New MOAs proposed near Marine Corp base and Mt Patterson

[Ramy[_2_]]

From AOPA: New MOAs proposed in areas we use heavily during the soaring season.
The high area extends from 13500 to 18000 from the Sierra crest out east past Mt Patterson.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/october/02/comments-urged-on-california-airspace-proposal?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email

Deadline for comments October 18.

[jfitch]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> From AOPA: New MOAs proposed in areas we use heavily during the soaring season.
> The high area extends from 13500 to 18000 from the Sierra crest out east past Mt Patterson.
>
> https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/october/02/comments-urged-on-california-airspace-proposal?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email
>
> Deadline for comments October 18.

I sent a comment - I encourage anyone who soars out of Truckee, Minden, or Air Sailing (or ever wants to) to do the same. The high area will be particularly bad.

[[email protected]]

Posted a reply to AOPA and FAA with a link to my flights over the proposed MOA.
https://share.garmin.com/JamesLee4

[5Z]

What's the big deal? Every flight I make from my home airport at Inyokern (except a pattern tow :-) is in a MOA. There are no rules to keep me out, but I do need to be more aware for military traffic.
The proposed MOA is to enclose airspace that is already being used for military exercises. Looks like they just want to make it more obvious to VFR pilots and to protect IFR flights by providing an official tool for routing them around the airspace when it's active.
Read the AIM. This will not affect soaring in that area.

3-4-5 Military Operations Areas
a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used, nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic.
b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics, formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.303(c) and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight within Class D and Class E surface areas, and within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated airspeeds in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL within active MOAs.
c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real�time information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories.
d. Permanent MOAs are charted on Sectional Aeronautical, VFR Terminal Area, and the appropriate En Route Low Altitude charts.

[2G]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:20:53 PM UTC-7, 5Z wrote:
> What's the big deal? Every flight I make from my home airport at Inyokern (except a pattern tow :-) is in a MOA. There are no rules to keep me out, but I do need to be more aware for military traffic.
> The proposed MOA is to enclose airspace that is already being used for military exercises. Looks like they just want to make it more obvious to VFR pilots and to protect IFR flights by providing an official tool for routing them around the airspace when it's active.
> Read the AIM. This will not affect soaring in that area.
>
> 3-4-5 Military Operations Areas
> a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used, nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic.
> b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics, formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.303(c) and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight within Class D and Class E surface areas, and within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated airspeeds in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL within active MOAs.
> c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real�time information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories.
> d. Permanent MOAs are charted on Sectional Aeronautical, VFR Terminal Area, and the appropriate En Route Low Altitude charts.

I'm with you - the military can operate almost anywhere at anytime, governed by the same airspace rules that we must follow. In Washington low altitude flights are made out of Whidbey Island to the Boardman Bombing Range, which takes them over the Cascade Mountains, down the Columbia River and up and over several ridges. High altitude flights descending to ground level are down out of McCord involving C-17s (with only a 3 man crew). And there IS NO MOA. I fly out of Ely during the summer with MOAs nearby - this summer I noticed one pair of fighters. What is more troubling is that these fighters were not using transponders or ADS-B; part of their training, I assume.

Tom

[Ramy[_2_]]

That last part is what concerns me the most, if military aircrafts indeed not using transponders or ADS-B nor receiving alerts from our transponders/ADS-B (direct or indirect via ATC) than this is an accident waiting to happen. There is no way they can see us in time to avoid us, and no way we can react fast enough to avoid them.
At the minimum we can do our part to educate them about our presence.

Ramy

[Mike N.]

I believe that military aircraft while flying without ADS-B out, for simulated intercepts for example. They would very likely be flying with ADS-B in to display targets.

I have no proof of the above, just kind of makes sense.

[JS[_5_]]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:46:19 AM UTC-7, Mike N. wrote:
> I believe that military aircraft while flying without ADS-B out, for simulated intercepts for example. They would very likely be flying with ADS-B in to display targets.
>
> I have no proof of the above, just kind of makes sense.

It's ALWAYS good to comment on new airspace proposals.

My last glider flight was over 90% inside 3 MOAs. This is quite normal.
It's fun flying in MOAs. Once engaged an F-16, with him off my nose hit the PTT: "guns, guns, guns, I just shot down a fighter" and had the F-16 pilot reply he was reaching for the eject handle.
An A-6 pilot managed to sneak up on me in the Champ, came from the left wing blind spot and roared accross in front of me. All I could think was "YOU *******!".
Learned too, that F-111s roll inverted and pull to go over a ridgeline.
Fortunately we have Joshua Approach, which does a very good job with traffic awareness. Monitoring their freqs, you hear aircraft being informed about gliders "maneuvering". We must look to them as if we're drunk and can't hold a heading or speed.
Still have no desire to install ADS-B.
Jim

[Dan Marotta]

It's ever so much more comfortable to roll and pull rather than to push
over and dangle in the straps.Â* But you need a pretty decent roll rate
to avoid clogging the pitot tube with dirt.

On 10/6/2019 9:55 AM, JS wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:46:19 AM UTC-7, Mike N. wrote:
>> I believe that military aircraft while flying without ADS-B out, for simulated intercepts for example. They would very likely be flying with ADS-B in to display targets.
>>
>> I have no proof of the above, just kind of makes sense.
> It's ALWAYS good to comment on new airspace proposals.
>
> My last glider flight was over 90% inside 3 MOAs. This is quite normal.
> It's fun flying in MOAs. Once engaged an F-16, with him off my nose hit the PTT: "guns, guns, guns, I just shot down a fighter" and had the F-16 pilot reply he was reaching for the eject handle.
> An A-6 pilot managed to sneak up on me in the Champ, came from the left wing blind spot and roared accross in front of me. All I could think was "YOU *******!".
> Learned too, that F-111s roll inverted and pull to go over a ridgeline.
> Fortunately we have Joshua Approach, which does a very good job with traffic awareness. Monitoring their freqs, you hear aircraft being informed about gliders "maneuvering". We must look to them as if we're drunk and can't hold a heading or speed.
> Still have no desire to install ADS-B.
> Jim

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:46:19 AM UTC-7, Mike N. wrote:
> I believe that military aircraft while flying without ADS-B out, for simulated intercepts for example. They would very likely be flying with ADS-B in to display targets.
>
> I have no proof of the above, just kind of makes sense.

Why would you *assume* anything? Especially things that affect safety.

Lets start with how many US marine or other military aircraft flying in this MOA might be equipped with ADS-B In at all? That list is likely to be pretty short, maybe very short: I am not aware of *any* military aircraft that are ADS-B In equipped. They might exist, might be planned for but I'm not aware of any and have not seen any equipage plans for that amongst the considerable discussion of military ADS-B Out equipage. If anybody has any more information I'd love to hear it.

Avionics systems in military aircraft, airliners and corporate jets etc. are very complex and highly integrated. You can't just plug in an ADS-B In or Out system. Integrating ADS-B In with the tactical radar and IFF systems in military fighter aircraft is likely to be very complex, the latest (Block III) Super Hornets as an example (since the FA-18 was mentioned as operating in this MOA) don't include ADS-B In AFAIK. It may be less complex to integrate 1090ES In for military aircraft equipped with civilian derived TCAS II like some military transports.

BTW by means of an example, very few airliners that have 1090ES Out also have 1090ES In or UAT In. I'm watching the capability codes being transmitted by 1090ES Out equipped airline traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area (those codes describe their ADS-B In capability), almost none of the 1090ES Out equipped airliners have ADS-B In... but they all have TCAS, which will see and help avoid transponder equipped aircraft.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> From AOPA: New MOAs proposed in areas we use heavily during the soaring season.
> The high area extends from 13500 to 18000 from the Sierra crest out east past Mt Patterson.
>
> https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/october/02/comments-urged-on-california-airspace-proposal?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email
>
> Deadline for comments October 18.

This area is a bit of an FAA radar coverage black hole. Looking at the FAA Google Earth ADS-B and radar/SSR coverage map (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/research/airspace) there are significant radar coverage gaps up until somewhere between 5,000' and 10,000' AGL (not MSL). FAA radar coverage in that area is likely the approach radar at Reno airport, and the area radar out of Mount Tam/Mill Valley way on the other side of California, the FAA may still tie into the Fallon NAS radar... and if so the implication of less than great coverage in that area may be concerning... it may mean that military controllers don't have great radar coverage either.

I'd hope PASCO and/or the pilot organizations out of Minden, Truckee etc. would be able to track down what military control facility is responsible for watching this airspace, and what radar/SSR coverage they actually have. Is that Fallon RATCF, even if they don't have "control" over it are they watching for MOA activity? That seems pretty useful to understand in making an informed response.

One other question is what are/will be the actual operations procedures for transponder and/or ADS-B Out equipped military aircraft. I would not just assume they will necessarily turn off that equipment, and one good ask may be that they don't, that would be something great to ask folks and to explain that many gliders flying in that area are equipped with 1090ES In via PowerFLARM.

---

I'll be talking about ADS-B and Flarm at the PASCO annual meeting on the November 9th. Happy to help out then or otherwise with any of the more technical radar or ADS-B stuff that might help here.

I doubt anybody has much chance of changing the proposed MOA designation, the USMC has to support/use the current mountain training facilities there. It may be more useful to focus on collaboration and joint education with the military.

[2G]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:43:03 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:46:19 AM UTC-7, Mike N. wrote:
> > I believe that military aircraft while flying without ADS-B out, for simulated intercepts for example. They would very likely be flying with ADS-B in to display targets.
> >
> > I have no proof of the above, just kind of makes sense.
>
> Why would you *assume* anything? Especially things that affect safety.
>
> Lets start with how many US marine or other military aircraft flying in this MOA might be equipped with ADS-B In at all? That list is likely to be pretty short, maybe very short: I am not aware of *any* military aircraft that are ADS-B In equipped. They might exist, might be planned for but I'm not aware of any and have not seen any equipage plans for that amongst the considerable discussion of military ADS-B Out equipage. If anybody has any more information I'd love to hear it.
>
> Avionics systems in military aircraft, airliners and corporate jets etc. are very complex and highly integrated. You can't just plug in an ADS-B In or Out system. Integrating ADS-B In with the tactical radar and IFF systems in military fighter aircraft is likely to be very complex, the latest (Block III) Super Hornets as an example (since the FA-18 was mentioned as operating in this MOA) don't include ADS-B In AFAIK. It may be less complex to integrate 1090ES In for military aircraft equipped with civilian derived TCAS II like some military transports.
>
> BTW by means of an example, very few airliners that have 1090ES Out also have 1090ES In or UAT In. I'm watching the capability codes being transmitted by 1090ES Out equipped airline traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area (those codes describe their ADS-B In capability), almost none of the 1090ES Out equipped airliners have ADS-B In... but they all have TCAS, which will see and help avoid transponder equipped aircraft.

I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.

The most danger comes with planes flying at very low altitudes like crop dusters. This puts them right in the line of fire of fighters doing low altitude training. There has been a mid-air between a crop duster and an A6 (the crop duster pilot survived - barely). One fmr military pilot recently told me he did 200 ft recon flights in a Mohawk while IFR - that's right, IFR.

Tom

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
[snip]
> I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
>

That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.

14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or

....As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.

And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says

[Dan Marotta]

It's been a very long time, but in my day it was routine to "strangle
parrot" or squawk standby to make it more difficult for GCI (Ground
Controlled Intercept) controllers to find the "bad guy" and vector the
interceptors to target.Â* I don't think it would be any different today.Â*
Do you really think the bad guys will be squawking and running their
ADS-B transmitters during a fight?Â* That wouldn't make for very good
training.

On 10/6/2019 5:57 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> From AOPA: New MOAs proposed in areas we use heavily during the soaring season.
>> The high area extends from 13500 to 18000 from the Sierra crest out east past Mt Patterson.
>>
>> https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/october/02/comments-urged-on-california-airspace-proposal?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email
>>
>> Deadline for comments October 18.
> This area is a bit of an FAA radar coverage black hole. Looking at the FAA Google Earth ADS-B and radar/SSR coverage map (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/research/airspace) there are significant radar coverage gaps up until somewhere between 5,000' and 10,000' AGL (not MSL). FAA radar coverage in that area is likely the approach radar at Reno airport, and the area radar out of Mount Tam/Mill Valley way on the other side of California, the FAA may still tie into the Fallon NAS radar... and if so the implication of less than great coverage in that area may be concerning... it may mean that military controllers don't have great radar coverage either.
>
> I'd hope PASCO and/or the pilot organizations out of Minden, Truckee etc. would be able to track down what military control facility is responsible for watching this airspace, and what radar/SSR coverage they actually have. Is that Fallon RATCF, even if they don't have "control" over it are they watching for MOA activity? That seems pretty useful to understand in making an informed response.
>
> One other question is what are/will be the actual operations procedures for transponder and/or ADS-B Out equipped military aircraft. I would not just assume they will necessarily turn off that equipment, and one good ask may be that they don't, that would be something great to ask folks and to explain that many gliders flying in that area are equipped with 1090ES In via PowerFLARM.
>
> ---
>
> I'll be talking about ADS-B and Flarm at the PASCO annual meeting on the November 9th. Happy to help out then or otherwise with any of the more technical radar or ADS-B stuff that might help here.
>
> I doubt anybody has much chance of changing the proposed MOA designation, the USMC has to support/use the current mountain training facilities there. It may be more useful to focus on collaboration and joint education with the military.
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[jfitch]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:43:03 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:46:19 AM UTC-7, Mike N. wrote:
> > > I believe that military aircraft while flying without ADS-B out, for simulated intercepts for example. They would very likely be flying with ADS-B in to display targets.
> > >
> > > I have no proof of the above, just kind of makes sense.
> >
> > Why would you *assume* anything? Especially things that affect safety.
> >
> > Lets start with how many US marine or other military aircraft flying in this MOA might be equipped with ADS-B In at all? That list is likely to be pretty short, maybe very short: I am not aware of *any* military aircraft that are ADS-B In equipped. They might exist, might be planned for but I'm not aware of any and have not seen any equipage plans for that amongst the considerable discussion of military ADS-B Out equipage. If anybody has any more information I'd love to hear it.
> >
> > Avionics systems in military aircraft, airliners and corporate jets etc.. are very complex and highly integrated. You can't just plug in an ADS-B In or Out system. Integrating ADS-B In with the tactical radar and IFF systems in military fighter aircraft is likely to be very complex, the latest (Block III) Super Hornets as an example (since the FA-18 was mentioned as operating in this MOA) don't include ADS-B In AFAIK. It may be less complex to integrate 1090ES In for military aircraft equipped with civilian derived TCAS II like some military transports.
> >
> > BTW by means of an example, very few airliners that have 1090ES Out also have 1090ES In or UAT In. I'm watching the capability codes being transmitted by 1090ES Out equipped airline traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area (those codes describe their ADS-B In capability), almost none of the 1090ES Out equipped airliners have ADS-B In... but they all have TCAS, which will see and help avoid transponder equipped aircraft.
>
> I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
>
> The most danger comes with planes flying at very low altitudes like crop dusters. This puts them right in the line of fire of fighters doing low altitude training. There has been a mid-air between a crop duster and an A6 (the crop duster pilot survived - barely). One fmr military pilot recently told me he did 200 ft recon flights in a Mohawk while IFR - that's right, IFR..
>
> Tom

According to this story, only about 20% of the military inventory will have ADS-B by the 2020 deadline. So while it may be required, the requirement has not been met:

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says/

They expect only 35% of fighters to be so equipped by 2025. Also, they are allowed by the FAA to turn it off if they deem it desirable. So you have a 1 in 5 chance (or less) of seeing these aircraft on your ADS-B in display.

If they can already fly there any way and anytime they want, why new need for the MOA? I assume is it due to a planned step up of operations.

A lot of comments from glider pilots would at the least alert them to the amount of glider traffic in the area, which I suspect they are today oblivious.

[2G]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> [snip]
> > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> >
>
> That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
>
> 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>
> ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
>
> And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says

You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:

(f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -

(1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or

(2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.

So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment.. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
The statement WAS CORRECT!

[Darryl Ramm]

Oh bull****. You said something that was dead wrong.

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> > >
> >
> > That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
> >
> > 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> >
> > ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
> >
> > And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
>
> You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
>
> (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
>
> (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>
> (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
>
> So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> The statement WAS CORRECT!

[2G]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:57:52 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Oh bull****. You said something that was dead wrong.
>
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
> > >
> > > 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> > >
> > > ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
> > >
> > > And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
> >
> > You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
> >
> > (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
> >
> > (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> >
> > (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
> >
> > So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> > The statement WAS CORRECT!

Oh, bull**** yourself! Read the FAR before commenting!!

[jfitch]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> > >
> >
> > That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
> >
> > 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> >
> > ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
> >
> > And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
>
> You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
>
> (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
>
> (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>
> (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
>
> So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> The statement WAS CORRECT!

I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:29:06 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
> > >
> > > 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> > >
> > > ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
> > >
> > > And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
> >
> > You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
> >
> > (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
> >
> > (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> >
> > (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
> >
> > So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> > The statement WAS CORRECT!
>
> I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?

You of all people should know that. "reality distortion field".

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:57:45 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:29:06 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
> > > >
> > > > 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> > > >
> > > > ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
> > > >
> > > > And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
> > >
> > > You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
> > >
> > > (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
> > >
> > > (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> > >
> > > (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
> > >
> > > So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> > > The statement WAS CORRECT!
> >
> > I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?
>
> You of all people should know that. "reality distortion field".

Jonathan, that's where the Everettian "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics makes it's powerful contribution. There will most definitely be worlds where all military aircraft transmit ADS-B all the time.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

>They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says

So, if I read this article correctly, 2/3 of fighters aren't scheduled to get ADS-B Out until after 2025. Therefore, I should not assume I'm going to see on my traffic display much of the type of traffic you'd expect to have in a MOA for quite some time. Even thereafter many military aircraft may be flying with ADS-B turned off under exemption since (one might speculate) the typical combat avionics settings wouldn't broadcast GPS locations for the bad guys to track.

Any word on what military drones flying in MOAs will be equipped with?

Andy Blackburn
9B

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
>
> So, if I read this article correctly, 2/3 of fighters aren't scheduled to get ADS-B Out until after 2025. Therefore, I should not assume I'm going to see on my traffic display much of the type of traffic you'd expect to have in a MOA for quite some time. Even thereafter many military aircraft may be flying with ADS-B turned off under exemption since (one might speculate) the typical combat avionics settings wouldn't broadcast GPS locations for the bad guys to track.
>
> Any word on what military drones flying in MOAs will be equipped with?
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

I don't think I've ever seen a military aircraft on my traffic display. Whether because they don't have the equipment, or it was turned off I don't know. On the other hand, I never see a Southwest 737 either - according to news stories only their 14 737 MAXs are ADS-B equipped, and those are on the ground. The difference is Southwest is controlled traffic and the stuff zipping around an MOA isn't.

We've often said that we (sailplanes) are only one mid-air away from required transponders. We are similarly one mid-air away from these MOAs becoming restricted airspace.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 10:49:10 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > >They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
> >
> > So, if I read this article correctly, 2/3 of fighters aren't scheduled to get ADS-B Out until after 2025. Therefore, I should not assume I'm going to see on my traffic display much of the type of traffic you'd expect to have in a MOA for quite some time. Even thereafter many military aircraft may be flying with ADS-B turned off under exemption since (one might speculate) the typical combat avionics settings wouldn't broadcast GPS locations for the bad guys to track.
> >
> > Any word on what military drones flying in MOAs will be equipped with?
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a military aircraft on my traffic display. Whether because they don't have the equipment, or it was turned off I don't know. On the other hand, I never see a Southwest 737 either - according to news stories only their 14 737 MAXs are ADS-B equipped, and those are on the ground. The difference is Southwest is controlled traffic and the stuff zipping around an MOA isn't.
>
> We've often said that we (sailplanes) are only one mid-air away from required transponders. We are similarly one mid-air away from these MOAs becoming restricted airspace.

For a pre-flight start I check.....https://sua.faa.gov/sua/siteFrame.app..... then call and check as to where we fly has moas and restricted airspace.

Here's a good read.....https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15313/how-can-civil-atc-maintain-safety-with-military-aircraft-around

But here's a brief copy.....

Military aircraft do have transponders that can reply to civil ATC radar and TCAS interrogations. Normally military aircraft operating in civil airspace are visible to civilian ATC and also will trigger TCAS advisories and alerts if they are getting close to airliners.

During wartime operations, and sometimes during combat practice in dedicated airspace, the transponder is operated in a different mode and will not be replying to civil radar interrogations.

Typically when operating in civil airspace, military aircraft will fly under the civil regulations for that airspace. Training flights are usually conducted in dedicated airspace under military traffic control.

In some cases, the military ATC assumes responsibility over military aircraft in otherwise civil ATC controlled airspace. In such a case the military ATC will be responsible for the separation between the military aircraft themselves and between military and civilian aircraft.

In other cases, military aircraft may be allowed to maintain their separation from each other on their own, without civil ATC interfering in their operations. This allows for operations where military aircraft flying close to each other like formation flying and aerial refueling outside the dedicated military airspace. In the USA these operations are called MARSA (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft). Civil ATC is responsible for keeping Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft separated from MARSA operations. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) pilots have to maintain separation visually from MARSA flights and vice-versa. If VFR pilots are in contact with ATC they will be advised of ongoing military operations.

Thier's more so that's why for the link.

Best. Tom #711.

[Darryl Ramm]

I suspect that information on only Southwest 737 Max having ADS-B Out may be out of date. Southwest announced a program a couple of years ago to equip (part of?) their 737-NG fleet with ADS-B Out. They made points how they were struggling with previous non-availability of suitable approved/integrated components, .. and I also suspect cost. I have no idea how far that program has moved. I do see some Southwest 737 flying around on Flightaware right now with the source showing as to "Flightaware ADS-B" (not say a FAA facility name, or not "Flightaware MLAT"--which would usually indicate a transponder only target). I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B receiver in the Bay Area.

Ah the irony that the ADS-B Out effort, the foundation of the FAA Nextgen program, largely designed to benefit the airlines, has airlines struggling to try to equip ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are you seeing other 1090ES Out equipped traffic including airliners reliably? Should be able to see them at ~40+ NM on a PowerFLARM if not it would be good to check out what is going on.

---

As for what equipment drones are carrying, I think it's important not to guess. Do we have and idea if drones will be operating much in this MOA -- they were not mentioned at all in what seemed a detailed list of other aircraft. But OTOH I would be disappointed from a training viewpoint if the marines say don't sometimes utilize the 16' wingspan Blackjack drones in training there. Being able to operate those in mountainous regions seems pretty important.

Again I'd hope that it organizations are commenting on this MOA, that they try to find out what surveillance and collision avoidance technology and practices the military intend to use. USN bases like Fallon don't seem to have the same high-external visibility MACA (mid-air collision avoidance) programs that USAF bases have. The USAF MACA contacts I've spoken with have all been pretty responsive, may be good to find the equivalent at Fallon if it exists.


On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 9:49:10 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > >They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
> >
> > So, if I read this article correctly, 2/3 of fighters aren't scheduled to get ADS-B Out until after 2025. Therefore, I should not assume I'm going to see on my traffic display much of the type of traffic you'd expect to have in a MOA for quite some time. Even thereafter many military aircraft may be flying with ADS-B turned off under exemption since (one might speculate) the typical combat avionics settings wouldn't broadcast GPS locations for the bad guys to track.
> >
> > Any word on what military drones flying in MOAs will be equipped with?
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a military aircraft on my traffic display. Whether because they don't have the equipment, or it was turned off I don't know. On the other hand, I never see a Southwest 737 either - according to news stories only their 14 737 MAXs are ADS-B equipped, and those are on the ground. The difference is Southwest is controlled traffic and the stuff zipping around an MOA isn't.
>
> We've often said that we (sailplanes) are only one mid-air away from required transponders. We are similarly one mid-air away from these MOAs becoming restricted airspace.

[[email protected]]

> I don't think I've ever seen a military aircraft on my traffic display.

Mostly agree, including this summer right over Swee****er with 2 F-18s southbound. Have never seen them there before but they did not register as either xpndr or ADSB. The only time I ever saw military fighter register with xpndr was an F-15 with amazingly high closure rate over Lake Tahoe. Likely out of Klamath. It was weird to see the distance in nautical miles decrease at such a rate. There was also a drone near Amadee once cruising at 18k. It seemed to have a xpndr but was much slower. This year various SW airline 737s registered on my ADSB so they seem to be getting equipped.
Darren

[2G]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:29:06 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
> > >
> > > 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> > >
> > > ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
> > >
> > > And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
> >
> > You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
> >
> > (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
> >
> > (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
> >
> > (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
> >
> > So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> > The statement WAS CORRECT!
>
> I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?

Any aircraft, military or not, WILL have to have ADS-B out installed to fly in rule airspace on Jan 1, and I presume this covers most military aircraft. And the equipment must be operating UNLESS they fall into a very narrow mission exception.

I am curious as to how you know that "the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?" Are you referring to just military aircraft or all aircraft?

[[email protected]]

I suggest contacting Joshua ATC Control at Edwards AFB. They have been and still are a valuable resource for high altitude wave flights in the Sierra Nevada. And Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake is just down the "block" at Ridgecrest, CA. (Near Inyokern) They obviously have deconfliction procedures in use.

[Dan Marotta]

Does THIS
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-18/pdf/2019-15248.pdf>
shed any light?

On 10/9/2019 5:55 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:29:06 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
>>>>>
>>>> That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
>>>>
>>>> 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>>>>
>>>> ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
>>>>
>>>> And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
>>> You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
>>>
>>> (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
>>>
>>> (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>>>
>>> (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
>>>
>>> So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
>>> The statement WAS CORRECT!
>> I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?
> Any aircraft, military or not, WILL have to have ADS-B out installed to fly in rule airspace on Jan 1, and I presume this covers most military aircraft. And the equipment must be operating UNLESS they fall into a very narrow mission exception.
>
> I am curious as to how you know that "the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?" Are you referring to just military aircraft or all aircraft?

--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
> I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B receiver in the Bay Area.

My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway to tell the
target is a military aircraft? Same question for the Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E -
can I determine a target is a military aircraft (I have the simple rectangular
display that just shows little triangles)?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dan Marotta]

Can you get info on the targets?

In my Stemme and C-180 I have many different displays.Â* I can usually
get information which includes ICAO code (least informative), airline
flight number (not military), and N-number (also not military).Â* By
simple elimination one might assume the ICAO only code might be
military.Â* But you know about ass-u-me...

On 10/10/2019 10:58 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
>> Â* I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B
>> receiver in the Bay Area.
>
> My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway
> to tell the target is a military aircraft? Same question for the
> Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E - can I determine a target is a military
> aircraft (I have the simple rectangular display that just shows little
> triangles)?
>

--
Dan, 5J

[jfitch]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 9:59:01 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
> > I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B receiver in the Bay Area.
>
> My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway to tell the
> target is a military aircraft? Same question for the Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E -
> can I determine a target is a military aircraft (I have the simple rectangular
> display that just shows little triangles)?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
The way I tell they are military is: if they look very much like an F16 or F18, and flying in formation below me, then I conclude they are military. Or If it looks a lot like a C5A. Seen both of those a few times up pretty close, and they never appear on any display. A lot of airliners, and most biz jets appear without fail. 2G thinks all these aircraft will be grounded come Jan 1, but somehow I doubt that.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:35:56 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Can you get info on the targets?
>
> In my Stemme and C-180 I have many different displays.Â* I can usually
> get information which includes ICAO code (least informative), airline
> flight number (not military), and N-number (also not military).Â* By
> simple elimination one might assume the ICAO only code might be
> military.Â* But you know about ass-u-me...
>
> On 10/10/2019 10:58 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/9/2019 12:26 PM:
> >> Â* I'll try to do some counting of Southwest traffic stats on my ADS-B
> >> receiver in the Bay Area.
> >
> > My Phoenix has a Dynon Skyview EFIS with ADS-B in/out. Is there anyway
> > to tell the target is a military aircraft? Same question for the
> > Powerflarm in my ASH 26 E - can I determine a target is a military
> > aircraft (I have the simple rectangular display that just shows little
> > triangles)?
> >
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

It's good to assume assuming is not always good. :-)

The formal identification data available via ADS-B (either UAT or 109ES) is

ICAO ID
Ident Characters (8 characters): The Flight Number or N-Number (targets don't transmit both).

You can also see any assigned squawk code and if the ident button has been recently pressed.

The ICAO ID can be super telling *if* you have access to the correct registration and/ or past observation databases, meaning typically on the ground connected to a computer. Just knowing if the ICAO address fits within a military reserved block may tell you if this is a military aircraft. That's the primary technique used to identify military traffic in this intersting paper on Military and State aircraft ADS-B traffic: https://opensky-network.org/files/publications/dasc17.pdf In Europe disabling ADS-B Out for those aircraft has been a hot-topic of discussion.

There is a lot of other *potentially* telling information broadcast via ADS-B, e.g."emitter category" (e.g. heavy aircraft based in MTOW, light aircraft, sailplane, ... while nothing there says "military" directly the emitter category being say UAV or Highly Maneuverable (> 5 G and > 400 TAS) could clue you in in some cases, wingspan and length (transmitted only on the ground), If it is 1090ES In or UAT In equipped, if it has TCAS, you can possibly tell something about how sophisticated it's avionics etc. e.g. wether transmitting GPS referenced velocity or/or air-referenced velocity, GPS altitude as well as pressure altitude, track data, etc. things there could make it possible to guess the level of sophistication and/or build up additional signatures to identify aircraft types.

Many airborne/end-user traffic systems don't display all this information, but it's all visible in open data to folks with the right tools, and/or a little programming skills--I modified dump1090 for example to gives me anything I want. I was going to show off some of that data, including watching some live ADS-R and TIS-B traffic processing, at the upcoming PASCO seminar.... but the seminar location has maybe the worst ADS-B tower ground coverage in SF Bay Area :-(

There can also be some extra data transmitted via Mode-S *without* ADS-B being involved that could also help give data on sophistication/capabilities of the aircraft. A TT21/22 in a glider can't do this, but sophisticated Mode-S transponder systems, (*independent* of ADS-B Out) can potentially transmit heading, track, roll rate, ground speed, airspeed, or FMS altitude select. etc. All possibly more fingerprinting clues.

I have a lot of empathy for the military operators here, ADS-B is a very surprising system, implemented with no fundamental encryption/authentication/security mechanisms. That's part of the publicly documented military concerns, it must be very strange for those military folks living in a modern IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) world, many of who recently upgraded to Mode 5 and are dealing with secure Mode 5 key provisioning etc. and then see this ball of unsecure/unauthenticated/wide open tangled string the FAA expects them to adopt.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 8:36:07 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Does THIS
> shed any light?
>
>
>
>
> On 10/9/2019 5:55 PM, 2G wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:29:06 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:51:19 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> I spoke to an FAA avionics inspector at the Spokane FSDO about this very issue. The answer: ALL military aircraft must be in the same compliance as civilian aircraft, so they have transponders and ADS-B. I can't say whether those fighters had their transponders turned off, or my flarm didn't receive the signals. In other words, it was a FWIW.
>
>
>
> That is not a correct statement. There are exemption for military and others for use of ADS-B Out within civilian airspace.
>
> 14 CFR 92.225 (f) (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>
> ...As amended earlier this year, but its been long coming/well understood the regulations were screwed up because they were missing such a clause and something was coming that would fix it. And this is in addition to what military aircraft will do in their own airspace. Military aircraft doing say stealth and ECM countermeasures work out at Fallon or Edwards within their airspace are not running around with transponders or ADS-B on.
>
> And lest anybody think this exemption is really only going to be applied to specific high-risk missions... the US military is expect to have ~21% of it's aircraft ADS-B Out equipped by January 1st 2020. They will be getting lots of exemptions, lots of them. Not flying ~3/4 of your fleet is not an option. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/19/military-2936-aircraft-ads-b-jan-1-air-force-says
>
>
> You omitted a critical part of this paragraph:
>
> (f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
>
> (1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
>
> (2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
>
> So, the VAST MAJORITY of the time the military MUST OPERATE ADS-B equipment. Obviously, they will from time-to-time have missions requiring disabling ADS-B.
> The statement WAS CORRECT!
>
>
> I'm curious as to how "the VAST MAJORITY of the time" they will be operating ADS-B out equipment when in the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?
>
>
> Any aircraft, military or not, WILL have to have ADS-B out installed to fly in rule airspace on Jan 1, and I presume this covers most military aircraft. And the equipment must be operating UNLESS they fall into a very narrow mission exception.
>
> I am curious as to how you know that "the vast majority of aircraft this equipment is not installed?" Are you referring to just military aircraft or all aircraft?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

Dan

That is a brilliant document, I wish I had referenced it :-) The second page shows what a mess this all is, and makes it clear the actual intent here is *not* a narrow per-flight exclusion of need to use ADS-B out... even if that is what the regulation may seem to say. The regulations are kinda amusing, they say nothing about how permission is obtained, how frequently, for how long etc., and to somebody already confused could imply the likely reverse of the real situation... a narrow per-situation exclusion only (uh nope) vs. wide scale military non-use (likely). There are also apparently further ongoing negations underway about how the military is not able to comply with the 2020 Mandate, but for now this regulatory change provides one exclusion tool for to help with that.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Back to the thread, I hope everyone took the time to fill in a comment to the FAA on this. I did. The main point, I think, is to make them aware of the vast amount of glider traffic through this MOA, which they are probably not aware of at all. I pointed them to OLC, but if someone more energetic than me wanted to put some facts traces and numbers together it might be more persuasive. In any case, regulators do track public comments, and they become part of the public record. If there are incidents, it is much better if we can point to hundreds of "we told you so" warnings.

John Cochrane

[2G]

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:14:17 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> Back to the thread, I hope everyone took the time to fill in a comment to the FAA on this. I did. The main point, I think, is to make them aware of the vast amount of glider traffic through this MOA, which they are probably not aware of at all. I pointed them to OLC, but if someone more energetic than me wanted to put some facts traces and numbers together it might be more persuasive. In any case, regulators do track public comments, and they become part of the public record. If there are incidents, it is much better if we can point to hundreds of "we told you so" warnings.
>
> John Cochrane

They likely don't care about glider traffic thru the proposed MOA, which they are currently flying in anyway. A "told you so" mentality is childish - you are still required to observe VFR rules (as are they), namely "see and be seen." Sure you can comment, but I guarantee this will have zero affect on their decision (they are merely going thru the regulatory steps that is mandated). Equip your gliders with a transponder and PowerFlarm (if you haven't already done so), which will alert you to other targets.

Tom

[Dan Marotta]

On 10/11/2019 9:57 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:14:17 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>> Back to the thread, I hope everyone took the time to fill in a comment to the FAA on this. I did. The main point, I think, is to make them aware of the vast amount of glider traffic through this MOA, which they are probably not aware of at all. I pointed them to OLC, but if someone more energetic than me wanted to put some facts traces and numbers together it might be more persuasive. In any case, regulators do track public comments, and they become part of the public record. If there are incidents, it is much better if we can point to hundreds of "we told you so" warnings.
>>
>> John Cochrane
> They likely don't care about glider traffic thru the proposed MOA, which they are currently flying in anyway. A "told you so" mentality is childish - you are still required to observe VFR rules (as are they), namely "see and be seen." Sure you can comment, but I guarantee this will have zero affect on their decision (they are merely going thru the regulatory steps that is mandated). Equip your gliders with a transponder and PowerFlarm (if you haven't already done so), which will alert you to other targets.
>
> Tom
.... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to
your presence.Â* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder.Â*
Get Mode S.
--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
> .... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
> presence.* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.

How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:51:31 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
> > .... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
> > presence.Â* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.
>
> How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
> as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

None at all in practice.

And I expect Dan was giving general advice to buy new Mode S transponders, not new Mode C.

Let me try to say it how I would... If you are buying a new transponder for a glider get a Trig TT22. This is very specific advice... "not Mode S", not any other transponder.... There is *no* other compact transponder suitable for use in gliders in the USA that provide you with ADS-B Out options. Becker, Air-Avionics,.... none of them provide a Mode S transponder today that meets the 2020 14 CFR 91.227 technical requirements.

Using a Trig TT22 gives you all the options to upgrade to ADS-B Out if you want to do that now or in future, including TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Darryl Ramm wrote on 10/12/2019 5:24 PM:
> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:51:31 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
>>> .... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
>>> presence.* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.
>>
>> How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
>> as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?
>
> None at all in practice.
>
> And I expect Dan was giving general advice to buy new Mode S transponders, not new Mode C.
>
> Let me try to say it how I would... If you are buying a new transponder for a glider get a Trig TT22. This is very specific advice... "not Mode S", not any other transponder.... There is *no* other compact transponder suitable for use in gliders in the USA that provide you with ADS-B Out options. Becker, Air-Avionics,.... none of them provide a Mode S transponder today that meets the 2020 14 CFR 91.227 technical requirements.
>
> Using a Trig TT22 gives you all the options to upgrade to ADS-B Out if you want to do that now or in future, including TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out.
>
> But, but, but.. if a Mode C transponder is all you have or can afford that is *great* compared to nothing in environments like flying in the area being discussed. In practice, ground based SSR, TCAS, Military IFF interrogators will see your aircraft just as effectively as if you had a Mode S transponder. If you have ADS-B Out added to a TT22 then more GA aircraft will see you, and ATC may see you in areas normally outside of SSR coverage... although the particular area being discussed has significant holes in it's ADS-B ground receiver coverage as well.
>
> One thing I ask folks who are upgrading older transponders like Becker ATC 4401 Mode C to a Trig TT22 is please find a junior pilot or other active local pilots who don't have or can't afford a transponder and give them your old transponder, or at least give them a deal they can't refuse.

If my 4401 would die, I'd definitely go for the TT-22 and a TABS system, ideally
with a ADS-B in display to get the radar images. But it keeps plugging along at 16
years of age...


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dan Marotta]

Darryl said it far better than I could have.Â* What I meant is that I
believe Mode 3A transponders with Mode C are becoming obsolete and, for
all the reasons Darryl said, I agree on the TT-22 from Trig. I've had
one installed for about 8 years and about a year ago added a Trig TN-70
ADS-B Out to it.Â* I highly recommend it.Â* The TT-21 is a couple hundred
dollars less expensive, but it is not approved for 1090ES.Â* I don't know
about UAT.

On 10/12/2019 6:24 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:51:31 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/12/2019 7:45 AM:
>>> .... Better, still, the transponder will alert the controlling agency to your
>>> presence.Â* And don't waste your money on a Mode 3A/C transponder. Get Mode S.
>> How much would a Mode S decrease the pilot's risk, compared to a Mode C (speaking
>> as a pilot with a Mode C installed, but thinking a Mode S might be more useful)?
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> None at all in practice.
>
> And I expect Dan was giving general advice to buy new Mode S transponders, not new Mode C.
>
> Let me try to say it how I would... If you are buying a new transponder for a glider get a Trig TT22. This is very specific advice... "not Mode S", not any other transponder.... There is *no* other compact transponder suitable for use in gliders in the USA that provide you with ADS-B Out options. Becker, Air-Avionics,.... none of them provide a Mode S transponder today that meets the 2020 14 CFR 91.227 technical requirements.
>
> Using a Trig TT22 gives you all the options to upgrade to ADS-B Out if you want to do that now or in future, including TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out.
>
> But, but, but.. if a Mode C transponder is all you have or can afford that is *great* compared to nothing in environments like flying in the area being discussed. In practice, ground based SSR, TCAS, Military IFF interrogators will see your aircraft just as effectively as if you had a Mode S transponder. If you have ADS-B Out added to a TT22 then more GA aircraft will see you, and ATC may see you in areas normally outside of SSR coverage... although the particular area being discussed has significant holes in it's ADS-B ground receiver coverage as well.
>
> One thing I ask folks who are upgrading older transponders like Becker ATC 4401 Mode C to a Trig TT22 is please find a junior pilot or other active local pilots who don't have or can't afford a transponder and give them your old transponder, or at least give them a deal they can't refuse.
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Mike N.]

What about adding a Trig TN72 to an existing TT21 transponder installation?

Will this combination provide ADS-B out?

Yes, I do already know that the TT21 is not certified for ADS-B out.

I have read some other threads about the TT21 being the same as the TT22 with the exception that the TT21 does not meet power output requirements for 2020 ADS-B output.
However I also read on a previous thread that originally ADS-B was supposed to be phased in 2 levels, and that the TT21 was made to be useable for the lower level of ADS-B out, and that level is no longer going to be an option.

So I am curious/ interested if the TN72 work in combination with a TT21 and provide ADS-B out, recognizable to local traffic, even if not a the required output wattage?

[Darryl Ramm]

What about what? What are you replying to?

I've covered this before but here is a recap -

ADS-B is a marketing fluff term. The details or exactly what "ADS-B" thing you mean are all important. A TT-21 cannot do 2020 Compliant (aka 14 CFR 91.227 compliant, aka SIL=3) ADS-B Out. It can do TABS/TSO-C199 (aka SIL=1) 1090ES Out with a TN72. And that lets all other aircraft with 1090ES In "see you ("any old GPS"/COTS aka SIL=0 installs are *not* seen by IFR/TSO-ed 1090ES In receivers), and if all the requirements for ADS-R are being met it also means UAT-In equipped aircraft see you.

FAA ATC controllers do *not* see TABS/SIL=1 aircraft displayed on their traffic displays, but they will see those targets via SSR if within range.

And I'll repeat my advice, it is stupidly simple: if buying a transponder today get a Trig TT22, it gives you all the option of Transponder only, TABS or full 2020 Complaint 1090ES if you want it in future.

A TT21 to TT22 upgrade is currently around $1k, the price difference between then when buying new is ~$125.

A TN72 GPS is pretty cheap ~$350 plus antenna, that any folks might as well add one to any TT21 or TT22 install. In an experimental glider with TT22 that can be configured for 2020 Compliance/SIL-3, all other configurations it can only be configured to do TABS. TABS gives visibility to airborne ADS-B receivers, makes gliders visible to PowerFLARM at much longer range than having PowerFLARM only, and makes the glider a client for TIS-B and ADS-R ADS-B In ground services (but that needs a TIS-B and ADS-R compatible receiver, which PowerFLARM is not currently).

Anybody installing a SIL=3 system with a TT21 risks a chat with the FAA. If a type certified glider, easier to track down and your A&P hopefully will not ever allow this. Yes I'm aware of legal arguments that you can do whatever you want if not intending to use to meet 14 CFR 91.225. Good luck with arguing that one with the FAA.

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:08:27 PM UTC-7, Mike N. wrote:
> What about adding a Trig TN72 to an existing TT21 transponder installation?
>
> Will this combination provide ADS-B out?
>
> Yes, I do already know that the TT21 is not certified for ADS-B out.
>
> I have read some other threads about the TT21 being the same as the TT22 with the exception that the TT21 does not meet power output requirements for 2020 ADS-B output.
> However I also read on a previous thread that originally ADS-B was supposed to be phased in 2 levels, and that the TT21 was made to be useable for the lower level of ADS-B out, and that level is no longer going to be an option.
>
> So I am curious/ interested if the TN72 work in combination with a TT21 and provide ADS-B out, recognizable to local traffic, even if not a the required output wattage?

[JS[_5_]]

The main point in my comment to the Feds...
The only difference between the MOAs I fly in every day and this proposal is radar coverage.
Jim