UK Mode S. Our responce is required [Archive]

View Full Version : UK Mode S. Our responce is required

gAiL

August 2nd 06, 11:16 AM

See the BGA link below.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/transponders.htm

-|-
-----===()===-----

gAiL

Derek Copeland

August 4th 06, 07:13 AM

In the UK anything that flies anywhere in UK Airspace
will have to be fitted with Mode S transponders from
March 2008, if the Civil Aviation Authority gets its
way. This includes light aircraft, gliders, hang gliders,
balloons and probably even parascenders. There may,
at best be, a temporary exemption until suitable battery
powered equipment is available for non-powered aircraft.

For once we can't even blame Europe for this repressive
piece of legislation, as these requirements will only
apply for flying in the higher classes of controlled
airspace in the other EC Countries.

From a glider pilot's point of view, buying and fitting
this equipment is expensive - about £3000 (more than
many older and vintage gliders cost in total) , requires
a licence and regular skilled maintenance, will probably
require an extra dedicated battery to be fitted which
has to come out of our MAUW, and exposes us to fairly
continual 20 watt radio emissions that most glider
structures will not shield us from.

The justifications for this from the CAA include allowing
Airliners to detect us as they take short cuts through
Class G airspace to save fuel and make bigger profits
for their companies(although there is no suitable currently
available equipment beyond the Mark 1 eyeball for us
to detect them or any other aircraft), allowing them
to charge us for the use of airspace, separating out
false returns from windfarm turbines, and allowing
UAVs to roam around our countryside. As far as I know,
most of the latter are operated by the US Airforce,
so once again we are being screwed by the so-called
'special relationship' with the States, and our Prime
Minister Tony Blairs's refusal to say 'boo' to anything
George W asks for!

For the majority of glider pilots, these proposals
will mean the end of UK gliding. Please respond to
to CAA consultation document as per the link below
and write to politicians if you are in a position to
do so.

Derek Copeland

At 10:18 02 August 2006, Gail wrote:
>See the BGA link below.
>
>http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/transponders.htm
>
>
> -|-
>-----===()===-----
>
>
>gAiL
>
>
>

588

August 4th 06, 08:05 AM

Derek Copeland wrote:
> In the UK anything that flies anywhere in UK Airspace
> will have to be fitted with Mode S transponders from
> March 2008, if the Civil Aviation Authority gets its
> way.

Excellent notion!

We will finally be able to protect our UAV's from the depredations
of the UK glider community. Peace in our time.

Jack

P Ilatus

August 4th 06, 10:19 AM

C'mon - Why would gdubya send uavs out there to harass
the bga? Can't fault the europeans so blame the US.

At 06:18 04 August 2006, Derek Copeland wrote:
>In the UK anything that flies anywhere in UK Airspace
>will have to be fitted with Mode S transponders from
>March 2008, if the Civil Aviation Authority gets its
>way. This includes light aircraft, gliders, hang gliders,
>balloons and probably even parascenders. There may,
>at best be, a temporary exemption until suitable battery
>powered equipment is available for non-powered aircraft.
>
>For once we can't even blame Europe for this repressive
>piece of legislation, as these requirements will only
>apply for flying in the higher classes of controlled
>airspace in the other EC Countries.
>
>From a glider pilot's point of view, buying and fitting
>this equipment is expensive - about £3000 (more than
>many older and vintage gliders cost in total) , requires
>a licence and regular skilled maintenance, will probably
>require an extra dedicated battery to be fitted which
>has to come out of our MAUW, and exposes us to fairly
>continual 20 watt radio emissions that most glider
>structures will not shield us from.
>
>The justifications for this from the CAA include allowing
>Airliners to detect us as they take short cuts through
>Class G airspace to save fuel and make bigger profits
>for their companies(although there is no suitable currently
>available equipment beyond the Mark 1 eyeball for us
>to detect them or any other aircraft), allowing them
>to charge us for the use of airspace, separating out
>false returns from windfarm turbines, and allowing
>UAVs to roam around our countryside. As far as I know,
>most of the latter are operated by the US Airforce,
>so once again we are being screwed by the so-called
>'special relationship' with the States, and our Prime
>Minister Tony Blairs's refusal to say 'boo' to anything
>George W asks for!
>
>For the majority of glider pilots, these proposals
>will mean the end of UK gliding. Please respond to
>to CAA consultation document as per the link below
>and write to politicians if you are in a position to
>do so.
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>
>At 10:18 02 August 2006, Gail wrote:
>>See the BGA link below.
>>
>>http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/transponders.htm
>>
>>
>> -|-
>>-----===()===-----
>>
>>
>>gAiL
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

P Ilatus

August 4th 06, 10:19 AM

Eric Greenwell[_1_]

August 5th 06, 09:02 PM

Derek Copeland wrote:

> From a glider pilot's point of view, buying and fitting
> this equipment is expensive - about £3000 (more than
> many older and vintage gliders cost in total) , requires
> a licence and regular skilled maintenance, will probably
> require an extra dedicated battery to be fitted which
> has to come out of our MAUW, and exposes us to fairly
> continual 20 watt radio emissions that most glider
> structures will not shield us from.

While you have much to fear from this proposal, 20 watts isn't one of
them. The current mode C transponder transmits between 0 and about 3
watts average power, depending on the interogation rate (peak power is
much higher, but very short duration). Mode S transmits even less power
on average, because it doesn't respond to every interrogation it receives.
>
> The justifications for this from the CAA include allowing
> Airliners to detect us as they take short cuts through
> Class G airspace to save fuel and make bigger profits
> for their companies(although there is no suitable currently
> available equipment beyond the Mark 1 eyeball for us
> to detect them or any other aircraft),

There are several transponder signal detectors on the market that will
allow you to detect airliner and general aviation transponders. They
vary in their ability to give you range and direction, and the cost
varies from ~$300US to ~$800US. Some glider pilots already use these.
What isn't clear to me is how useful they are if all transponders are
Mode S. I expect it to be the same as with the mode C transponders, but
I haven't read anything on the subject.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[email protected]

August 6th 06, 05:48 PM

I have recently purchased a SparrowHawk glider which here in the US.
Since it weighs less than 155lbs operates under part 103 of the FARS as
an ultralight vehicle not requiring registration, a pilot license and
is transparent to County Tax authorities as are hangliders etc. I
operate close to Reno International Airport and very close to the
southern approach to that airport and have had airliners approach
within one half a mile of me apparently without knowledge of my
presence. This is unacceptabe and a collision must be avoided period.
So I stay clear the airspace where it is most probable to find an
airliner. That having been said I have on order a Becker Transponder
and will install in the SparrowHawk asap with a substantial battery so
that airliner's TAS can see me and take collision avoidance if
necessary.
I have followed the arguments and complaints against the use of
transponders in gliders and small planes and am not sympathetic! We are
all flying in crowded airspaces where there are the possibilities of
collisions and the deaths of many people say between an airliner and a
glider. This can be mostly prevented by the use of transponders, a
vigilant ATC and TAS. The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
is one of the best deals ever? What do you think is going to happen to
glider privileges after the first airliner is brought down? Remember
gliders are virtually invisible except when turning if at your
altitude!!
As to mode S. I am neutral to it. It does not increase safety. It
does allow near instant indentification of an aircraft which may be
useful to ATC - maybe? How will it affect me with the SparrowHawk? I
will probably have to be assigned a special ID.
Dave

Marc Ramsey

August 6th 06, 07:33 PM

wrote:
> The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
> person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
> no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
> is one of the best deals ever?

The Becker 4401 alone costs roughly US$2000, you still need an encoder,
antenna, and wiring harness, which adds at least another $500. Add
typical shop rates, and the actual installed cost in a certified glider
will be a minimum of $4000 (I know, I've paid for it). The operating
limitations on most experimental gliders would require an IA sign off,
so even in that case, most will be paying a shop for the install.

I fly in the Reno area, too, so most of the gliders I've owned over the
years have had transponders (seeing a Southwest 737 up close and
personal tends to encourage one to pay the price). But, there are a lot
of us who can barely afford what we already have invested in our
gliders. So, it's not quite the slam dunk you think it is...

Marc

Gilbert Smith

August 6th 06, 09:58 PM

" > wrote:

> I have recently purchased a SparrowHawk glider which here in the US.
>Since it weighs less than 155lbs operates under part 103 of the FARS as
>an ultralight vehicle not requiring registration, a pilot license and
>is transparent to County Tax authorities as are hangliders etc. I
>operate close to Reno International Airport and very close to the
>southern approach to that airport and have had airliners approach
>within one half a mile of me apparently without knowledge of my
>presence. This is unacceptabe and a collision must be avoided period.
>So I stay clear the airspace where it is most probable to find an
>airliner. That having been said I have on order a Becker Transponder
>and will install in the SparrowHawk asap with a substantial battery so
>that airliner's TAS can see me and take collision avoidance if
>necessary.
> I have followed the arguments and complaints against the use of
>transponders in gliders and small planes and am not sympathetic! We are
>all flying in crowded airspaces where there are the possibilities of
>collisions and the deaths of many people say between an airliner and a
>glider. This can be mostly prevented by the use of transponders, a
>vigilant ATC and TAS. The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
>person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
>no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
>is one of the best deals ever? What do you think is going to happen to
>glider privileges after the first airliner is brought down? Remember
>gliders are virtually invisible except when turning if at your
>altitude!!
> As to mode S. I am neutral to it. It does not increase safety. It
>does allow near instant indentification of an aircraft which may be
>useful to ATC - maybe? How will it affect me with the SparrowHawk? I
>will probably have to be assigned a special ID.
>Dave

I manage an airstrip close to a CTR and close to the final approach
path to the international airport inside the CTR. We have an agreement
with the airspace authority which confines our flight paths to a safe
area.

A visiting pilot was given a transponder code and told to keep it
selected on his departure scheduled for 15 minutes after landing,
which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

Resident pilots already knew the danger, so this was the first
instance of this problem, and ATC had to accept the blame.

bumper

August 7th 06, 08:25 AM

Dave,

The Sparrowhawk is so small that it presents an almost insignificant
collision hazard to a 737. Heck, the big jets bug-wipers should take care of
you handily!! (grin)

Okay, okay, I agree and use a transponder too. Also, I suspect I'm one of
only a few who use a TPAS (transponder passive alert system), a Proxalert R5
in my glider. It's comforting to know, as one approaches the bases of those
fluffy things, that a big airplane isn't nearby and going to descend out of
one to test his bug wipers on you.

all the best,

bumper

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I have recently purchased a SparrowHawk glider which here in the US.
> Since it weighs less than 155lbs operates under part 103 of the FARS as
> an ultralight vehicle not requiring registration, a pilot license and
> is transparent to County Tax authorities as are hangliders etc. I
> operate close to Reno International Airport and very close to the
> southern approach to that airport and have had airliners approach
> within one half a mile of me apparently without knowledge of my
> presence. This is unacceptabe and a collision must be avoided period.
> So I stay clear the airspace where it is most probable to find an
> airliner. That having been said I have on order a Becker Transponder
> and will install in the SparrowHawk asap with a substantial battery so
> that airliner's TAS can see me and take collision avoidance if
> necessary.
> I have followed the arguments and complaints against the use of
> transponders in gliders and small planes and am not sympathetic! We are
> all flying in crowded airspaces where there are the possibilities of
> collisions and the deaths of many people say between an airliner and a
> glider. This can be mostly prevented by the use of transponders, a
> vigilant ATC and TAS. The cost - about $2000. How can any intelligent
> person argue against that. Are some people so illiterate that they have
> no appreciation about cost benefit analysis to not understand that this
> is one of the best deals ever? What do you think is going to happen to
> glider privileges after the first airliner is brought down? Remember
> gliders are virtually invisible except when turning if at your
> altitude!!
> As to mode S. I am neutral to it. It does not increase safety. It
> does allow near instant indentification of an aircraft which may be
> useful to ATC - maybe? How will it affect me with the SparrowHawk? I
> will probably have to be assigned a special ID.
> Dave
>

Ian Strachan

August 7th 06, 02:19 PM

Gilbert Smith wrote:

> I manage an airstrip close to a CTR and close to the final approach
> path to the international airport inside the CTR. We have an agreement
> with the airspace authority which confines our flight paths to a safe
> area.
>
> A visiting pilot was given a transponder code and told to keep it
> selected on his departure scheduled for 15 minutes after landing,
> which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
> jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
> squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

ï»¿Gilbert, could you give some more details. Particularly, is your
strip in the UK? Is your agreement a local one with the airport, or is
it with (or known to) the National Air Traffic or Regulatory body?

On the general matter of aircraft location and proximity warning
systems, radar is essentially a product of World War II technology
whereas ADS-B is the future. ADS-B will provide air traffic
controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that will
help keep aircraft safely separated.

Those words come not from me, but from the US FAA.

As I understand it, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
is a system based on Satellite Navigation that automatically transmits
GPS (or GLONASS or Galileo) position and other data from an aircraft to
other receivers in ATC units and/or other aircraft. It is being tested
by the USA FAA and also in Australia and certainly seems to be the
system of the future. Here is an extract from the FAA Fact Sheet dated
2 May 2006

"ADS-B is the future of air traffic control. Instead of using radar
data to keep aircraft at safe distances from one another, in the
future, signals from Global Positioning Satellites will provide air
traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that
will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.

Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of
1940s World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems
discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain â€œclutter.â€
Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because
they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary
radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need
lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease real estate to
situate them.

ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly rather than passively
scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with
clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and
are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so
they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once
a second and locates aircraft with much more precision.

ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are
so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no
radar can now have precise surveillance coverage."

--------- end of FAA quote ---------

So why are some Authorities trying to impose expensive and power-hungry
transponders on people who fly mostly in unregulated airspace? Also,
there are many types of aircraft that do not have electrical
generators, such as gliders, hang gliders, para gliders and many motor
gliders (turbos for instance).

Surely, a future system based on Satellite Navigation would be much
better all round. GPS is now being carried in most GA and many sport
aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the
full ADS-B system of the future and would not involve the fitting of
transponders to such classes of aircraft, Mode S or otherwise. It
seems very similar to what is already part of ADS-B link technology,
the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT), for which development
(according to the FAA web site) started in the mid-1990s.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bill Daniels

August 7th 06, 02:39 PM

The US FAA has a long history of requiring certain avionics and then
declaring it obsolete in a few years. The long history of slowly reducing
VHF comm radio channel separation is an example.

Ian is right that a GPS based ATC system is the best way to go. I fear it's
just too simple an answer for the bureaucrats to get their minds around.
There's an old joke that says the most terrifying words in the English
Language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Bill Daniels

"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Gilbert Smith wrote:

> I manage an airstrip close to a CTR and close to the final approach
> path to the international airport inside the CTR. We have an agreement
> with the airspace authority which confines our flight paths to a safe
> area.
>
> A visiting pilot was given a transponder code and told to keep it
> selected on his departure scheduled for 15 minutes after landing,
> which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
> jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
> squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

?Gilbert, could you give some more details. Particularly, is your
strip in the UK? Is your agreement a local one with the airport, or is
it with (or known to) the National Air Traffic or Regulatory body?

On the general matter of aircraft location and proximity warning
systems, radar is essentially a product of World War II technology
whereas ADS-B is the future. ADS-B will provide air traffic
controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that will
help keep aircraft safely separated.

Those words come not from me, but from the US FAA.

As I understand it, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
is a system based on Satellite Navigation that automatically transmits
GPS (or GLONASS or Galileo) position and other data from an aircraft to
other receivers in ATC units and/or other aircraft. It is being tested
by the USA FAA and also in Australia and certainly seems to be the
system of the future. Here is an extract from the FAA Fact Sheet dated
2 May 2006

"ADS-B is the future of air traffic control. Instead of using radar
data to keep aircraft at safe distances from one another, in the
future, signals from Global Positioning Satellites will provide air
traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information that
will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.

Although radar technology has advanced, it is essentially a product of
1940s World War II technology. Radar occasionally has problems
discriminating airplanes from migratory birds and rain "clutter."
Secondary surveillance systems can determine what objects are because
they interrogate transponders; however, both primary and secondary
radars are very large structures that are expensive to deploy, need
lots of maintenance, and require the agency to lease real estate to
situate them.

ADS-B, on the other hand, receives data directly rather than passively
scanning for input like radars, so does not have a problem with
clutter. ADS-B ground stations are inexpensive compared to radar, and
are the size of mini refrigerators that essentially can go anywhere, so
they minimize the required real estate. In addition, ADS-B updates once
a second and locates aircraft with much more precision.

ADS-B also provides greater coverage, since ADS-B ground stations are
so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas where there is no
radar can now have precise surveillance coverage."

--------- end of FAA quote ---------

So why are some Authorities trying to impose expensive and power-hungry
transponders on people who fly mostly in unregulated airspace? Also,
there are many types of aircraft that do not have electrical
generators, such as gliders, hang gliders, para gliders and many motor
gliders (turbos for instance).

Surely, a future system based on Satellite Navigation would be much
better all round. GPS is now being carried in most GA and many sport
aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the
full ADS-B system of the future and would not involve the fitting of
transponders to such classes of aircraft, Mode S or otherwise. It
seems very similar to what is already part of ADS-B link technology,
the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT), for which development
(according to the FAA web site) started in the mid-1990s.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Eric Greenwell[_1_]

August 7th 06, 03:31 PM

bumper wrote:
> Dave,
>
> The Sparrowhawk is so small that it presents an almost insignificant
> collision hazard to a 737. Heck, the big jets bug-wipers should take care of
> you handily!! (grin)
>
> Okay, okay, I agree and use a transponder too. Also, I suspect I'm one of
> only a few who use a TPAS (transponder passive alert system), a Proxalert R5
> in my glider. It's comforting to know, as one approaches the bases of those
> fluffy things, that a big airplane isn't nearby and going to descend out of
> one to test his bug wipers on you.

Or, for that matter, even a small airplane, since they are required to
carry transponders, too.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Rory O'Conor[_1_]

August 7th 06, 03:40 PM

------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: UK Mode S. Our response is required
Author: Ian Strachan >
Date/Time: 13:20 07 August 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
On the general matter of aircraft location and proximity warning
systems, radar is essentially a product of World War II technology
whereas ADS-B is the future. ADS-B will provide air traffic controllers
and pilots with much more accurate information that will help keep
aircraft safely separated.

Those words come not from me, but from the US FAA.

------

The CAA mode S consultation, does look at the possibility of making Mode
S transponders, ADS future-proof as one option. However the CAA does not
go into much detail on this matter. Other than to identify costs without
a proven techonogical solution.

The CAA document seems to dismiss FLARM, a glider-glider GPS-based
anti-collision device out of hand, although the apparent prime objective
of the consultation is to allow unrestricted commercial traffic access
to class G airspace, sorry I meant collision-avoidance.

The CAA document does not even discuss other GPS-tracking options
already available eg the LX tracker. This has been used in several
gliding world championships and was used by 10 out of 40 gliders in
Euroglide this year.

See

http://www.euroglide.nl/news.html#itin

And

http://www.lxtrack.si/online/online-tracking/

Why should the CAA review the technology and benefits properly, if the
consultation is just a smoke-screen?

Rory

gAiL

August 7th 06, 04:54 PM

I don't feel very well informed on this subject. I do know what the
equpment is and I do know how it works.
What I'm finding difficult is understanding the pro and cons of the
argument - I suppose because I don't know the finer points of ATC.

I've been wadeing through the CAA's RIA document and reading other documents
and conversation to try and build a realistic picture of what this all
'really' means. The cost implications are of course, obvious. But it seems
to me that whatever increased safety features mode S may offer, for glider
pilots, it all seems pretty minimal; are the CAA really trying to claw more
control of unregulated airspace!? And who is really going to flying their
glider in airways and heavily regulated airspace anyway?

From what I can see, this technology appears to warn them (the powered
community) of us and I suppose offers them the opportunity of avoidance, but
doesn't seems to warn us of them. For this tit-bit we are expected to pay in
excess of £2k per glider.

I notice the CAA and the goverment clearly refuses to offer any funding for
this equipment in gliders and expects us to willingly pick up the bill.
personally, I'm happy with the European appraoch of only requiring users who
use A-d airspace the reponsibility of re-equiping with mode S.

G.

Gerhard Wesp[_1_]

August 9th 06, 06:48 PM

Ian Strachan > wrote:
> aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
> a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
> output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
> on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the

I'm sure most here know FLARM http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html .

While I'd not suggest it to the CAA for ATC because of it's limited
range, it is actually a step in this direction.

Regards
-Gerhard
--
http://gwesp.tx0.org/
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 / +43 699 815 987 70 (mobile)
+41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 200 1818 (office fax)

Gerhard Wesp[_2_]

August 9th 06, 06:50 PM

Gilbert Smith > wrote:
> which he duly did. This caused a TCAS alert on a landing passenger
> jet. Our agreement now specifies transponders switched off (not even
> squawking standby) within 5 miles of our strip.

I'm already seeing further airspace restrictions once transponder usage
gets more widespread. Restrictions for "technical TCAS reasons"...

Regards
-Gerhard
--
http://gwesp.tx0.org/
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 / +43 699 815 987 70 (mobile)
+41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 200 1818 (office fax)

Graeme Cant

August 10th 06, 08:22 AM

Ian Strachan wrote:

> As I understand it, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
> is a system based on Satellite Navigation that automatically transmits
> GPS (or GLONASS or Galileo) position and other data from an aircraft to
> other receivers in ATC units and/or other aircraft. It is being tested
> by the USA FAA and also in Australia and certainly seems to be the
> system of the future. Here is an extract from the FAA Fact Sheet dated
> 2 May 2006

That is still true in part for Australia but ASA (AirServices Oz) has
recently (about 20 July) withdrawn its RFP for lower airspace ADS-B.
Upper airspace appears to still be going ahead but the application of
ADS-B to ALL aircraft - the original aspiration - appears to have been
somewhat curtailed.

AFAIK there are no current suitable low power consumption airborne units
on the market and the ground station network being implemented will
probably not be as extensive as we'd hoped.

Obviously, widespread implementation in the US will have the same
trickledown effect worldwide as almost all other en route systems from
A-N ranges to GPS but there are problems. Avweb discussed some of these
- I'll see if I can find the reference.

This may not have helped your case :(

GC

Ian Strachan

August 10th 06, 08:52 AM

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Ian Strachan wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
> > is a system based on Satellite Navigation that automatically transmits
> > GPS (or GLONASS or Galileo) position and other data from an aircraft to
> > other receivers in ATC units and/or other aircraft. It is being tested
> > by the USA FAA and also in Australia and certainly seems to be the
> > system of the future. Here is an extract from the FAA Fact Sheet dated
> > 2 May 2006
>
> That is still true in part for Australia but ASA (AirServices Oz) has
> recently (about 20 July) withdrawn its RFP for lower airspace ADS-B.
> Upper airspace appears to still be going ahead but the application of
> ADS-B to ALL aircraft - the original aspiration - appears to have been
> somewhat curtailed.

Yes, this has been publicised in the aviation press. I don't regard
that as any condemnation of ADS-B which is at an early stage of
development and implementation. I guess that ASA are looking at the
bugs and working them out for the future. Very sensible.

After all, the use of prototype ADS-B in Alaska was of the nature of a
trial and it is interesting that, as a result, the magazine Aviation
Week reports that the FAA will increase the ADS-B cover to parts of the
rest of the USA.

As the FAA fact sheet said, "radar is essentially a product of World
War II technology whereas ADS-B is the future". Those of us with an
interest in the long term future of GA and Sport aircraft should latch
on to that, because SatNav-based systems are far more compatible with,
and useful to, what we do compared to radar-based systems.
Particularly if extra equipment is to be forced on some of us by
regulatory authorities on grounds of "safety" whether we think that is
a spurious argument or not.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Ian[_1_]

August 11th 06, 06:19 PM

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:48:00 +0000, Gerhard Wesp wrote:

> Ian Strachan > wrote:
>> aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
>> a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
>> output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
>> on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the
>
> I'm sure most here know FLARM http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html .
>
> While I'd not suggest it to the CAA for ATC because of it's limited
> range, it is actually a step in this direction.

I have a both a Flarm and Mode C Transponder in my glider.

For those who have not flown with Flarm, I can confirm that they work
exceeding well. The major limitation is the fact that not all gliders
at our club are equipped with it.

There are some clever tricks in Flarms. The transmitters use the clock
signal from the GPS receiver to synchronize their transmissions so that
there are no "collisions". This allows a large number of Flarms to share a
limited amount of bandwidth. I think Flarm technology, coupled with a
higher power transmitter, could go a long way to making transponders
redundant.

I use the transponder on wave days. We can get clearance into a
"window" in controlled airspace, but we have to squawk. We have to talk to
ATC at the same time and we very soon know if they can't see us.
Unfortunately this has happened more often than I like, both with my own
glider and with others at our club.

The problems can be tracked down to many sources:

- Battery problems. (The most common). Even if a battery is fully charged
with healthy voltage on the ground, it does not mean that it is capable of
delivering it's rated current for the duration of a flight. Having two is
essential, but I have had two fully charged, apparently healthy, batteries
fail on the same flight. Often when a battery is under performing, there
is no clear indication - the transponder appears to be working normally -
but ATC can't see me until I swap onto the spare battery.

- Wiring issues. Space in gliders is cramped and access to the available
space if often very difficult. It is just not possible to install heavy
cable racks and heavy connectors with wire locked retaining screws. Hence
the installations in gliders are, on average, less reliable than those in
power aircraft.

- Antenna issues. There is not much volume inside a glider to mount a
transponder antenna and things are worse for those with carbon fuselages.
Many gliders in our club have antenna mounted behind the instrument panel
which is far from ideal. Mine is mounted in the fuselage where other
gliders might have a pop-up engine. But access there is a major issue and
there is still significant shielding from the retracted under-carriage.
Those with external antenna are subject to damage during outlandings,
trailering, rigging and general ground handling.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that we have no means of testing
transponders before flight, we only find out if there is a problem when we
talk to ATC. (Here Flarm has a major advantage over the transponders. We
have receivers as well as transmitters and we can soon detect if one of
them is not working.) I would not be surprised if there are pilots flying
transponder equipped gliders, who squawk regularly in the belief that the
heavy a/c will pick them up on their warning receivers, but in actual fact
are not being seen.

I think it would be very short sighted to assume that if all gliders were
equipped with transponders that they would all be detected by ground
and/or airborne radar. If heavy aircraft are routed between the gliders
that are detected, their could be some surprises.

On the other hand, if all gliders were equipped with high power Flarms, we
would have a very useful glider/glider midair proximity warning system at
the same time as providing an indication of our presence to others.

Ian

(I would be happy to submit my opinions to the UK authorities, but I fly
in South Africa, so would they even consider it?)

W.J. $Bill$ Dean $U.K.$.

August 12th 06, 11:45 AM

Ian,

Yes we would very much like to have your views, if you send them to me by
e-mail I will see that they reach the correct people.

Thank you for your posting.

Regards,

Bill.

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

>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:48:00 +0000, Gerhard Wesp wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian Strachan > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> aircraft worldwide. A smart avionics engineer should be able to design
>>> a special low-powered transmitter that would take an NMEA or other
>>> output from existing GPS equipment and automatically transmit the data
>>> on (electronic) request. This could be a practical step towards the
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure most here know FLARM http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html .
>>
>> While I'd not suggest it to the CAA for ATC because of it's limited
>> range, it is actually a step in this direction.
>>
>
> I have a both a Flarm and Mode C Transponder in my glider.
>
> For those who have not flown with Flarm, I can confirm that they work
> exceeding well. The major limitation is the fact that not all gliders
> at our club are equipped with it.
>
> There are some clever tricks in Flarms. The transmitters use the clock
> signal from the GPS receiver to synchronize their transmissions so that
> there are no "collisions". This allows a large number of Flarms to share
> a limited amount of bandwidth. I think Flarm technology, coupled with a
> higher power transmitter, could go a long way to making transponders
> redundant.
>
> I use the transponder on wave days. We can get clearance into a
> "window" in controlled airspace, but we have to squawk. We have to talk
> to ATC at the same time and we very soon know if they can't see us.
> Unfortunately this has happened more often than I like, both with my own
> glider and with others at our club.
>
> The problems can be tracked down to many sources:
>
> - Battery problems. (The most common). Even if a battery is fully
> charged with healthy voltage on the ground, it does not mean that it is
> capable of delivering it's rated current for the duration of a flight.
> Having two is essential, but I have had two fully charged, apparently
> healthy, batteries fail on the same flight. Often when a battery is under
> performing, there is no clear indication - the transponder appears to be
> working normally - but ATC can't see me until I swap onto the spare
> battery.
>
> - Wiring issues. Space in gliders is cramped and access to the available
> space if often very difficult. It is just not possible to install heavy
> cable racks and heavy connectors with wire locked retaining screws. Hence
> the installations in gliders are, on average, less reliable than those in
> power aircraft.
>
> - Antenna issues. There is not much volume inside a glider to mount a
> transponder antenna and things are worse for those with carbon fuselages.
> Many gliders in our club have antenna mounted behind the instrument panel
> which is far from ideal. Mine is mounted in the fuselage where other
> gliders might have a pop-up engine. But access there is a major issue and
> there is still significant shielding from the retracted under-carriage.
> Those with external antenna are subject to damage during outlandings,
> trailering, rigging and general ground handling.
>
> Perhaps the biggest issue is that we have no means of testing
> transponders before flight, we only find out if there is a problem when we
> talk to ATC. (Here Flarm has a major advantage over the transponders. We
> have receivers as well as transmitters and we can soon detect if one of
> them is not working.) I would not be surprised if there are pilots flying
> transponder equipped gliders, who squawk regularly in the belief that the
> heavy a/c will pick them up on their warning receivers, but in actual fact
> are not being seen.
>
> I think it would be very short sighted to assume that if all gliders were
> equipped with transponders that they would all be detected by ground
> and/or airborne radar. If heavy aircraft are routed between the gliders
> that are detected, their could be some surprises.
>
> On the other hand, if all gliders were equipped with high power Flarms, we
> would have a very useful glider/glider midair proximity warning system at
> the same time as providing an indication of our presence to others.
>
> Ian
>
> (I would be happy to submit my opinions to the UK authorities, but I fly
> in South Africa, so would they even consider it?)
>

kestrel254

August 12th 06, 06:09 PM

gAiL wrote:
> See the BGA link below.
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/transponders.htm
>
>
> -|-
> -----===()===-----
>
>
> gAiL
Guys
Can someone explain to me the difference between Mode S and Mode C
transponders and why one is better or worse thaan the other?

TIA
George Emsden

bumper

August 13th 06, 03:59 AM

With:

Mode A - - ATC knows you're there, can assign a discrete squawk code, but
doesn't know your altitude unless you tell them on the radio.

Mode C - - ATC has the above info, and your altitude as well.

Mode S - - ATC has all the above info, and also exactly who you are, as your
aircraft/transponder is pre-assigned a discrete identifying code. i.e. No
more, "Huh, who me? I didn't fly there and do that!"

bumper

"kestrel254" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> gAiL wrote:
>> See the BGA link below.
>>
>> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/transponders.htm
>>
>>
>> -|-
>> -----===()===-----
>>
>>
>> gAiL
> Guys
> Can someone explain to me the difference between Mode S and Mode C
> transponders and why one is better or worse thaan the other?
>
> TIA
> George Emsden
>

August 13th 06, 07:47 AM

I filled out the web form, and added something along the lines of:

You're taking the wrong approach. Too much airspace is controlled,
squeezing uncontrolled GA into too small an area. This promotes near
misses (airprox) and mid-airs. Instead of adding more complication,
open up more airspace for uncontrolled GA flight.

Please, everybody write in and be heard, whether you fly in the UK or
not. British pilots represent a large part of our community. This
proposal will be a great expense and ongoing headache to both clubs and
private owners, and can serve as an example to other controlling
agencies.
I am not against being seen. Had a Becker 4401 and a pile of
batteries in my last N-registered glider and will be adding FLARM to my
VH-reg.
Unfortunately FLARM can't be used in the USA. It uses little power,
doesn't go berzerk while thermaling or on tow, and doesn't involve ATC.
Jim

Eric Greenwell[_1_]

August 14th 06, 01:10 AM

bumper wrote:
> With:
>
> Mode A - - ATC knows you're there, can assign a discrete squawk code, but
> doesn't know your altitude unless you tell them on the radio.
>
> Mode C - - ATC has the above info, and your altitude as well.
>
> Mode S - - ATC has all the above info, and also exactly who you are, as your
> aircraft/transponder is pre-assigned a discrete identifying code. i.e. No
> more, "Huh, who me? I didn't fly there and do that!"

A big advantage of Mode S, at least for ATC and pilots using their
services, is the ATC system can handle many times the number and density
of aircraft compared to Mode C. Mode C only has a nominal 4096 codes
available, and it's not possible to selectively interrogate
transponders, leading to interference in crowed airspace.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"