graphics. This is *substantially* more obvious on my tactical display than on the Flarm display. A good tactical display will be context sensitive and take care of this for you. It really shouldn't be showing you all the places you can glide to, if you are about to hit a 737.
>
> All modern glide computers with a flarm interface do a decent job of collision warning. I haven't compared them all, but some are quite excellent. That problem has been well addressed in the marketplace.
>
> The problem that still exists is the simultaneous depiction of non-threatening flarm traffic (your buddy at 1/2 mile, seven o'clock) and 30 miles of terrain, your course, alternate landing sites. Modern flight computers give you one, or the other (depending on zoom level). If you don't see that as a problem, never mind! Changing the zoom level is just another cockpit distraction I seek to avoid. All those little seconds in the cockpit add up.. I want my eyes and attention out the window.
>
> All of the powerflarm/butterfly display are pretty dreadful imo. Any of the LXNav flarmview series would be preferred for a dedicated flarm display..
>
> best,
> Evan

Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
Jim

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > >
> > > > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
> > >
> > > Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
> > >
> > > 2nd display solves that problem.
> > >
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > Again, if the display has a "good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets", you don't need the Flarm display in my opinion. Close target are automatically made more noticeable, and very close targets are warned of with audio and graphics. This is *substantially* more obvious on my tactical display than on the Flarm display. A good tactical display will be context sensitive and take care of this for you. It really shouldn't be showing you all the places you can glide to, if you are about to hit a 737.
>
> All modern glide computers with a flarm interface do a decent job of collision warning. I haven't compared them all, but some are quite excellent. That problem has been well addressed in the marketplace.
>
> The problem that still exists is the simultaneous depiction of non-threatening flarm traffic (your buddy at 1/2 mile, seven o'clock) and 30 miles of terrain, your course, alternate landing sites. Modern flight computers give you one, or the other (depending on zoom level). If you don't see that as a problem, never mind! Changing the zoom level is just another cockpit distraction I seek to avoid. All those little seconds in the cockpit add up.. I want my eyes and attention out the window.
>
> All of the powerflarm/butterfly display are pretty dreadful imo. Any of the LXNav flarmview series would be preferred for a dedicated flarm display..
>
> best,
> Evan

"the simultaneous depiction" - Ok, gotcha. I am insensitive to this because on my tactical display, zooming is instantaneous and effortless (pinch-to-zoom, drag-to-pan). Using XCSoar or other I did find that a little annoying and distracting - lots of button pushing.

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:23:44 PM UTC-8, JS wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:06:10 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:40:26 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If your tactical computer display has good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets, I see no reason for the dedicated Flarm display. It is simply duplicating what is already in front of you. No extra panel space is necessary, though some space behind the panel is.
> > > >
> > > > Sure there is. The nav computer map display is best set to show (roughly) what you can glide to. The Flarm & adsb targets you care about -- the close ones -- won't be resolvable.
> > > >
> > > > 2nd display solves that problem.
> > > >
> > > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> > >
> > > Again, if the display has a "good depiction of Flarm and ADSB targets", you don't need the Flarm display in my opinion. Close target are automatically made more noticeable, and very close targets are warned of with audio and graphics. This is *substantially* more obvious on my tactical display than on the Flarm display. A good tactical display will be context sensitive and take care of this for you. It really shouldn't be showing you all the places you can glide to, if you are about to hit a 737.
> >
> > All modern glide computers with a flarm interface do a decent job of collision warning. I haven't compared them all, but some are quite excellent. That problem has been well addressed in the marketplace.
> >
> > The problem that still exists is the simultaneous depiction of non-threatening flarm traffic (your buddy at 1/2 mile, seven o'clock) and 30 miles of terrain, your course, alternate landing sites. Modern flight computers give you one, or the other (depending on zoom level). If you don't see that as a problem, never mind! Changing the zoom level is just another cockpit distraction I seek to avoid. All those little seconds in the cockpit add up. I want my eyes and attention out the window.
> >
> > All of the powerflarm/butterfly display are pretty dreadful imo. Any of the LXNav flarmview series would be preferred for a dedicated flarm display.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan
>
> Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
> Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
> And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
> Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
> Jim

The Air Avionics vario combined with PowerFlarm does audio warnings very well. As do many other modern combinations. ADSB and Flarm traffic are both warned of: "GLIDER - 3 OCLOCK etc."

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

As Jfitch noted the air-avionics (Butterfly) does, so do the LXnav 90XX computers, along with spoilers open, gear warning, stall speed, apparoching VNE, final glide, tire pressure low (just kidding with that one)...... Audio warnings for a plethora of items, all possible with the new generation of computers.


On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:23:44 PM UTC-8, JS wrote:

> Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
> Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
> And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
> Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
> Jim

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
> Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
> And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
> Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
> Jim

Flarm (that is, the company) tells me that it (that is, the powerflarm product) sends warning messages for conflicting adsb traffic on the dataport(s) exactly the same way it does for flarm, but with logic appropriate to power planes / jets / whatever. If that's true, then you as a flarm + CN2 user are covered. You'll get the same "Traffic, 3 o'clock high" message you would get for a glider, but presumably at a much greater distance. Unfortunately (and this is a real aggravation for me) there is NO WAY TO TEST THIS short of jousting with an ADSB-out equipped aircraft.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[JS]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:07:30 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> [snip]
> > Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
> > Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
> > And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
> > Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
> > Jim
>
> Flarm (that is, the company) tells me that it (that is, the powerflarm product) sends warning messages for conflicting adsb traffic on the dataport(s) exactly the same way it does for flarm, but with logic appropriate to power planes / jets / whatever. If that's true, then you as a flarm + CN2 user are covered. You'll get the same "Traffic, 3 o'clock high" message you would get for a glider, but presumably at a much greater distance. Unfortunately (and this is a real aggravation for me) there is NO WAY TO TEST THIS short of jousting with an ADSB-out equipped aircraft.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

The CN's audible FLARM warnings are good, haven't done any dogfighting with power planes lately.
The thread is about TABS. Wondering about non-FLARM devices giving useful audio warnings.
Jim

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 6:21:25 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:07:30 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
> > > Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
> > > And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
> > > Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
> > > Jim
> >
> > Flarm (that is, the company) tells me that it (that is, the powerflarm product) sends warning messages for conflicting adsb traffic on the dataport(s) exactly the same way it does for flarm, but with logic appropriate to power planes / jets / whatever. If that's true, then you as a flarm + CN2 user are covered. You'll get the same "Traffic, 3 o'clock high" message you would get for a glider, but presumably at a much greater distance. Unfortunately (and this is a real aggravation for me) there is NO WAY TO TEST THIS short of jousting with an ADSB-out equipped aircraft.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> The CN's audible FLARM warnings are good, haven't done any dogfighting with power planes lately.
> The thread is about TABS. Wondering about non-FLARM devices giving useful audio warnings.
> Jim

You asked about adsb-in...

best,
Evan

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:07:30 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> [snip]
> > Perhaps the easiest way to warn is with good audio.
> > Do any of the currently available TABS / ADSB-In devices offer audible warnings?
> > And do they fit in - not hanging off like an afterthought - a typical glider instrument panel?
> > Possibly the new Air-Avionics unit?
> > Jim
>
> Flarm (that is, the company) tells me that it (that is, the powerflarm product) sends warning messages for conflicting adsb traffic on the dataport(s) exactly the same way it does for flarm, but with logic appropriate to power planes / jets / whatever. If that's true, then you as a flarm + CN2 user are covered. You'll get the same "Traffic, 3 o'clock high" message you would get for a glider, but presumably at a much greater distance. Unfortunately (and this is a real aggravation for me) there is NO WAY TO TEST THIS short of jousting with an ADSB-out equipped aircraft.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I can tell you from experience that the Air Avionics vario will warn of ADSB traffic just as it does with Flarm traffic. The audio changes to "AIRCRAFT, 3 O'CLOCK, HIGH etc" instead of "GLIDER". In the Tahoe Reno area we have plenty of passenger jets flying close by to test this....