glider/airplane collision

[Sandy McAusland]

I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
any info on this ??

[Tom Dukerich]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:48:51 -0800, Sandy McAusland wrote:

> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> any info on this ??

December 28th at Turf Soaring in Arizona.

Search this group for Mid-Air at Turf Soaring.

[BTIZ]

Turf Soaring.. Phoenix AZ
ASK-21 doing acro.. and a J-3 Cub
4 lost
all debris fell in the acro box

BT

"Sandy McAusland" > wrote in message
om...
> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> any info on this ??

[Michael Stringfellow]

NTSB preliminary report is now released at
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040108X00028&key=2

or you can check Arizona Soaring Association's web site at
www.asa-soaring.org

Mike

ASW-20 WA
A
"Sandy McAusland" > wrote in message
om...
> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> any info on this ??

[ADP]

I don't mean to be unkind here or diminish the tragic event, but who
finishes a loop in a glider at 600' AGL?
Or, unless in an airshow, any other kind of aircraft?
Just wondering.

Allan

"Michael Stringfellow" > wrote in message
news:_GdNb.3102$zP6.464@okepread02...
> NTSB preliminary report is now released at
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040108X00028&key=2
>
> or you can check Arizona Soaring Association's web site at
> www.asa-soaring.org
>

[mm]

"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> I don't mean to be unkind here or diminish the tragic event, but who
> finishes a loop in a glider at 600' AGL?
> Or, unless in an airshow, any other kind of aircraft?
> Just wondering.
>
> Allan
>
Anyone who has an FAA aerobatic altitude waiver. I've seen many loops end
significantly lower than 600'.
mm

[Terry Claussen]

"mm" > wrote in message >...
> >
> Anyone who has an FAA aerobatic altitude waiver. I've seen many loops end
> significantly lower than 600'.
> mm

Well I don't have a Letter of Authority to perform low altitude
aerobatics, but I do have a LOA for another area. The letter is
excruciatingly specific about what I am and am not permitted to do. I
hope for Turf and Roy's sake that all conditions on said letter were
complied with.

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

I have seen many loops finishing below 600ft QFE, I have done them myself.

I have also seen a tug which had been damaged by being hit by a two seat
glider which had been doing a spin for training purposes at a reasonable
height, luckily everyone landed uninjured and with no further damage.

Collision is now one of the biggest hazards in gliding, and in the U.K. we
have unfortunately had several reminders that even very experienced and
current pilots are not exempt. Having plenty of height and being
predictable are a help, but not enough in themselves.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "ADP" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I don't mean to be unkind here or diminish the tragic event, but who
> finishes a loop in a glider at 600' AGL?
>
> Or, unless in an airshow, any other kind of aircraft?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Allan
>

[Michael McNulty]

Terry Claussen wrote:


> Well I don't have a Letter of Authority to perform low altitude
> aerobatics, but I do have a LOA for another area. The letter is
> excruciatingly specific about what I am and am not permitted to do. I
> hope for Turf and Roy's sake that all conditions on said letter were
> complied with.
Compared to what he has lost already, what the FAA can take is
insignificant.

[Terry Claussen]

http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/182980-1.html

It sound familiar because it is.

[Chris OCallaghan]

A very poignant piece, but inappropriate to the subject of this
thread. I'd have preferred to read it without the implication that it
described, in part or whole, the cause of the accident at Turf. Let's
let the FAA do its job of finding causes and suggesting corrections.
Meanwhile, we should divorce these tangents from the event by pursuing
them as independent threads.

[Kilo Charlie]

"Terry Claussen" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/182980-1.html
>
> It sound familiar because it is.

You have no clue as to what a disservice this does to the folks at Turf.
They have flown thousands of aerobatic flights without an accident until
this one. It was a midair with a plane going through the middle of the
aerobatic box so has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the article
you referenced therefore is not "familiar". This accident could have
occurred at 5000 feet. Please review the facts prior to posting next time.
And for God's sake think about the families and friends involved before
putting this on a public forum.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

[Terry Claussen]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message news:<22HNb.8888$Xq2.5042@fed1read07>...
Please review the facts prior to posting next time.
> And for God's sake think about the families and friends involved before
> putting this on a public forum.
>
> Casey Lenox
> Phoenix

Mr. Lennox,

The facts are similar and involve the risks accepted by low altitude
aerobatics. I guarantee that risk was not contemplated by the
passenger. The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
actions can do that.

In my 25 years in aviation, I think daily about families and friends.
Friends I have already lost. These accidents should not be swept
under the rug, for if they are then we are all the worse for it. We
should all resolve to make today safer than yesterday.

I have spoken with the author of that piece, it is NOT about Turf, and
it was not my intention to imply that it was. The ultimate result of
these types of accidents are further restrictions on aviation to the
detriment of us all. I hope you will be able to see that, someday.

Respectfully,
Terry Claussen

[Shaber CJ]

> The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
>shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
>actions can do that.

Dear Airmen/Airwomen:

There are no guarantees even when we have procedures in effect (aerobatic box).
That is the lesson to be learned. My heart goes out to the family and friends
of these Airmen, what a tragedy.

I came within 5 feet of an American Airlines MD 80 out of Burbank airport, and
we were both talking to the same controller (at slightly different times so I
did not hear the airline clearance). The controller said "sorry guys my
fault," but that would be of little of little condolence to the 92 souls if we
had hit. Ultimately we can only depend on ourselves. What if you are on a
victor hwy at FL20 and someone busts the Class A airspace in front of you? it
is dangerous business even if we just do it for fun and we must always be
aware.

Craig

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Terry Claussen) wrote:

> The facts are similar...

Hmmm. They parked the van _where?_

[Michael McNulty]

"Terry Claussen" > wrote in message
> The facts are similar and involve the risks accepted by low altitude
> aerobatics. I guarantee that risk was not contemplated by the
> passenger. The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
> shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
> actions can do that.
> Respectfully,
> Terry Claussen

I've been told that the passenger was a REPEAT cutomer for an aerobatic ride
at Turf. I've also been told that the passenger specifically asked for ride
pilot that he got that day. Perhaps he was far more aware of the risks than
you state.

I really, really do appreciate your appearent concern for everyones safety.
I only suggest that you don't put forth your opinions/links/etc. as being
relevant to this accident when I really don't think you know much about the
specifics of what really happened, or the character of those involved. I do
know people who fit the profile of the article you linked to and I did know
the (slightly) the pilot of the glider involved in the subject accident; I
don't think he was anything like what your link describes. To imply this
without any real knowledge is irresponsible, bordering on slanderous, and
cruel.

Mike McNulty

[Jack]

The emotional responses to accidents are even more predictable than the
causes.

I can't remember an instance where the wife of a professional pilot involved
in a tragic accident did not immediately conclude that pilot error could not
possibly have been a factor, because her husband was such a conscientious
professional. Often the facts eventually prove otherwise. Nor have I seen an
instance where members of the public didn't immediately offer explanations
for an accident about which they could not possibly have any direct
knowledge. That too is natural human behavior, unfortunately.

The media, mercenaries who fan emotional sparks for their own purposes, prod
us to jump to conclusions (sometimes with the help of so-called "experts"),
while the real experts, investigators who actually have the responsibility
to find the truth, take many months to publish an official finding.

It's not too much to ask that the family and friends be given plenty of
leeway, and that the rest of us exercise restraint. Those still in shock
from the loss cannot be expected to be objective. The rest of us can
certainly sympathize, and while doing so it might be wise to also give
thanks that we are not in a position to empathize.



Jack

[Flyhighdave]

Jack,
Yours is the most thoughtful response to this thread thus far.
David R.

[Michael McNulty]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> The emotional responses to accidents are even more predictable than the
> causes.
>
> I can't remember an instance where the wife of a professional pilot
involved
> in a tragic accident did not immediately conclude that pilot error could
not
> possibly have been a factor, because her husband was such a conscientious
> professional. Often the facts eventually prove otherwise. Nor have I seen
an
> instance where members of the public didn't immediately offer explanations
> for an accident about which they could not possibly have any direct
> knowledge. That too is natural human behavior, unfortunately.
>
> The media, mercenaries who fan emotional sparks for their own purposes,
prod
> us to jump to conclusions (sometimes with the help of so-called
"experts"),
> while the real experts, investigators who actually have the responsibility
> to find the truth, take many months to publish an official finding.
>
> It's not too much to ask that the family and friends be given plenty of
> leeway, and that the rest of us exercise restraint. Those still in shock
> from the loss cannot be expected to be objective. The rest of us can
> certainly sympathize, and while doing so it might be wise to also give
> thanks that we are not in a position to empathize.
>
>
>
> Jack
>
Amen

[ADP]

While I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiments, I have a slightly
different view of debates surrounding accidents.
Aviation is a unique business and those participating in it have unique
skills.
It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving in
a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible for
their own separation."
"Neither pilot had filed a flight plan."

No one wishes the families of accident victims ill. We all empathize with
their grief.
On the other hand, if we can learn one single thing from ongoing discussion
that will make our flying safer, we ought not stifle such a discussion.
The Airlines learned this many years ago. Within days of an accident or
incident, there is a full disclosure (usually internal) of the events
surrounding the episode.
The hope is that the professional aviator can and will learn from such an
event. Perhaps by questioning his or her own behavior or by imagining what
could have been done differently to avoid the accident, one can become a
safer pilot.

This is not a bad thing and no disrespect to participants or survivors is
intended or implied.

The day we stop learning from the mistakes of others (and ourselves) is the
day we should "hang it up and retire to the rocking chair."

Allan

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> The emotional responses to accidents are even more predictable than the
> causes.
>
> I can't remember an instance where the wife of a professional pilot
involved
> in a tragic accident did not immediately conclude that pilot error could
not
> possibly have been a factor, because her husband was such a conscientious
> professional. Often the facts eventually prove otherwise. Nor have I seen
an
> instance where members of the public didn't immediately offer explanations
> for an accident about which they could not possibly have any direct
> knowledge. That too is natural human behavior, unfortunately.
>
> The media, mercenaries who fan emotional sparks for their own purposes,
prod
> us to jump to conclusions (sometimes with the help of so-called
"experts"),
> while the real experts, investigators who actually have the responsibility
> to find the truth, take many months to publish an official finding.
>
> It's not too much to ask that the family and friends be given plenty of
> leeway, and that the rest of us exercise restraint. Those still in shock
> from the loss cannot be expected to be objective. The rest of us can
> certainly sympathize, and while doing so it might be wise to also give
> thanks that we are not in a position to empathize.
>
>
>
> Jack
>

[Jack]

On 2004/01/17 14:19, in article , "ADP"
> wrote:


> It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving in
> a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible for
> their own separation."


None of us on r.a.s. possesses enough facts yet to even discuss, let alone
predict effectively, WRT the referenced accident. As usual, those who are
talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking. If one is able to
better the record of the NTSB and other professionals with ones Ouija board,
there is always room for another "aviation consultant" on CNN.

The fact that too little is learned from many official reports should be an
indicator of how hard it is to make a useful contribution to the
understanding of an accident, even when one has full time access to all the
data and can approach it in a professional manner. But we can "further
knowledge" by discussing NTSB and other published reports of accidents that
do contain extensive detail. There are enough of them to keep us busy until
we tire of the subject. Of course that's more like work, and doesn't serve
as an emotional release for that part of each of us which wants to play the
crusader.


Jack
[ crusader for restraint and focus ] :>

[ADP]

Dear crusader for restraint and focus,

It seems you may have missed my point.
I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident in question,
other than that it occurred.
While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
share it.
In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable insight has
emerged regarding the genesis of said accident and,
even if there is valuable information, the FAA rarely acts fully on NTSB
recommendations. This is particularly true
of human factor associated accidents.
Perhaps I over generalize - but that is my opinion.

While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
happened?
In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
knows the bounds of the "Acro box"
and that it is published in NOTAMS for visiting pilots?
What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
airport?
I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
expansion of knowledge.

If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
business.

[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
movement.]

Allan


"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004/01/17 14:19, in article , "ADP"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving
in
> > a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible
for
> > their own separation."
>
>
> None of us on r.a.s. possesses enough facts yet to even discuss, let alone
> predict effectively, WRT the referenced accident. As usual, those who are
> talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking. If one is able to
> better the record of the NTSB and other professionals with ones Ouija
board,
> there is always room for another "aviation consultant" on CNN.
>
> The fact that too little is learned from many official reports should be
an
> indicator of how hard it is to make a useful contribution to the
> understanding of an accident, even when one has full time access to all
the
> data and can approach it in a professional manner. But we can "further
> knowledge" by discussing NTSB and other published reports of accidents
that
> do contain extensive detail. There are enough of them to keep us busy
until
> we tire of the subject. Of course that's more like work, and doesn't serve
> as an emotional release for that part of each of us which wants to play
the
> crusader.
>
>
> Jack
> [ crusader for restraint and focus ] :>
>

[Wood Hawk]

(Sandy McAusland) wrote in message >...
> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> any info on this ??

Information is available online from the NTSB site.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040108X00028&key=2

NTSB Identification: ANC04FA016A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 28, 2003 in Peoria, AZ
Aircraft: Piper J3C-65, registration: N2094M
Injuries: 2 Fatal.


NTSB Identification: ANC04FA016B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 28, 2003 in Peoria, AZ
Aircraft: Schleicher ASK-21, registration: N274KS
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On December 28, 2003, about 1312 mountain standard time, a
wheel-equipped Piper J3C-65 airplane, N2094M, and a Schleicher ASK-21
aerobatic glider, N274KS, were destroyed during an in-flight collision
about one-half mile north of the Pleasant Valley Airport, Peoria,
Arizona. The two occupants of the Piper, and the two occupants of the
glider, were fatally injured. The two aircraft collided after the
Piper departed runway 05L at the Pleasant Valley Airport, and turned
southbound, into the area where the glider was performing aerobatic
maneuvers. Witnesses reported that following the collision, both
aircraft entered uncontrolled descents and impacted the desert terrain
north of the airport. The private pilot of the Piper was seated in the
rear seat, and the airplane owner, a commercial pilot and certificated
flight instructor, was seated in the front seat. The Piper was being
operated under Title 14, CFR Part 91, as a local area personal flight.
According to the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) Medical
Records Center, the airplane owner did not possess a current airman's
medical certificate. The Schleicher glider was operated by the Turf
Soaring School, Peoria, under Title 14, CFR Part 91, as an
instructional/demonstration flight. The pilot of the Schleicher
glider, a commercial glider pilot and certificated flight instructor,
was seated in the rear seat, and the sole passenger was seated in the
front seat. The glider departed the Pleasant Valley Airport about
1250. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plans
were filed.

During the on-scene investigation on December 29, witnesses familiar
with both powered airplane and glider operations near the accident
airport, related to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
investigator-in-charge (IIC) that the Piper departed runway 05L,
followed by a climbing left turn, leveling off at pattern altitude, or
about 600 feet agl (above ground level). The witnesses said that the
left turn continued until the airplane was on a southerly heading,
consistent with a left downwind approach for a landing on runway 05L.

Concurrently, the Schleicher glider was performing aerobatic maneuvers
in an area located just to the north of the Pleasant Valley Airport,
within a predetermined area known to local pilots as the "aerobatic
box," which measures 1 kilometer square, and extends from the surface
up to 6,600 feet msl.

Witnesses reported to the NTSB IIC that as the Schleicher glider was
performing a loop, the glider climbed to an altitude of about 800 feet
agl, above the path of the southbound Piper. The witnesses said that
as the Schleicher glider reached the top of the loop, the nose
lowered, eventually pointing straight down. As the glider began to
recover from the maneuver, about 600 feet agl, the left wing of the
oncoming Piper struck the tail of the Schleicher glider between the
empennage and the main fuselage, severing the empennage of the glider.
The witnesses said that during the collision, a large portion of the
left outboard wing of the Piper separated.

[Ramy Yanetz]

Unfortunately we all fly invisible aircrafts.
Maybe one day all aircrafts will be required to use technology which exists
for many years and can eliminate midairs.

Ramy

"Shaber CJ" > wrote in message
...
> > The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
> >shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
> >actions can do that.
>
> Dear Airmen/Airwomen:
>
> There are no guarantees even when we have procedures in effect (aerobatic
box).
> That is the lesson to be learned. My heart goes out to the family and
friends
> of these Airmen, what a tragedy.
>
> I came within 5 feet of an American Airlines MD 80 out of Burbank airport,
and
> we were both talking to the same controller (at slightly different times
so I
> did not hear the airline clearance). The controller said "sorry guys my
> fault," but that would be of little of little condolence to the 92 souls
if we
> had hit. Ultimately we can only depend on ourselves. What if you are on
a
> victor hwy at FL20 and someone busts the Class A airspace in front of you?
it
> is dangerous business even if we just do it for fun and we must always be
> aware.
>
> Craig

[Mark Navarre]

Questions to ponder:
1)What was the K21 doing at the top of a loop at approx 800 feet agl, and where
was it a few seconds before that, and at what speed?
2)What is the official floor of the aerobatic box, NTSB states surface to 6600
msl, this must not be correct: How can the box be in the traffic pattern and
still extend to the surface?
3)see FAR 91.303(e) for aerobatic flight AGL limitations.



-
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
California, USA
-

[Jack]

On 2004/01/17 20:34, in article
, "Ramy Yanetz"
> wrote:

> Unfortunately we all fly invisible aircrafts.
> Maybe one day all aircrafts will be required to use technology which exists
> for many years and can eliminate midairs.

Thinking "invisible" is good.

Tech is, however, just one more trick in your bag. It cannot eliminate
midairs, anymore than ILS has eliminated landing accidents on IMC
approaches. Available technology can assist alert pilots in avoiding
collisions when used properly, and some of it is affordable.

Though I'll install a mode C transponder in my bird and listen up on the
appropriate frequencies, no piece of equipment can give me a decisive
advantage. Preflight planning that helps me know when and where traffic is
most likely to be a threat is necessary. Keeping my eyes outside the
cockpit, and my head on a swivel is essential. Flying a glider with a
standout paint scheme is helpful.

But there will always be days when there are aircraft out there that you
never know about. The best you can do is to work smart and hard to make sure
that those days are few and far between.



Jack

[Jack]

On 2004/01/18 01:08, in article
, "Mark Navarre"
> wrote:


> 2) What is the official floor of the aerobatic box, NTSB states surface to
> 6600 msl....

The boxes are, very unfortunately, not charted -- but they are listed in the
A/FD, along with their exact locations and dimensions.


> How can the box be in the traffic pattern and still extend to the surface?

I think a better question is, "Would you want to fly your traffic pattern
through an existing aerobatic box? I would not.


> 3)see FAR 91.303(e) for aerobatic flight AGL limitations.

Waivers are available from the FAA and are often used to create aerobatic
boxes and aerobatic practice areas outside the restrictions of 91.303(e).

Take a look at the A/FD for the area, and do a Google search on aerobatic
boxes and practice areas, and waivers to 91.303(e). I think there is a lot
which doesn't get mentioned in the training many of us receive. Aerobatic
boxes and practice areas are one category which is often over looked.



Jack

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Shaber CJ > wrote:
>> The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
>>shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
>>actions can do that.
>
>Dear Airmen/Airwomen:
>
>There are no guarantees even when we have procedures in effect (aerobatic box).
> That is the lesson to be learned. My heart goes out to the family and friends
>of these Airmen, what a tragedy.

One of the newspaper articles said the wreckage was within a few
hundred feet of the airport. Is this true? Does this mean the
aerobatic box is within the traffic pattern of the airport?
And it is a private airport?

The NTSB report seemed to indicate that the PIC for each
flight was flying from the rear seat (including the rear seat of
a high-wing Piper Cub). Is this the understanding
of others as well?

Yesterday I flew a glider solo around our local, private
gliderport, and there was a cropduster doing his dusting
very nearby. I lost sight of him a few times, and it got
me more nervous than usual (mostly because of this thread).
I actually had a low level 1 knot thermal at one point,
but came back and landed instead (after a LOT of S-turning).

I fly a high-wing airplane with bad visibility into our
private airport a lot, and we do training (including simulated
airbrakes stuck open) frequently there. As I think about it,
situations similar to this thread happen at my gliderport evey
week. This is really making me think hard...

What a rotten bit of luck...

[Jack]

On 2004/01/17 16:05, in article , "ADP"
> wrote:


> I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident
> in question, other than that it occurred.

Hmmmm....


> While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
> share it.

My frustration with the ability/willingness of human beings to acquire and
use knowledge probably compares to your own, and I appreciate those who make
a sincere effort.


> In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable
> insight has emerged regarding the genesis of said accident....

That has not been my experience, though there are many frustrating examples
of a lack either of significant data or of emphasis on certain information
which was available -- in my opinion.


> While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
> happened?

No, but let's avoid the type of pointed discussion which is little more than
veiled accusation and ignorant speculation concerning the accident in
question, particularly after it has been made clear to the participants here
that there are active r.a.s. members who were personally acquainted with the
victims, and while the psychic wounds are sill fresh. I think that is not
too much to ask of one another.

Now that the NTSB has published a preliminary report, we have something
which can be sifted for reminders of how to improve our own piloting skills
and judgment.


> In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
> knows the bounds of the "Acro box" and that it is published in NOTAMS for
> visiting pilots?

Exactly the sort of thing we should do, and in fact we must encourage every
pilot to be aware of every acrobatic box/area in the airspace in which he
operates. This information is a part of preflight planning and can be found
in the A/FD and updated via NOTAM.

One of my pet annoyances is that radio usage and discipline is frequently
unsatisfactory among users of the sort of airfields where glider operations
are usually found. However, that's no excuse for sailplane pilots not to
participate. Particularly in the older two-seaters used in much training, I
find that radio usage is under emphasized.


> What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
> airport?

The few with which I am familiar are all quite near an airport, though the
airports themselves are very small out-of-the-way fields. That may not be
true elsewhere. I expect that acrobatic pilots can give you reasons why
establishing the box close to the field is a good idea.


> I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
> expansion of knowledge.

True enough, if carried out with some regard for the fact that the members
of r.a.s. in particular and the soaring community in general have closer
connections with one another than some posters may realize.


> If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
> business.

> [Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
> movement.]

Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that nearly
everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being what
they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.



Jack

[ADP]

My point, exactly.

Allan

"> Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that
nearly
> everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
> line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
> soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
> when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being
what
> they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.
>
>
>
> Jack
>

[Bruce]

Not sure it is a better way, but this is how we do this:

We have two pilots who regularly exercise their aerobatic capabilities
in gliders.
We have no aerobatics box.
Power , microlight, autogiros and the occasional helicopter share the
field.

We keep the aerobatics close to the field - for a couple of reasons.
1] It is easy to misjudge energy use or miss changes in conditions,
while engaged in such maneuvers, so it is better to be near a runway.
2] These are higher risk activities, and I would prefer they crash on
the airfield if they are going to - at least we have all the rescue kit
handy...
3] People on the ground can, and (in the case of our club) the launch
marshal is expected to keep a look out. That improves safety by
increasing the chance of people noticing an unsafe situation.
4] Communication is better, the ground station can warn any potential
conflicting traffic.

For safety we have some restrictive rules, that the aerobatics pilots
sometimes resent.
1] No loops / spins / rolls initiated below 2000" agl, chandelles etc
have a bottom altitude of 1000" AGL.
2] Practice finishes and high speed passes are on a "permission basis"
at the discretion of the duty instructor. Any pilot doing an impromptu
aerobatic pull up from his unannounced high speed pass will get a lecture.
3] Any aerobatics flying waits till normal traffic is clear of the
airfield. "Normal" flying has precedence.

Typically we then have "predictable" traffic at circuit height. Lots of
eyes watching the show, and looking out, and decent separation. works
for us so far.



Jack wrote:

> On 2004/01/17 16:05, in article , "ADP"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident
>>in question, other than that it occurred.
>
>
> Hmmmm....
>
>
>
>>While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
>>share it.
>
>
> My frustration with the ability/willingness of human beings to acquire and
> use knowledge probably compares to your own, and I appreciate those who make
> a sincere effort.
>
>
>
>>In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable
>>insight has emerged regarding the genesis of said accident....
>
>
> That has not been my experience, though there are many frustrating examples
> of a lack either of significant data or of emphasis on certain information
> which was available -- in my opinion.
>
>
>
>>While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
>>happened?
>
>
> No, but let's avoid the type of pointed discussion which is little more than
> veiled accusation and ignorant speculation concerning the accident in
> question, particularly after it has been made clear to the participants here
> that there are active r.a.s. members who were personally acquainted with the
> victims, and while the psychic wounds are sill fresh. I think that is not
> too much to ask of one another.
>
> Now that the NTSB has published a preliminary report, we have something
> which can be sifted for reminders of how to improve our own piloting skills
> and judgment.
>
>
>
>>In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
>>knows the bounds of the "Acro box" and that it is published in NOTAMS for
>>visiting pilots?
>
>
> Exactly the sort of thing we should do, and in fact we must encourage every
> pilot to be aware of every acrobatic box/area in the airspace in which he
> operates. This information is a part of preflight planning and can be found
> in the A/FD and updated via NOTAM.
>
> One of my pet annoyances is that radio usage and discipline is frequently
> unsatisfactory among users of the sort of airfields where glider operations
> are usually found. However, that's no excuse for sailplane pilots not to
> participate. Particularly in the older two-seaters used in much training, I
> find that radio usage is under emphasized.
>
>
>
>>What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
>>airport?
>
>
> The few with which I am familiar are all quite near an airport, though the
> airports themselves are very small out-of-the-way fields. That may not be
> true elsewhere. I expect that acrobatic pilots can give you reasons why
> establishing the box close to the field is a good idea.
>
>
>
>>I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
>>expansion of knowledge.
>
>
> True enough, if carried out with some regard for the fact that the members
> of r.a.s. in particular and the soaring community in general have closer
> connections with one another than some posters may realize.
>
>
>
>>If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
>>business.
>
>
>>[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
>>movement.]
>
>
> Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that nearly
> everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
> line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
> soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
> when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being what
> they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.
>
>
>
> Jack
>

[Klein]

On 18 Jan 2004 07:08:36 GMT, (Mark Navarre)
wrote:

>Questions to ponder:
>1)What was the K21 doing at the top of a loop at approx 800 feet agl, and where
>was it a few seconds before that, and at what speed?
>2)What is the official floor of the aerobatic box, NTSB states surface to 6600
>msl, this must not be correct: How can the box be in the traffic pattern and
>still extend to the surface?
>3)see FAR 91.303(e) for aerobatic flight AGL limitations.

Mark,

One can apply for a waiver to many of the paragraphs of 91.303,
including allowing aerobatics down to the surface, over airports,
within airways, etc. Go to the faa website, search for 8700, the
General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook, look in volume 2
chapter 48. It tells all about it.

I have an aerobatic practice box waiver over an airport in Class D
with control tower, light airline traffic, medium bizjet traffic,
gliders, etc. I fly both powered and glider aerobatic aircraft in the
box. Especially for glider aerobatics, you want it right over a
runway. The tower does a good job keeping me separated from other
traffic. The box floor is 500 AGL.

Boxes like that at Turf is not all that uncommon. This is just one
more good reason to read the NOTAMS before you go fly.

Klein

[Andrew]

(Sandy McAusland) wrote in message >...
> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> any info on this ??

Hi,
Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
closest threats. My next goal : run this guy from a small solar cell.
(1.5 watt from a half letter size cell).
Rgds,
Andrew

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Andrew
> writes
(Sandy McAusland) wrote in message news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
>...
>> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
>> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
>> any info on this ??
>
>Hi,
>Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
>(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
>closest threats.

Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?

TIA

--
Mike Lindsay

[bumper]

Have a look at:

http://www.avionix.com/collis.html

for answers to all the questions you asked . . . and more. I also would like
to hear from more uses of TPAS devices. I've been following them with
interest for some years. The earlier ones that didn't report altitude were
not acceptable to me - - the newer units this past year are better, and this
one seems like it might be the best of the lot.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
"Mike Lindsay" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Andrew
> > writes
> (Sandy McAusland) wrote in message
news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
> >...
> >> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> >> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> >> any info on this ??
> >
> >Hi,
> >Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
> >(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
> >closest threats.
>
> Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
> How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?
>
> TIA
>
> --
> Mike Lindsay

[Andrew]

Mike,
The unit is small and light (29 oz)and the L shape fits very well.
The full specification is available from www.proxalert.com
I bought it direct from Proxalert Inc. It comes with free fedex 2 days in the US.
Andrew

"bumper" > wrote in message >...
> Have a look at:
>
> http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
>
> for answers to all the questions you asked . . . and more. I also would like
> to hear from more uses of TPAS devices. I've been following them with
> interest for some years. The earlier ones that didn't report altitude were
> not acceptable to me - - the newer units this past year are better, and this
> one seems like it might be the best of the lot.
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> "Mike Lindsay" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Andrew
> > > writes
> > (Sandy McAusland) wrote in message
> news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
> > >...
> > >> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> > >> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> > >> any info on this ??
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
> > >(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
> > >closest threats.
> >
> > Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
> > How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > --
> > Mike Lindsay

[BHelman]

There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com



Mike Lindsay > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Andrew
> > writes
> (Sandy McAusland) wrote in message news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
> >...
> >> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> >> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> >> any info on this ??
> >
> >Hi,
> >Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
> >(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
> >closest threats.
>
> Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
> How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?
>
> TIA

[BHelman]

There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com



Mike Lindsay > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Andrew
> > writes
> (Sandy McAusland) wrote in message news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
> >...
> >> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> >> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> >> any info on this ??
> >
> >Hi,
> >Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
> >(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
> >closest threats.
>
> Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
> How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?
>
> TIA

[BHelman]

There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com



Mike Lindsay > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Andrew
> > writes
> (Sandy McAusland) wrote in message news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
> >...
> >> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> >> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> >> any info on this ??
> >
> >Hi,
> >Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
> >(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
> >closest threats.
>
> Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
> How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?
>
> TIA

[BHelman]

There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com



Mike Lindsay > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Andrew
> > writes
> (Sandy McAusland) wrote in message news:<e94d757a.0401131448.1
> >...
> >> I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
> >> somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
> >> any info on this ??
> >
> >Hi,
> >Flying with a Proxalert R5 anti collision system since a month.
> >(www.proxalert.com) It works great and provide info about the three
> >closest threats.
>
> Please tell us about this gadget. Where did you get it from?
> How big and heavy is it? does it need a draggy antenna?
>
> TIA

[Tim Ward]

"BHelman" > wrote in message
m...
> There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com

But does it stutter?

Tim Ward

[bumper]

"BHelman" > wrote in message
m...
> There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
>




The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of the small
heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices that only
provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it was an
airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your tail), both
these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and display
their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to limit the
"shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize nuisance
alerts in busy areas.

Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of hundred
more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to 3.6" X
5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base of the
"L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger display
without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is just 1"
compared to the VRX's 2" height.

Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal batteries, so
must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also be
plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10, the VRX
displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not getting ATC
advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of your
presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't know for
sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near Reno,
NV).

The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin (glider),
VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be hooked to
intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each other
(about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries installed.

Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with backlight
off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops). The VRX
is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma listed as
"nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100 ma or
milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.

I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing, "burning
the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get a
visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've also
taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment. I'll fly
with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with the
info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider as soon
as possible, then will post a full review.

The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of months in
the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet yet. One
of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider on their
website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far, the
distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern Avionics
($1495).

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

[BHelman]

The problem with the prox device in my opinion is two-fold. Overall
size is huge, the readouts are tiny, and the screen is cluttered.
Power consumption is little concern for the Vrx if you plug it in.
since the prox unit doesn't take batteries anyway, the Vrx has a clear
advantage. The other problem is their approach of spamming the web
with "3rd party" reviews.

Given their reputation so far, foreign design, and lack of product
experience, I can't think of a good reason to spend the extra $ on the
prox.

The review I have seen from a pilot who flew with the prox has not
been too favorable thus far either.


"bumper" > wrote in message >...
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> > It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of the small
> heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices that only
> provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it was an
> airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your tail), both
> these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and display
> their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to limit the
> "shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize nuisance
> alerts in busy areas.
>
> Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of hundred
> more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to 3.6" X
> 5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
> accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base of the
> "L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger display
> without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is just 1"
> compared to the VRX's 2" height.
>
> Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal batteries, so
> must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also be
> plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10, the VRX
> displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
> aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not getting ATC
> advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of your
> presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't know for
> sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near Reno,
> NV).
>
> The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin (glider),
> VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be hooked to
> intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each other
> (about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries installed.
>
> Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with backlight
> off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops). The VRX
> is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma listed as
> "nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100 ma or
> milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.
>
> I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing, "burning
> the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get a
> visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've also
> taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment. I'll fly
> with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with the
> info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider as soon
> as possible, then will post a full review.
>
> The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of months in
> the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet yet. One
> of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider on their
> website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
> distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far, the
> distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern Avionics
> ($1495).

[Tim Mara]

actually the Surecheck collision avoidance system is very compact and should
be no problem for installation in a glider....it's unfortunately not in a
round instrument mount case, but really takes less space overall than any of
the new transponders and encoders and needs no external antenna.
The newest models also are better and VRX model gives altitude readout of
closing traffic.
IMHO this is a better idea for most glider pilots than a transponder might
be, it doesn't show all traffic, only those approaching with a transponder
on, but a transponder won't show you any and you are dependant on ATC
notifying you and the approaching traffic of your relative positions, it
won't signal an aircraft with TCAS that you are there but many of the close
calls will be with aircraft not equipped with TCAS anyway....the main thing
will always be to be vigilant and look outside, The Surecheck collision
avoidance system can help you to do this....and if you are really concerned
about traffic where you are flying the best thing will be to fly somewhere
else....before you're featured on 20/20 or nightline and we all lose
airspace available to us now...
please look at the Surecheck VR and VRX on my site and links to there site
at http://wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm
tim

"BHelman" > wrote in message
m...
> The problem with the prox device in my opinion is two-fold. Overall
> size is huge, the readouts are tiny, and the screen is cluttered.
> Power consumption is little concern for the Vrx if you plug it in.
> since the prox unit doesn't take batteries anyway, the Vrx has a clear
> advantage. The other problem is their approach of spamming the web
> with "3rd party" reviews.
>
> Given their reputation so far, foreign design, and lack of product
> experience, I can't think of a good reason to spend the extra $ on the
> prox.
>
> The review I have seen from a pilot who flew with the prox has not
> been too favorable thus far either.
>
>
> "bumper" > wrote in message
>...
> > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> > > It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of the
small
> > heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices that
only
> > provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it was
an
> > airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your tail),
both
> > these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and
display
> > their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to limit
the
> > "shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize nuisance
> > alerts in busy areas.
> >
> > Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of
hundred
> > more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to
3.6" X
> > 5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
> > accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base of
the
> > "L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger display
> > without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is just
1"
> > compared to the VRX's 2" height.
> >
> > Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal
batteries, so
> > must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also be
> > plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10, the
VRX
> > displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
> > aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not getting
ATC
> > advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of your
> > presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't know
for
> > sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near
Reno,
> > NV).
> >
> > The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin
(glider),
> > VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be hooked
to
> > intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each other
> > (about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries
installed.
> >
> > Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with
backlight
> > off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops). The
VRX
> > is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma listed as
> > "nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100 ma or
> > milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.
> >
> > I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing,
"burning
> > the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get a
> > visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've also
> > taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment. I'll
fly
> > with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with the
> > info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider as
soon
> > as possible, then will post a full review.
> >
> > The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of
months in
> > the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet yet.
One
> > of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider on
their
> > website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
> > distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far, the
> > distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern Avionics
> > ($1495).

[Marc Ramsey]

Tim Mara wrote:
> IMHO this is a better idea for most glider pilots than a transponder might
> be, it doesn't show all traffic, only those approaching with a transponder
> on, but a transponder won't show you any and you are dependant on ATC
> notifying you and the approaching traffic of your relative positions, it
> won't signal an aircraft with TCAS that you are there but many of the close
> calls will be with aircraft not equipped with TCAS anyway....

Will it work in the large areas of the western US where radar coverage
is spotty or nonexistent, since transponders don't transmit unless
interrogated?

Marc

[Tim Mara]

as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as often
tim

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
> Tim Mara wrote:
> > IMHO this is a better idea for most glider pilots than a transponder
might
> > be, it doesn't show all traffic, only those approaching with a
transponder
> > on, but a transponder won't show you any and you are dependant on ATC
> > notifying you and the approaching traffic of your relative positions, it
> > won't signal an aircraft with TCAS that you are there but many of the
close
> > calls will be with aircraft not equipped with TCAS anyway....
>
> Will it work in the large areas of the western US where radar coverage
> is spotty or nonexistent, since transponders don't transmit unless
> interrogated?
>
> Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Tim Mara wrote:
> as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
> interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as often

I don't believe they transmit at all, unless they receive a radar
signal. Perhaps Eric or others more knowledgeable than I, know...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Tim Mara wrote:
>
>> as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
>> interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as
>> often
>
>
> I don't believe they transmit at all, unless they receive a radar
> signal. Perhaps Eric or others more knowledgeable than I, know...

I've never read that or heard anyone suggest that before, so I really
doubt it. They were designed long before the passive "alerter" units
became available, which are the only instruments I know of that might
benefit from it. Perhaps someone with a TPAS, Surecheck, etc could tell
us if their unit gets a signal from their airplane when it's in the
hangar and the transponder clearly isn't getting hit by radar?

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Tim Mara > wrote:
>as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
>interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as often
>tim

Transponder: transmits as a response? As far as I know, they
only transmit when interrogated (at least the OLD ones did).

[bumper]

Transponders don't transmit unless interrogated, typically by either ground
radar or other aircraft equipped with TCAS.

In areas with no radar coverage, passive devices would be less useful
although TCAS equipped aircraft may interrogate nearby aircraft. Then if
they are in range, either could show up on passive devices. The risk of
collision is greater near airports and in busier areas and these most often
have radar coverage.

bumper




"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> > Tim Mara wrote:
> >
> >> as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
> >> interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as
> >> often
> >
> >
> > I don't believe they transmit at all, unless they receive a radar
> > signal. Perhaps Eric or others more knowledgeable than I, know...
>
> I've never read that or heard anyone suggest that before, so I really
> doubt it. They were designed long before the passive "alerter" units
> became available, which are the only instruments I know of that might
> benefit from it. Perhaps someone with a TPAS, Surecheck, etc could tell
> us if their unit gets a signal from their airplane when it's in the
> hangar and the transponder clearly isn't getting hit by radar?
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[bumper]

Comments inserted between the lines.

"BHelman" > wrote in message
m...
> The problem with the prox device in my opinion is two-fold. Overall
> size is huge,

Hardly. I said the footprints are (5" X 4.65" for the R5 compared to 3.6" X
5.3" for the Vrx) That would be 23.25 sq. inches for what you refer to as
the huge Proxalert R5 compared to 19.08 sq. inches for the Vrx. Seems close
to me. But the real difference is that the Vrx is 2" high while the R5 is
only 1".

>the readouts are tiny, and the screen is cluttered.

I purchased my R5 last week. It's sitting on a table near my chair as I type
this. Display, at more than arm's length, is easy to read and legible (I
wear glasses). At panel distance it is no problem at all for my aging eyes.
The red alert light in nice and bright in sunlight too, but there's no
dimmer function and this might be an annoyance for night flying. Yes,
there's more on the screen than the other units because the R5 displays more
info. But the screen is bigger and it is logically laid out - - I sure
wouldn't call it "cluttered". If you want only the important info, you look
first at the traffic line. There you have the threat info displayed for up
to 3 individual aircraft (there would be three lines it there are 3 threat
aircraft with the closest or one nearest you altitude displayed on the top
line), example:

1200 36 ^ 1.1 enm

translation:

VFR squawk code - 3600 feet - aircraft is climbing (actual climb symbol is
better than what my keyboard has) - distance is 1.1 estimated nautical mile.

> Power consumption is little concern for the Vrx if you plug it in.
> since the prox unit doesn't take batteries anyway, the Vrx has a clear
> advantage.

I have both power aircraft and glider, and will plug my R5 in. True, power
consumption isn't much concern in my Mooney, but it sure is in my glider,
where the R5 clearly has the advantage with it's much lower current draw.
The R5 built in speaker is nice too. It's clear from both the Proxalert
website and from using the unit, that the R5 was designed with glider use
specifically in mind. I asked and was told one of the principals is a glider
pilot.

>The other problem is their approach of spamming the web
> with "3rd party" reviews.

I haven't seen any reviews besides mine, I looked in Google but no joy. If
there are others, please post the URLs. Are you saying my review on RAS is
spamming the web? I have no financial interest in Proxalert, so my review
was not "their approach" or spam.

>
> Given their reputation so far, foreign design, and lack of product
> experience, I can't think of a good reason to spend the extra $ on the
> prox.

Your call. I drive foriegn cars and have a foreign glider because I think
those particular foreign designs are the best available. The Vrx and the R5
are both good products. Choose which ever you want based on features that
are important to you, and of course price if that's the deciding factor. For
some, the extra $200 for the R5 is worth it (was for me) for others it may
not be. As far as product experience goes, I have no idea how much
experience Proxalert has. But I can tell you the R5 I purchased works
flawlessly . . . so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I impress
easily :c).

>
> The review I have seen from a pilot who flew with the prox has not
> been too favorable thus far either.

I haven't seen that review. Please advise where it's posted.

all the best
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

>
>
> "bumper" > wrote in message
>...
> > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> > > It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of the
small
> > heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices that
only
> > provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it was
an
> > airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your tail),
both
> > these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and
display
> > their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to limit
the
> > "shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize nuisance
> > alerts in busy areas.
> >
> > Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of
hundred
> > more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to
3.6" X
> > 5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
> > accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base of
the
> > "L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger display
> > without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is just
1"
> > compared to the VRX's 2" height.
> >
> > Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal
batteries, so
> > must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also be
> > plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10, the
VRX
> > displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
> > aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not getting
ATC
> > advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of your
> > presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't know
for
> > sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near
Reno,
> > NV).
> >
> > The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin
(glider),
> > VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be hooked
to
> > intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each other
> > (about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries
installed.
> >
> > Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with
backlight
> > off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops). The
VRX
> > is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma listed as
> > "nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100 ma or
> > milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.
> >
> > I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing,
"burning
> > the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get a
> > visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've also
> > taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment. I'll
fly
> > with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with the
> > info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider as
soon
> > as possible, then will post a full review.
> >
> > The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of
months in
> > the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet yet.
One
> > of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider on
their
> > website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
> > distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far, the
> > distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern Avionics
> > ($1495).

[BHelman]

"so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I impress
easily :c) "

Of course you are impressed. You make it and sell it.
IP addresses are a pain huh?

I have an idea, how about instead of spamming the message boards, you
send your product to something like Aviation Consumer? If it is that
good let them be your 3rd party, instead of YOU the manufacturer
pretending to be some "amazed customer"






"bumper" > wrote in message >...
> Comments inserted between the lines.
>
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > The problem with the prox device in my opinion is two-fold. Overall
> > size is huge,
>
> Hardly. I said the footprints are (5" X 4.65" for the R5 compared to 3.6" X
> 5.3" for the Vrx) That would be 23.25 sq. inches for what you refer to as
> the huge Proxalert R5 compared to 19.08 sq. inches for the Vrx. Seems close
> to me. But the real difference is that the Vrx is 2" high while the R5 is
> only 1".
>
> >the readouts are tiny, and the screen is cluttered.
>
> I purchased my R5 last week. It's sitting on a table near my chair as I type
> this. Display, at more than arm's length, is easy to read and legible (I
> wear glasses). At panel distance it is no problem at all for my aging eyes.
> The red alert light in nice and bright in sunlight too, but there's no
> dimmer function and this might be an annoyance for night flying. Yes,
> there's more on the screen than the other units because the R5 displays more
> info. But the screen is bigger and it is logically laid out - - I sure
> wouldn't call it "cluttered". If you want only the important info, you look
> first at the traffic line. There you have the threat info displayed for up
> to 3 individual aircraft (there would be three lines it there are 3 threat
> aircraft with the closest or one nearest you altitude displayed on the top
> line), example:
>
> 1200 36 ^ 1.1 enm
>
> translation:
>
> VFR squawk code - 3600 feet - aircraft is climbing (actual climb symbol is
> better than what my keyboard has) - distance is 1.1 estimated nautical mile.
>
> > Power consumption is little concern for the Vrx if you plug it in.
> > since the prox unit doesn't take batteries anyway, the Vrx has a clear
> > advantage.
>
> I have both power aircraft and glider, and will plug my R5 in. True, power
> consumption isn't much concern in my Mooney, but it sure is in my glider,
> where the R5 clearly has the advantage with it's much lower current draw.
> The R5 built in speaker is nice too. It's clear from both the Proxalert
> website and from using the unit, that the R5 was designed with glider use
> specifically in mind. I asked and was told one of the principals is a glider
> pilot.
>
> >The other problem is their approach of spamming the web
> > with "3rd party" reviews.
>
> I haven't seen any reviews besides mine, I looked in Google but no joy. If
> there are others, please post the URLs. Are you saying my review on RAS is
> spamming the web? I have no financial interest in Proxalert, so my review
> was not "their approach" or spam.
>
> >
> > Given their reputation so far, foreign design, and lack of product
> > experience, I can't think of a good reason to spend the extra $ on the
> > prox.
>
> Your call. I drive foriegn cars and have a foreign glider because I think
> those particular foreign designs are the best available. The Vrx and the R5
> are both good products. Choose which ever you want based on features that
> are important to you, and of course price if that's the deciding factor. For
> some, the extra $200 for the R5 is worth it (was for me) for others it may
> not be. As far as product experience goes, I have no idea how much
> experience Proxalert has. But I can tell you the R5 I purchased works
> flawlessly . . . so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I impress
> easily :c).
>
> >
> > The review I have seen from a pilot who flew with the prox has not
> > been too favorable thus far either.
>
> I haven't seen that review. Please advise where it's posted.
>
> all the best
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
>
> >
> >
> > "bumper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> > > > It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of the
> small
> > > heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices that
> only
> > > provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it was
> an
> > > airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your tail),
> both
> > > these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and
> display
> > > their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to limit
> the
> > > "shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize nuisance
> > > alerts in busy areas.
> > >
> > > Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of
> hundred
> > > more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to
> 3.6" X
> > > 5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
> > > accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base of
> the
> > > "L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger display
> > > without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is just
> 1"
> > > compared to the VRX's 2" height.
> > >
> > > Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal
> batteries, so
> > > must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also be
> > > plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10, the
> VRX
> > > displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
> > > aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not getting
> ATC
> > > advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of your
> > > presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't know
> for
> > > sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near
> Reno,
> > > NV).
> > >
> > > The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin
> (glider),
> > > VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be hooked
> to
> > > intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each other
> > > (about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries
> installed.
> > >
> > > Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with
> backlight
> > > off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops). The
> VRX
> > > is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma listed as
> > > "nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100 ma or
> > > milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.
> > >
> > > I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing,
> "burning
> > > the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get a
> > > visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've also
> > > taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment. I'll
> fly
> > > with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with the
> > > info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider as
> soon
> > > as possible, then will post a full review.
> > >
> > > The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of
> months in
> > > the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet yet.
> One
> > > of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider on
> their
> > > website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
> > > distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far, the
> > > distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern Avionics
> > > ($1495).

[Andrew]

Hello,
Mode A and C transponders only transmits when they are interrogated.

Concerning anticol devices; i fly with a Proxalert R5 and this guy is
impressive. It's much more useful than the Surecheck devices. It's the
ONLY device to display SIMULTANEOUSLY up to three threats info
including squawk code

Andrew

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<40287949$1@darkstar>...
> Tim Mara > wrote:
> >as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
> >interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as often
> >tim
>
> Transponder: transmits as a response? As far as I know, they
> only transmit when interrogated (at least the OLD ones did).

[Andrew]

Hi,
Some info. I asked Proxalert in Phoenix and they confirmed their
mother company is US based. The guy there (Rick) told me Proxalert
Chief engineer is an american minded french ...He spent 15 years with
IBM ... The R5 box should be blue :)

I agree with Bumper, this device works great and worths the price
difference.

Andrew

"bumper" > wrote in message >...
> Comments inserted between the lines.
>
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > The problem with the prox device in my opinion is two-fold. Overall
> > size is huge,
>
> Hardly. I said the footprints are (5" X 4.65" for the R5 compared to 3.6" X
> 5.3" for the Vrx) That would be 23.25 sq. inches for what you refer to as
> the huge Proxalert R5 compared to 19.08 sq. inches for the Vrx. Seems close
> to me. But the real difference is that the Vrx is 2" high while the R5 is
> only 1".
>
> >the readouts are tiny, and the screen is cluttered.
>
> I purchased my R5 last week. It's sitting on a table near my chair as I type
> this. Display, at more than arm's length, is easy to read and legible (I
> wear glasses). At panel distance it is no problem at all for my aging eyes.
> The red alert light in nice and bright in sunlight too, but there's no
> dimmer function and this might be an annoyance for night flying. Yes,
> there's more on the screen than the other units because the R5 displays more
> info. But the screen is bigger and it is logically laid out - - I sure
> wouldn't call it "cluttered". If you want only the important info, you look
> first at the traffic line. There you have the threat info displayed for up
> to 3 individual aircraft (there would be three lines it there are 3 threat
> aircraft with the closest or one nearest you altitude displayed on the top
> line), example:
>
> 1200 36 ^ 1.1 enm
>
> translation:
>
> VFR squawk code - 3600 feet - aircraft is climbing (actual climb symbol is
> better than what my keyboard has) - distance is 1.1 estimated nautical mile.
>
> > Power consumption is little concern for the Vrx if you plug it in.
> > since the prox unit doesn't take batteries anyway, the Vrx has a clear
> > advantage.
>
> I have both power aircraft and glider, and will plug my R5 in. True, power
> consumption isn't much concern in my Mooney, but it sure is in my glider,
> where the R5 clearly has the advantage with it's much lower current draw.
> The R5 built in speaker is nice too. It's clear from both the Proxalert
> website and from using the unit, that the R5 was designed with glider use
> specifically in mind. I asked and was told one of the principals is a glider
> pilot.
>
> >The other problem is their approach of spamming the web
> > with "3rd party" reviews.
>
> I haven't seen any reviews besides mine, I looked in Google but no joy. If
> there are others, please post the URLs. Are you saying my review on RAS is
> spamming the web? I have no financial interest in Proxalert, so my review
> was not "their approach" or spam.
>
> >
> > Given their reputation so far, foreign design, and lack of product
> > experience, I can't think of a good reason to spend the extra $ on the
> > prox.
>
> Your call. I drive foriegn cars and have a foreign glider because I think
> those particular foreign designs are the best available. The Vrx and the R5
> are both good products. Choose which ever you want based on features that
> are important to you, and of course price if that's the deciding factor. For
> some, the extra $200 for the R5 is worth it (was for me) for others it may
> not be. As far as product experience goes, I have no idea how much
> experience Proxalert has. But I can tell you the R5 I purchased works
> flawlessly . . . so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I impress
> easily :c).
>
> >
> > The review I have seen from a pilot who flew with the prox has not
> > been too favorable thus far either.
>
> I haven't seen that review. Please advise where it's posted.
>
> all the best
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
>
> >
> >
> > "bumper" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery powered.
> > > > It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of the
> small
> > > heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices that
> only
> > > provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it was
> an
> > > airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your tail),
> both
> > > these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and
> display
> > > their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to limit
> the
> > > "shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize nuisance
> > > alerts in busy areas.
> > >
> > > Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of
> hundred
> > > more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to
> 3.6" X
> > > 5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
> > > accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base of
> the
> > > "L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger display
> > > without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is just
> 1"
> > > compared to the VRX's 2" height.
> > >
> > > Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal
> batteries, so
> > > must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also be
> > > plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10, the
> VRX
> > > displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
> > > aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not getting
> ATC
> > > advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of your
> > > presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't know
> for
> > > sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near
> Reno,
> > > NV).
> > >
> > > The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin
> (glider),
> > > VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be hooked
> to
> > > intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each other
> > > (about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries
> installed.
> > >
> > > Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with
> backlight
> > > off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops). The
> VRX
> > > is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma listed as
> > > "nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100 ma or
> > > milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.
> > >
> > > I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing,
> "burning
> > > the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get a
> > > visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've also
> > > taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment. I'll
> fly
> > > with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with the
> > > info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider as
> soon
> > > as possible, then will post a full review.
> > >
> > > The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of
> months in
> > > the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet yet.
> One
> > > of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider on
> their
> > > website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
> > > distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far, the
> > > distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern Avionics
> > > ($1495).

[bumper]

I have no clue what you are talking about. My name is John Morgan, I own a
home in Minden NV. I am a power and glider pilot.

IP addresses are not a pain at all. My ISP is ATT Worldnet . . . I don't
know who Proxalert uses.

I have no (as in none) affiliation with Proxalert in any way shape or form .
.. . other than having sent them a check for one of their units. The review I
posted was independent, not sponsored by Proxalert, and not reviewed by them
before I posted it.

In your mistaken belief that I am anything other than a pilot and consumer,
it is quite obvious you have not well done your homework. Since the FAA
aviation database is relatively easy to use, have a look under any of the
following N numbers for more info. (The address listed is to my CA based
business, an alarm company.)

50ZZ
52ZZ

I think you owe me an apology sir.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."



"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> "so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I impress
> easily :c) "
>
> Of course you are impressed. You make it and sell it.
> IP addresses are a pain huh?
>
> I have an idea, how about instead of spamming the message boards, you
> send your product to something like Aviation Consumer? If it is that
> good let them be your 3rd party, instead of YOU the manufacturer
> pretending to be some "amazed customer"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "bumper" > wrote in message
>...
> > Comments inserted between the lines.
> >
> > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The problem with the prox device in my opinion is two-fold. Overall
> > > size is huge,
> >
> > Hardly. I said the footprints are (5" X 4.65" for the R5 compared to
3.6" X
> > 5.3" for the Vrx) That would be 23.25 sq. inches for what you refer to
as
> > the huge Proxalert R5 compared to 19.08 sq. inches for the Vrx. Seems
close
> > to me. But the real difference is that the Vrx is 2" high while the R5
is
> > only 1".
> >
> > >the readouts are tiny, and the screen is cluttered.
> >
> > I purchased my R5 last week. It's sitting on a table near my chair as I
type
> > this. Display, at more than arm's length, is easy to read and legible (I
> > wear glasses). At panel distance it is no problem at all for my aging
eyes.
> > The red alert light in nice and bright in sunlight too, but there's no
> > dimmer function and this might be an annoyance for night flying. Yes,
> > there's more on the screen than the other units because the R5 displays
more
> > info. But the screen is bigger and it is logically laid out - - I sure
> > wouldn't call it "cluttered". If you want only the important info, you
look
> > first at the traffic line. There you have the threat info displayed for
up
> > to 3 individual aircraft (there would be three lines it there are 3
threat
> > aircraft with the closest or one nearest you altitude displayed on the
top
> > line), example:
> >
> > 1200 36 ^ 1.1 enm
> >
> > translation:
> >
> > VFR squawk code - 3600 feet - aircraft is climbing (actual climb symbol
is
> > better than what my keyboard has) - distance is 1.1 estimated nautical
mile.
> >
> > > Power consumption is little concern for the Vrx if you plug it in.
> > > since the prox unit doesn't take batteries anyway, the Vrx has a clear
> > > advantage.
> >
> > I have both power aircraft and glider, and will plug my R5 in. True,
power
> > consumption isn't much concern in my Mooney, but it sure is in my
glider,
> > where the R5 clearly has the advantage with it's much lower current
draw.
> > The R5 built in speaker is nice too. It's clear from both the Proxalert
> > website and from using the unit, that the R5 was designed with glider
use
> > specifically in mind. I asked and was told one of the principals is a
glider
> > pilot.
> >
> > >The other problem is their approach of spamming the web
> > > with "3rd party" reviews.
> >
> > I haven't seen any reviews besides mine, I looked in Google but no joy.
If
> > there are others, please post the URLs. Are you saying my review on RAS
is
> > spamming the web? I have no financial interest in Proxalert, so my
review
> > was not "their approach" or spam.
> >
> > >
> > > Given their reputation so far, foreign design, and lack of product
> > > experience, I can't think of a good reason to spend the extra $ on the
> > > prox.
> >
> > Your call. I drive foriegn cars and have a foreign glider because I
think
> > those particular foreign designs are the best available. The Vrx and the
R5
> > are both good products. Choose which ever you want based on features
that
> > are important to you, and of course price if that's the deciding factor.
For
> > some, the extra $200 for the R5 is worth it (was for me) for others it
may
> > not be. As far as product experience goes, I have no idea how much
> > experience Proxalert has. But I can tell you the R5 I purchased works
> > flawlessly . . . so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I
impress
> > easily :c).
> >
> > >
> > > The review I have seen from a pilot who flew with the prox has not
> > > been too favorable thus far either.
> >
> > I haven't seen that review. Please advise where it's posted.
> >
> > all the best
> > --
> > bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> > "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "bumper" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > There is another Tcas that is even smaller and can be battery
powered.
> > > > > It seems to have more favorable reviews. www.surecheckaviation.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Shurecheck TPAS and the Proxalert R5 seem to be at the top of
the
> > small
> > > > heap of these passive devices. Unlike earlier generation devices
that
> > only
> > > > provided approximate range information (and left you guessing if it
was
> > an
> > > > airliner way above you or a chunk of GA aluminum closing on your
tail),
> > both
> > > > these newer units decode the "threat aircraft" transponder reply and
> > display
> > > > their altitude info. Further, they both give you the ability to
limit
> > the
> > > > "shield volume", both in altitude and range, so as to minimize
nuisance
> > > > alerts in busy areas.
> > > >
> > > > Of these two, the R5 has more features, but also costs a couple of
> > hundred
> > > > more. R5 has a bigger footprint than the VRX (5" X 4.65" compared to
> > 3.6" X
> > > > 5.3"), but is less obtrusive when mounted atop an aircraft panel. It
> > > > accomplishes this trick with an "L" shape design that has the base
of
> > the
> > > > "L" dropping down below the panel by about .8" to allow a bigger
display
> > > > without blocking your view. Thus the R5 height above the panel is
just
> > 1"
> > > > compared to the VRX's 2" height.
> > > >
> > > > Some other differences between the two: The R5 has no internal
> > batteries, so
> > > > must be plugged or wired in, the VRX uses AA batteries and can also
be
> > > > plugged in. The R5 displays 3 threat aircraft and tracks up to 10,
the
> > VRX
> > > > displays one. The R5 is the only passive device that displays threat
> > > > aircraft squawk, and from this you can tell if the threat is not
getting
> > ATC
> > > > advisories (SQ 1200), or talking to ATC and hopefully being told of
your
> > > > presence (discrete SQ code), maybe military (I've heard, but don't
know
> > for
> > > > sure, that they may use unique SQ codes), or a glider (SQ 0440 near
> > Reno,
> > > > NV).
> > > >
> > > > The R5 has a built in speaker for audio alerts in a quiet cabin
> > (glider),
> > > > VRX has no internal speaker, only audio in/out jacks so has to be
hooked
> > to
> > > > intercom, headset, etc. Both units weigh within an ounce of each
other
> > > > (about 11 oz), in the case of the VRX, that's without batteries
> > installed.
> > > >
> > > > Power consumption with the R5 is substantially less (100 ma with
> > backlight
> > > > off, 140 ma with the light on - - light not needed for daytime ops).
The
> > VRX
> > > > is a bit more thirsty, (claiming 175 ma to 400 ma, with 350 ma
listed as
> > > > "nominal" in the user manual). For those not into such things, 100
ma or
> > > > milliamps is 1/10 of an amp.
> > > >
> > > > I got my R5 four days ago and so far have only done ground testing,
> > "burning
> > > > the unit in" for much of this time, I jump up and run outside to get
a
> > > > visual when it "alerts" - - so far the accuracy is impressive. I've
also
> > > > taken it to the airport to see how it does in a busy environment.
I'll
> > fly
> > > > with the R5 in my Mooney early next week and compare its alerts with
the
> > > > info I get from NorCal approach . I'll also fly with it in my glider
as
> > soon
> > > > as possible, then will post a full review.
> > > >
> > > > The R5 is relatively new, being available now for only a couple of
> > months in
> > > > the US - - that's why you won't find many comparos on the internet
yet.
> > One
> > > > of the French developers must be a glider pilot as there's a glider
on
> > their
> > > > website and the text specifically refers to ops in a glider. The US
> > > > distributor is Proxalert in Phoenix, AZ phone 602 992-3120. So far,
the
> > > > distributor's price ($1295) is less that advertised by Eastern
Avionics
> > > > ($1495).

[bumper]

Oh yeah!!? I bet you work for Proxalert don't you? Well, 'fess up!

(no offense, Andrew, I'm just kidding :c)
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
"Andrew" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
> Mode A and C transponders only transmits when they are interrogated.
>
> Concerning anticol devices; i fly with a Proxalert R5 and this guy is
> impressive. It's much more useful than the Surecheck devices. It's the
> ONLY device to display SIMULTANEOUSLY up to three threats info
> including squawk code
>
> Andrew
>
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:<40287949$1@darkstar>...
> > Tim Mara > wrote:
> > >as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
> > >interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as
often
> > >tim
> >
> > Transponder: transmits as a response? As far as I know, they
> > only transmit when interrogated (at least the OLD ones did).

[Eric Greenwell]

BHelman wrote:
> "so far and I'm very impressed (but I've been told I impress
> easily :c) "
>
> Of course you are impressed. You make it and sell it.
> IP addresses are a pain huh?
>
> I have an idea, how about instead of spamming the message boards, you
> send your product to something like Aviation Consumer? If it is that
> good let them be your 3rd party, instead of YOU the manufacturer
> pretending to be some "amazed customer"

Now, now, let's not jump to conclusions. "Bumper" is John Morgan, a real
guy, who has posted here for couple of years. Do a search - he's posted
on many subjects besides Proxalert. Gosh, I've been to his house and
looked at his glider! I'm a real person, too, which you can check
numerous ways, and have posted here for years. Do your homework before
accusing people of nefarious schemes.

Hey, maybe YOU work for Proxalert, and are just trying to keep the buzz
going! Oops, there I go again.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (BHelman) wrote:

> Of course you are impressed. You make it and sell it.
> IP addresses are a pain huh?
>
> I have an idea, how about instead of spamming the message boards, you
> send your product to something like Aviation Consumer? If it is that
> good let them be your 3rd party, instead of YOU the manufacturer
> pretending to be some "amazed customer"

Er, um, what?

I think you're right, that there is a poster in this thread who is
posting to RAS from the same domain as some of the Proxalert Web site
images are hosted from. That's pretty clear from the IP addresses.

However, I believe that you've missed your target by a smidgen or so
in pointing your finger at John Morgan. If you want to pursue this,
I'd respectfully suggest you back up and try again.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[BHelman]

The proxalert has been spamming every message board with their phoney reviews.

is the same guy who makes it.

It is getting really old.


"bumper" > wrote in message >...
> Oh yeah!!? I bet you work for Proxalert don't you? Well, 'fess up!
>
> (no offense, Andrew, I'm just kidding :c)
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> "Andrew" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hello,
> > Mode A and C transponders only transmits when they are interrogated.
> >
> > Concerning anticol devices; i fly with a Proxalert R5 and this guy is
> > impressive. It's much more useful than the Surecheck devices. It's the
> > ONLY device to display SIMULTANEOUSLY up to three threats info
> > including squawk code
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
> news:<40287949$1@darkstar>...
> > > Tim Mara > wrote:
> > > >as far as I know transponders do transmit even when not being
> > > >interogated.they just don't reply with as strong a signal and not as
> often
> > > >tim
> > >
> > > Transponder: transmits as a response? As far as I know, they
> > > only transmit when interrogated (at least the OLD ones did).

[BHelman]

I am just sick of spammers

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message >...
> Earlier, (BHelman) wrote:
>
> > Of course you are impressed. You make it and sell it.
> > IP addresses are a pain huh?
> >
> > I have an idea, how about instead of spamming the message boards, you
> > send your product to something like Aviation Consumer? If it is that
> > good let them be your 3rd party, instead of YOU the manufacturer
> > pretending to be some "amazed customer"
>
> Er, um, what?
>
> I think you're right, that there is a poster in this thread who is
> posting to RAS from the same domain as some of the Proxalert Web site
> images are hosted from. That's pretty clear from the IP addresses.
>
> However, I believe that you've missed your target by a smidgen or so
> in pointing your finger at John Morgan. If you want to pursue this,
> I'd respectfully suggest you back up and try again.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com