FLARM Statistics

[John Galloway[_1_]]

Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

[Sven]

John

at the Cape Gliding Club at Worcester, South Africa, the majority of
gliders are FLARM equiped. A recent survey of the experience with Flarm
is to be found at
http://cgcdiary.blogspot.com/2006/09/flarm-not-so-false-alarm.html
You will note that the perception of the pilots are very positive about
FLARM.

regards
Sven




John Galloway wrote:
> Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
> might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
> in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
> gliders in those European countries in which it is
> in widespread use?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> John Galloway

[MaD]

John Galloway schrieb:

> Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
> might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
> in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
> gliders in those European countries in which it is
> in widespread use?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> John Galloway


Not really statistical proof but all I have. Number of collisions in
Switzerland:

2002 and before: average about 2-3 gld/gld collisions per year, worst
year was about 5!
This is from memory.

The following is from here
http://www.segelflug.ch/d/6safety/pdf/Unfaelle_97-06.pdf
2003: 2 (1 gld/gld and 1 cable)
2004: 3 (2 gld/gld and 1 cable)
2005: 1 gld/gld
2006: 0 AFAIK

Switzerland has a FLARM equipment rate of about 90%

Regards
Marcel

[MaD]

Addition to last post: the 2005 collision was the only one involving
FLARM-equipped gliders. They where thermalling together and both pilots
had seen the other one before.

Marcel

[bagmaker]

Dont forget Australia in your theory, John, takeup rates here have been most impressive.

bagger

[Al Eddie]

At 07:06 10 October 2006, Mad wrote:
>
>Addition to last post: the 2005 collision was the only
>one involving
>FLARM-equipped gliders. They where thermalling together
>and both pilots
>had seen the other one before.
>
>Marcel
>

Very interesting.

Your data says a lot in favour of FLARM but this speaks
volumes about these two pilots...!

;o)

[Al Eddie]

At 07:06 10 October 2006, Mad wrote:
>
>Addition to last post: the 2005 collision was the only
>one involving
>FLARM-equipped gliders. They where thermalling together
>and both pilots
>had seen the other one before.
>
>Marcel
>

Very interesting.

Your data says a lot in favour of FLARM but this speaks
volumes about these two pilots...!

;o)

[Mike Schumann]

Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs are
between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"John Galloway" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
> might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
> in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
> gliders in those European countries in which it is
> in widespread use?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> John Galloway
>
>

[Ramy]

I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:
> Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs are
> between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "John Galloway" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
> > might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
> > in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
> > gliders in those European countries in which it is
> > in widespread use?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > John Galloway
> >
> >

[John Galloway[_1_]]

Thanks for all these replies.

Below is a message I got from Swiss FLARM today:

==========================================
'Unfortunately it is impossible to do a correct (and
honest) statistic since there are simply too little
datapoints.

However, we can say that to the best of our knowledge
there have been no collisions with fatal outcomes between
Flarm equipped aircraft or between Flarm equipped aircraft
and obstacles. But, there have been multiple collisions
with fatalities this summer (French Alps) between aircraft
that did not carry Flarm.

Currently more than 5000 Flarm devices are in use worldwide.
No pilot has ever returned a (non defective) device
because he was not satisfied with it.

We are in the process of getting to know the UK situation,
but expect to become more visible and vocal within
days/weeks.'
==========================================

If, as we are told, only 10% of the gliders in the
Alps are FLARM free and they have had all the mid-air
fatalities then it is quite a significant finding,
albeit short term.

It was interesting to read on the board about the collision
in a thermal between two Swiss FLARM equipped gliders
who already knew of each other's presence. It just
goes to show that no matter whether a glider is spotted
by eyeball or FLARM you still have to avoid it. I
presume that was not a fatality.

I think that European clubs are fitting FLARMS in the
tugs because it is mentioned in some off-board messages
I have received. Apparently early on it gave false
alarms on tow but that this now has been addressed
in the updates.

Thanks,

John Galloway

[Mike Schumann]

My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common with
powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of a
transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a low
cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann

"Ramy" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
> gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
> powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
> midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
> flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
> almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
> at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
> where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
> not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
> hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
> significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
> One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
> or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
> possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
> liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.
>
> Just my humble opinion,
>
> Ramy
>
>
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
>> are
>> between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> "John Galloway" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
>> > might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
>> > in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
>> > gliders in those European countries in which it is
>> > in widespread use?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance.
>> >
>> > John Galloway
>> >
>> >
>

[Ramy]

There are no low cost/power TCAS, and as far as I understand there will
never be. You may refer to TPAS, which are indeed low cost/power but
they are a far cry from TCAS or FLARM, as they only tell you that there
is an aircraft somewhere nearby (if it has a transponder which is
beeing interrogated) , no direction or resolution, and they don't
determine if it is actually a threat or not. However they are much
better then nothing, and deffinitly worth the $500. The ultimate
solution would be the ADSB, which, AFAIK, has similar functionality to
FLARM but also act as conventional transponders so covering both
worlds. But it may take long time until the FAA will implement it, and
meanwhile there will likely be more midairs fatalities, so the FLARM
sounds like the current best solution. The good news is that the FLARM
is effordable, can be used as a data logger (hopfully it will be
certified as well) and does not require much instalation. Since powered
aircrafts will not likely use it, it will be good idea to have both a
TPAS and a FLARM. They both small and I bet they can be fit together on
the glare shield without noticable obstruction.

Ramy (who never really saw a FLARM or an ADSB, but stayed at the
Holliday Inn Express ;-)


Mike Schumann wrote:
> My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common with
> powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of a
> transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a low
> cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
> appropriate for the US environment.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
> > gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
> > powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
> > midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
> > flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
> > almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
> > at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
> > where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
> > not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
> > hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
> > significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
> > One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
> > or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
> > possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
> > liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.
> >
> > Just my humble opinion,
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> >
> > Mike Schumann wrote:
> >> Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
> >> are
> >> between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.
> >>
> >> Mike Schumann
> >>
> >> "John Galloway" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
> >> > might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
> >> > in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
> >> > gliders in those European countries in which it is
> >> > in widespread use?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance.
> >> >
> >> > John Galloway
> >> >
> >> >
> >

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

You may well be correct. Does such equipment exist? If not, when is it
likely to be available?

Meanwhile, Flarm does exist, has sold some 5,000 units worldwide, is known
to work, and in some environments is fitted 100%, in quite a few 90%

Flarm is sufficiently low priced, small, low powered and easy to install
that if it becomes obsolete in say 5 years time it is still a very sensible
fit today.

I have never flown in the USA. If I were flying out of Minden I rather
think I would like to have a transponder. This was advocated by Gordon
Boettger in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other people fit it. I should think
that in the USA anyone flying the White Mountains would welcome it.

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

>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common
> with powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of
> a transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a
> low cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
> appropriate for the US environment.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
>>
>> "Ramy" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>
>>I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
>> gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
>> powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
>> midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
>> flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
>> almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
>> at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
>> where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
>> not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
>> hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
>> significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
>> One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
>> or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
>> possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
>> liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.
>>
>> Just my humble opinion,
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>>>
>>> Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>
>>> Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
>>> are between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.
>>>
>>> Mike Schumann
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "John Galloway" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> > Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
>>> > might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
>>> > in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
>>> > gliders in those European countries in which it is
>>> > in widespread use?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks in advance.
>>> >
>>> > John Galloway
>>> >
>>>
>>
>

[Mike Schumann]

I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot more
power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or in high
glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not other gliders,
but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of ADSB
here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost effective
technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery chute.

Mike Schumann

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> You may well be correct. Does such equipment exist? If not, when is it
> likely to be available?
>
> Meanwhile, Flarm does exist, has sold some 5,000 units worldwide, is known
> to work, and in some environments is fitted 100%, in quite a few 90%
>
> Flarm is sufficiently low priced, small, low powered and easy to install
> that if it becomes obsolete in say 5 years time it is still a very
> sensible
> fit today.
>
> I have never flown in the USA. If I were flying out of Minden I rather
> think I would like to have a transponder. This was advocated by Gordon
> Boettger in an article dated 13th July
> http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=1
> written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.
>
> In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other people fit it. I should
> think
> that in the USA anyone flying the White Mountains would welcome it.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>>
>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>> My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common
>> with powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of
>> a transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a
>> low cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
>> appropriate for the US environment.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>>
>>> "Ramy" > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>
>>>I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
>>> gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
>>> powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
>>> midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
>>> flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
>>> almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
>>> at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
>>> where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
>>> not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
>>> hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
>>> significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
>>> One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
>>> or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
>>> possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
>>> liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.
>>>
>>> Just my humble opinion,
>>>
>>> Ramy
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
>>>> are between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > "John Galloway" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> > Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
>>>> > might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
>>>> > in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
>>>> > gliders in those European countries in which it is
>>>> > in widespread use?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks in advance.
>>>> >
>>>> > John Galloway
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:

> One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
> or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
> possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
> liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

This is my belief, also, and perhaps the TPAS manufacturers are the ones
to approach about this. They might be able to convince the FLARM folk
that they could manufacture and sell the units without any liability for
FLARM, or develop one their own. A unit for North America wouldn't need
to be compatible with units in other countries.

I think the biggest problem is disinterest in the US community. In
preparation for a presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, I
contacted a number of pilots about potential interest in it. I thought
the Minden pilots would be very excited about it because of the White
Mountains issues, but there was almost no interest in it. I was stunned.

I now think the potential for collision with another glider is widely
perceived (rightly or wrongly) as so low, it's not worth the effort or
cost to use something like FLARM. One way to reduce the cost would be a
FLARM with an IGC secure recorder, so the additional cost of the FLARM
capability is, say, less than $200 (I don't know if that is possible).
Still, since so many pilots already have a secure recorder, it might
take years for a significant number to be in use.

Perhaps a simpler, cheaper, "proximity" alert unit would be more
acceptable in North America. It wouldn't be completely passive, but
would broadcast a periodic weak signal with an ID code that can be
detected a mile or two away. It would receive signals from other units
and estimate their distance by the signal strength (no GPS). TPAS
manufacturers could easily convert their current designs (like the Zaon
MRX) just by fitting a different RF "front end". The box, power supply,
displays, logic, etc would remain the same. This would make it much
cheaper for them to develop and manufacture than a FLARM style unit.

It wouldn't be as effective as a FLARM, but if it were available for
less than $500, there might be a market for it. The Zaon MRX unit, for
example, already has an altimeter function in it, so the altitude could
be broadcast along with the ID code, allowing display of the relative
altitudes of the two gliders.

In the ideal world, this detection capability would be an "add-on" to a
company's standard TPAS unit, allowing detection of transponder equipped
aircraft AND aircraft with just the dual TPAS.

It just occurred to me the reason the TPAS unit manufacturers don't seem
to have a liability issue is their units only alert based on proximity,
and not on predicted flight path. If this is true, perhaps a modified
FLARM could be sold in North America by FLARM folks or a licensed
dealer/manufacturer.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot more
> power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or in high
> glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not other gliders,
> but power traffic.
>
> It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of ADSB
> here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost effective
> technology that will cover all traffic.
>
> In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery chute.

In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute
at all.

A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or
a ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is
already flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest
of the fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from
aircraft that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any
cheaper than a transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I
think there is decent solution.

A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps
not in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a
conscious pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive
to retrofit to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[MaD]

John Galloway schrieb:

>...
> It was interesting to read on the board about the collision
> in a thermal between two Swiss FLARM equipped gliders
> who already knew of each other's presence. It just
> goes to show that no matter whether a glider is spotted
> by eyeball or FLARM you still have to avoid it.

Exactly. FLARM does not avoid collisions. It helps finding the
"opponent" before it's too late.

>I presume that was not a fatality.

Yes. One landed the damaged glider, the other one bailed out.

>
> I think that European clubs are fitting FLARMS in the
> tugs because it is mentioned in some off-board messages
> I have received. Apparently early on it gave false
> alarms on tow but that this now has been addressed
> in the updates.

Also correct.

Regards
Marcl Duenner

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common with
> powered aircraft is the answer.

My answer is no.

I doubt there is _the_ answer, anyway. "See and avoid" most obviously isn't.

For the time being FLARM is small, uses next to no power, minimal panel space,
does not distract the pilot and is comparatively affordable. In my environment
it warns me of almost all the gliders I am likely to encounter and the
towplane.

I cannot see a reason why _not_ to use it. Not using it because it does not
solve the problem of potential mid-airs by 100% does not seem reasonable to
me.

For people flying in the alps there is the added benefit of FLARM warning of
cables spanning valleys (IF they are in the database). These, I am told, are
mostly invisible from the air against the ground. No transponder can help you
there and fleet coverage is not an issue.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[Mike Schumann]

Ballistic Recovery Chutes would primarily be an advantage in a low level
collision (i.e. in a traffic pattern). Are there any statistics on glider
mid-airs that can shed some light on where most of the danger is?

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:am_Wg.4860$YD.241@trndny09...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot
>> more power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or
>> in high glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not
>> other gliders, but power traffic.
>>
>> It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of
>> ADSB here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost
>> effective technology that will cover all traffic.
>>
>> In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery
>> chute.
>
> In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
> he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute at
> all.
>
> A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
> having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or a
> ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is already
> flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest of the
> fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from aircraft
> that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any cheaper than a
> transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I think there is
> decent solution.
>
> A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps not
> in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a conscious
> pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive to retrofit
> to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Ramy]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I think the biggest problem is disinterest in the US community. In
> preparation for a presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, I
> contacted a number of pilots about potential interest in it. I thought
> the Minden pilots would be very excited about it because of the White
> Mountains issues, but there was almost no interest in it. I was stunned.
>
I think you would get a very different reaction now, that it's been
discovered that the sky is not that big after all, not even on a
weekday over Minden nor over the remote Amazonas rainforest. I'll be
the first one in line to replace my volkslogger with a flarm. The cost
should be minimal.

Ramy

[bumper]

"Ramy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I think you would get a very different reaction now, that it's been
> discovered that the sky is not that big after all, not even on a
> weekday over Minden nor over the remote Amazonas rainforest. I'll be
> the first one in line to replace my volkslogger with a flarm. The cost
> should be minimal.
>
> Ramy
>

Ramy,

I'm not so sure. Mid-air awareness has probably risen some. However, the
Minden incident would not have been averted by Flarm, nor would the SA
mid-air between two jets. And because of the far flung "wide open spaces" in
the US, there are but few places, such as the Whites in NV, where glider
density comes close to the Alps (though I've not been there).

To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works between
gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be much better
received if it warns of both power and glider threats. The bigger
catastrophic risk at Minden is that an airliner and glider will try to
occupy the same airspace. Many of us worry about that and transponders seem
the best answer for now.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII yaw string

[Eric Greenwell]

bumper wrote:

>
> To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works between
> gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be much better
> received if it warns of both power and glider threats.

I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
"threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and
to mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up
with a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and
glider proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.

Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[bumper]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:U3iXg.5681$ic1.2059@trndny06...
> bumper wrote:
>
>>
>> To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works
>> between gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be
>> much better received if it warns of both power and glider threats.
>
> I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
> perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
> the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
> estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
> "threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
> developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
> access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and to
> mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up with
> a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and glider
> proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.
>
> Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Or, a "clever" person could design something akin to Garmin's RINO (a GPS
that is able to send it's position and/or acquire the position of other
nearby units - up to 23 nm in the air). Unfortunately, the FCC did not allow
Garmin to program the RINO to send/receive automatically - - one has to push
the side button to send position to all other units within range. The
"RINO", at $150 US, still remains a useful tool for buddy or team soaring.
(RINO will display other units range, bearing, and altitude. When your
buddy's info is updated on your display, your unit will "chime" and this
reminds you to push the button on your unit to send him your position. It's
also possible to "poll" other RINOs within range for their current
position - - though this takes more button pushes and so is not so
convenient while flying.)

Think about it though, if Garmin can use Family Radio Service (FRS or GMRS)
band to send / receive position, then why the h__l can't the FCC allow the
use of this radio band, even if limited to less power/range, to be used in
an automatic position reporting mode. The equipment would be cheap,
portable, low-power consuming and would display other threat aircraft on a
moving map display w/ GPS altitude.

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

[Mike Schumann]

I suspect if these units could transmit in auto mode, the frequency would
become completely unusable.

Mike Schumann

"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:U3iXg.5681$ic1.2059@trndny06...
>> bumper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works
>>> between gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be
>>> much better received if it warns of both power and glider threats.
>>
>> I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
>> perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
>> the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
>> estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
>> "threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
>> developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
>> access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and
>> to mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up
>> with a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and
>> glider proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.
>>
>> Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
>> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>>
>> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
>
> Or, a "clever" person could design something akin to Garmin's RINO (a GPS
> that is able to send it's position and/or acquire the position of other
> nearby units - up to 23 nm in the air). Unfortunately, the FCC did not
> allow Garmin to program the RINO to send/receive automatically - - one has
> to push the side button to send position to all other units within range.
> The "RINO", at $150 US, still remains a useful tool for buddy or team
> soaring. (RINO will display other units range, bearing, and altitude. When
> your buddy's info is updated on your display, your unit will "chime" and
> this reminds you to push the button on your unit to send him your
> position. It's also possible to "poll" other RINOs within range for their
> current position - - though this takes more button pushes and so is not so
> convenient while flying.)
>
> Think about it though, if Garmin can use Family Radio Service (FRS or
> GMRS) band to send / receive position, then why the h__l can't the FCC
> allow the use of this radio band, even if limited to less power/range, to
> be used in an automatic position reporting mode. The equipment would be
> cheap, portable, low-power consuming and would display other threat
> aircraft on a moving map display w/ GPS altitude.
>
> Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String
>

[Mike Schumann]

It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone could
go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not only gliders
but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing the necessary
ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C transponder equiped
aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:U3iXg.5681$ic1.2059@trndny06...
> bumper wrote:
>
>>
>> To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works
>> between gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be
>> much better received if it warns of both power and glider threats.
>
> I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
> perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
> the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
> estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
> "threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
> developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
> access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and to
> mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up with
> a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and glider
> proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.
>
> Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
> compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone could
> go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not only gliders
> but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing the necessary
> ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C transponder equiped
> aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.

The ground equipment is already in place along the east coast from New
York down to Florida, Alaska, Oregon, and a few other scattered places.
It's much cheaper than upgrading radar equipment, but suffers from the
classic chicken and egg problem.

In principle, a simple low power ADS-B transceiver (to be precise a UAT)
need be no more complicated or expensive to manufacture than a FLARM
unit. In practice, however, the certification costs alone are something
over a million dollars for a device which currently has a tiny market.
If the FAA really wants to kick start use of ADS-B in this country, they
need to take a serious look at simplifying or subsidizing the
certification process.

Marc

[Mike Schumann]

They are already doing that with Light Sport Aircraft. Do those rules apply
to avionics? I would suspect that the FAA would be very receptive to a
proposal that would drastically increase the visibility of gliders and other
airborne vehicles that are currently flying around without transponders.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
>> compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone
>> could go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not only
>> gliders but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing the
>> necessary ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C transponder
>> equiped aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.
>
> The ground equipment is already in place along the east coast from New
> York down to Florida, Alaska, Oregon, and a few other scattered places.
> It's much cheaper than upgrading radar equipment, but suffers from the
> classic chicken and egg problem.
>
> In principle, a simple low power ADS-B transceiver (to be precise a UAT)
> need be no more complicated or expensive to manufacture than a FLARM unit.
> In practice, however, the certification costs alone are something over a
> million dollars for a device which currently has a tiny market. If the FAA
> really wants to kick start use of ADS-B in this country, they need to take
> a serious look at simplifying or subsidizing the certification process.
>
> Marc

[Ramy]

I read great ideas on this thread, but is there anyone who is listening
who can do something about it or is it all academic? I know that the US
soaring population has soaring instruments manufactures, soaring
software developers and FAA contacts which may be able to do something
about it. Sounds like the OZ's developed their own flarm, why can't we?

Ramy

Mike Schumann wrote:
> They are already doing that with Light Sport Aircraft. Do those rules apply
> to avionics? I would suspect that the FAA would be very receptive to a
> proposal that would drastically increase the visibility of gliders and other
> airborne vehicles that are currently flying around without transponders.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike Schumann wrote:
> >> It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
> >> compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone
> >> could go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not only
> >> gliders but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing the
> >> necessary ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C transponder
> >> equiped aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.
> >
> > The ground equipment is already in place along the east coast from New
> > York down to Florida, Alaska, Oregon, and a few other scattered places.
> > It's much cheaper than upgrading radar equipment, but suffers from the
> > classic chicken and egg problem.
> >
> > In principle, a simple low power ADS-B transceiver (to be precise a UAT)
> > need be no more complicated or expensive to manufacture than a FLARM unit.
> > In practice, however, the certification costs alone are something over a
> > million dollars for a device which currently has a tiny market. If the FAA
> > really wants to kick start use of ADS-B in this country, they need to take
> > a serious look at simplifying or subsidizing the certification process.
> >
> > Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Ramy wrote:
> I read great ideas on this thread, but is there anyone who is listening
> who can do something about it or is it all academic? I know that the US
> soaring population has soaring instruments manufactures, soaring
> software developers and FAA contacts which may be able to do something
> about it. Sounds like the OZ's developed their own flarm, why can't we?

ADS-B is not academic in the US, I and others are working on a proposal
to the FAA to accelerate deployment in the Reno area. You are welcome
to contact me privately, to find out what is up, or come to the PASCO
Safety Seminar where I'll be making a presentation.

I don't think the population and distribution of gliders in the US is
sufficient to support development of an indigenous FLARM-like system.
If you'd like to prove me wrong, and you (or someone else) can provide
funding, I can arrange to get some prototypes built in short order.
Otherwise, ADS-B is the best bet for the long term.

Marc

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

OzFlarm is built in Australia by RF Developments Pty Ltd
http://www.rf-developments.com/ , who describe it :
"OzFlarm is an exciting new technology based on the tried and proven FLARM
collision awareness system developed by FLARM Technology in Switzerland."

So far as I know the only other manufacturer, also building under licence
from FLARM in Switzerland http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html is LX
Navigation in Slovenia Europe http://www.lxnavigation.si/ . LX are
represented in the UK by LX Avionics Ltd http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/ , so
far as I know SwissFlarm and OzFlarm are not represented in the UK.

I understand that some 5,000 Flarm units in total have been supplied
world-wide so far.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.
>
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> I read great ideas on this thread, but is there anyone who is listening
> who can do something about it or is it all academic? I know that the US
> soaring population has soaring instruments manufactures, soaring
> software developers and FAA contacts which may be able to do something
> about it. Sounds like the OZ's developed their own flarm, why can't we?
>
> Ramy
>

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

That sounds just like Flarm, which is available from two manufacturers in
Europe and one in Australia, and has sold about 5,000 units so far.

Are you suggesting that the USA re-invent the wheel?

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

>
> "bumper" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
> Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String
>

[bumper]

At a fact finding meeting, held by the NTSB at Minden following the recent
mid-air, I suggested that the FAA might consider streamlining the optional
installation of transponders in gliders. This might be similar to what they
did for the installation of shoulder harnesses in classic light aircraft a
decade ago. i.e. dispense with the engineering hassle for adding a battery
box/tray and eliminate the requirement for 337 approval. Require only a log
book entry and VFR xponder check. This was received as a "good suggestion".

We'll see, but I don't expect anything to happen soon - - if at all. I'd
also be surprised if certification standards for avionics used in LSA are
lowered beyond that required for other GA aircraft.

bumper

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> They are already doing that with Light Sport Aircraft. Do those rules
> apply to avionics? I would suspect that the FAA would be very receptive
> to a proposal that would drastically increase the visibility of gliders
> and other airborne vehicles that are currently flying around without
> transponders.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike Schumann wrote:
>>> It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
>>> compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone
>>> could go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not
>>> only gliders but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing
>>> the necessary ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C
>>> transponder equiped aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.
>>
>> The ground equipment is already in place along the east coast from New
>> York down to Florida, Alaska, Oregon, and a few other scattered places.
>> It's much cheaper than upgrading radar equipment, but suffers from the
>> classic chicken and egg problem.
>>
>> In principle, a simple low power ADS-B transceiver (to be precise a UAT)
>> need be no more complicated or expensive to manufacture than a FLARM
>> unit. In practice, however, the certification costs alone are something
>> over a million dollars for a device which currently has a tiny market. If
>> the FAA really wants to kick start use of ADS-B in this country, they
>> need to take a serious look at simplifying or subsidizing the
>> certification process.
>>
>> Marc
>
>

[bumper]

No, not intentionally, anyway. I was under the impression, though I have no
experience with FLARM, that it was not suitable for high speed GA aircraft,
jets and the like.

At present, FLARM cannot be used in the USA due to apparent liability
concerns. Even if it could be used, and all gliders were so equipped, it
would only address part of the problem. For the US, we need a system that
will work for both power and glider. If that's FLARM, fine. If not, then
hopefully someone will reinvent the wheel - - soon.

I'm aware of two mid-airs in the Minden / Truckee / Tahoe area in the past
15 or so years. Both where power vs. glider. Fortunately, and rather
amazingly, neither involved fatalities. There was another further south on
the Sierra that involved a glider and jet fighter - - again both survived. I
have no statistics, but in this neck-of-the-woods, it would seem the threat
of a glider mid-air is mostly between us and the guys with engines.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quit Vent kit and MKII yaw string

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> That sounds just like Flarm, which is available from two manufacturers in
> Europe and one in Australia, and has sold about 5,000 units so far.
>
> Are you suggesting that the USA re-invent the wheel?
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>>
>> "bumper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
>> --
>> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
>> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
>> Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String
>>
>
>
>
>

[Ramy]

bumper wrote:
>
> I'm aware of two mid-airs in the Minden / Truckee / Tahoe area in the past
> 15 or so years. Both where power vs. glider. Fortunately, and rather
> amazingly, neither involved fatalities. There was another further south on
> the Sierra that involved a glider and jet fighter - - again both survived. I
> have no statistics, but in this neck-of-the-woods, it would seem the threat
> of a glider mid-air is mostly between us and the guys with engines.
> --
>
There was also a glider to glider midair years ago over Bridgeport with
one fatality.

Ramy

[Guy Acheson]

All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
The fact is that transponders are the established
aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
systems in the USA work off of this system. The USA
is a very different environment than flying in the
Alps. I have flown in the Alps and there you have
several hundred gliders slope soaring and flying around
cliffs, valleys, buttes, and mountains in very low
ceilings. You will be flying the face of Pic de Burre
and round a corner to have three gliders flying formation
at your altitude coming straight at you. Power traffic
is a non issue. Here in the USA it is probably more
likely to have conflict with power traffic.
Transponders are relatively affordable, use relatively
little power, fit easily in a panel, and work. For
most glider pilots in the USA who never fly above 10,000
feet and are in the country this is a fantasy situation.
But for those of us in California, the Denver area,
most of Florida, Dallas and Chicago, we share the air
with heavies and I think we should step up to the bar
and be full participants in the air traffic system.
Guy

[John Galloway]

At least one ACAS system in Europe (Filser TM100) is
already being prepared that takes simultaneous input
both from a Mode S transponder and a Flarm unit. The
transponder for longer range/higher speed traffic and
the Flarm for short range/gliders/low speed GA.

John Galloway

At 04:36 13 October 2006, Guy Acheson wrote:
>All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
>a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
> The fact is that transponders are the established
>aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
>systems in the USA work off of this system. The USA
>is a very different environment than flying in the
>Alps. I have flown in the Alps and there you have
>several hundred gliders slope soaring and flying around
>cliffs, valleys, buttes, and mountains in very low
>ceilings. You will be flying the face of Pic de Burre
>and round a corner to have three gliders flying formation
>at your altitude coming straight at you. Power traffic
>is a non issue. Here in the USA it is probably more
>likely to have conflict with power traffic.
>Transponders are relatively affordable, use relatively
>little power, fit easily in a panel, and work. For
>most glider pilots in the USA who never fly above 10,000
>feet and are in the country this is a fantasy situation.
> But for those of us in California, the Denver area,
>most of Florida, Dallas and Chicago, we share the air
>with heavies and I think we should step up to the bar
>and be full participants in the air traffic system.
>Guy
>
>
>
>

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

Everything which Guy says makes sense to me.

I have never flown in the U.S.A. but if I were flying from Minden I would
like to have a transponder.
See what Gordon Boettger said in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other gliders have fitted it.

This is for now.

In the future there is ADS-B which is where the U.S.A. is going, but it will
take many years. There are already developments to make ADS-B and Flarm
inter-operable, but they are not with us yet.

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

>
> "Guy Acheson" >
> wrote in message ...
>
> All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
> a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
> The fact is that transponders are the established
> aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
> systems in the USA work off of this system.
>
> The USA is a very different environment than flying in the
> Alps. I have flown in the Alps and there you have
> several hundred gliders slope soaring and flying around
> cliffs, valleys, buttes, and mountains in very low
> ceilings. You will be flying the face of Pic de Burre
> and round a corner to have three gliders flying formation
> at your altitude coming straight at you. Power traffic
> is a non issue.
>
> Here in the USA it is probably more likely to have conflict with power
> traffic. Transponders are relatively affordable, use relatively
> little power, fit easily in a panel, and work. For
> most glider pilots in the USA who never fly above 10,000
> feet and are in the country this is a fantasy situation.
> But for those of us in California, the Denver area,
> most of Florida, Dallas and Chicago, we share the air
> with heavies and I think we should step up to the bar
> and be full participants in the air traffic system.
>
> Guy
>

[bumper]

"Guy Acheson" > wrote in message
...
> All this talk about FLARM and other alternatives to
> a transponder in the USA is just so much wasted energy.
> The fact is that transponders are the established
> aircraft identification system in the USA and all anti-collision
> systems in the USA work off of this system.


Guy,

What you're saying is correct, as far as it goes. I fly at Minden with both
a transponder and TPAS in my glider because I value my butt and think it's
the responsible thing to do. However, transponders leave big gaps in
coverage, as in areas with no ATC interrogation and only rare TCAS
interrogation. This xponder shortcoming is even larger as not all aircraft
have transponders. Thus transponders will continue to represent only a
partial and interim solution. As ATC decommissions their radar systems,
assuming they do in favor of ADS-B, then transponders will become about as
useful as the NDB receiver in my Mooney.

Okay, it's a given that transponders and maybe TPAS is the best option we
have right now. But as the prior discussion covers (which I don't think is
"so much wasted energy") there can and probably will be better solutions in
the future. In the US, this will likely be based on ADS-B or some version of
that. I just hope they pay attention to the needs of gliders and
non-electrical system classic aircraft when that, slow in coming, time
comes.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII yaw string

[Guy Acheson]

Good to hear from you, Bumper.
The main problem I observe with these discussions about
alternatives to transponders and that 'something better
is out there' is that it is used as an excuse by so
many people for not installing a transponder now.
'Why buy something that will be obsolete very soon?'

We live, fly, and die in the here and now. Virtually
every argument about the uselessness of transponders
has not panned out in my experience. Even the argument
that TCAS will not be effective in the hinterland because
my transponder is not being 'pinged' by ATC radar has
not been true. No matter where I fly in the great
basin, the Whites to Ely, my transponder is blinking,
blinking, blinking.
I really think the soaring community and the SSA have
been dodging their responsibility to the greater aviation
community by not getting on board with transponders.
Soaring has changed significantly over the last twenty
years. We are flying farther, higher, and faster than
every before. We cover more ground and use higher
altitudes than I ever did flying a Cessna. We make
this big issue about requiring ELTs in planes for competition.
In my opinion that money and energy would have been
much better spent on transponders.
As long as I am pontificating, my other big issue is
that I think every glider and towplane should have
a radio. What other single action or piece of equipment
would improve safety during the two critical phases
of glider flight, launch and landing? So many of the
incidents and accidents associated with open spoilers
or unlatched canopies probably would have had better
outcomes if we could talk to each other. What a concept
that the tow pilot could simply tell the glider that
his spoilers are open. Perhaps some of the open canopy
accidents would have had better outcomes if someone
seeing the incident could have talked to the pilot
with the open canopy and remind them to fly the plane.
People on the ground could remind a glider on final
with his gear up that he/she may want to consider lowering
their gear.
Radios and transponders should be required. In the
world of 1-26s , tube radios, and dry cell batteries
the status quo was reasonable. In today's aviation
environment it is simply wrong.
There...I'm done. I feel better now.
Guy

[hans]

Guy Acheson schrieb:

> People on the ground could remind a glider on final
> with his gear up that he/she may want to consider lowering
> their gear.

We have radios in all gliders in our club but also the rule that a
glider with gear up is not informed on final. If the gilder is past base
with gear up, the pilot is not informed. The reason for this this,
that some gilder pilots have not the capability to bring the gear down
and to fly the aircraft while on final.

I fully support the policy to have a radio in every gilder and tow plane.

A audio variometer is also a very important piece of equipment to allow
see and avoid to work.

[Ralph Jones]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:44:41 +0200, hans > wrote:

>Guy Acheson schrieb:
>
>> People on the ground could remind a glider on final
>> with his gear up that he/she may want to consider lowering
>> their gear.
>
>We have radios in all gliders in our club but also the rule that a
>glider with gear up is not informed on final. If the gilder is past base
> with gear up, the pilot is not informed. The reason for this this,
>that some gilder pilots have not the capability to bring the gear down
>and to fly the aircraft while on final.
>
I once saw a pilot almost land gear-up in a 1-35. It had the radio
antenna mounted on the gear door, and he correctly identified the
scraping noise, pulled up a few feet, and dropped the gear. I was
impressed at the time, but that guy probably came very close to
breaking a wrist to avoid a minor sheetmetal repair...

rj