Re: (USA) NTSB issues recommendations to the FAA and the SSA regarding transponder use in gliders

[BT]

If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
lawn chair... makes no matter.

So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.

BT


"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
...
>I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
>transponders always on.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
> above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
> lawn chair... makes no matter.
>
> So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.
>
> BT
>
> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
> >transponders always on.

Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
transponders in their ships. This might be especially true in older
gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
US.

Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
operations in the US.........

[Tuno]

I know of at least a couple soaring operations that would not only
have the expense of buying and installing transponders, but batteries,
electrical harnesses, and chargers as well.

Not one of the gliders I ever trained in had batteries, or a place to
put one!

2NO

[[email protected]]

Good report. I think transponders will be necessary, and a good
thing. Remember, it just makes them required above 10,000' or in the
Class B 30 mile veil, not everywhere - just like everybody else! I
would guess that most (not all, unfortunately) training flights would
be outside the airspace where xponders would be needed.

The cost issue? We pay almost 2K$ for parachutes, glider computers
are over 2K$, etc. It just follows the trend of the sport - it isn't
cheap flying anymore (unless you stay below 10k ft). If you want to
run with the big dogs, etc..

Batteries? I would think the new technology (Nimh, etc) would allow
an Xponder to be powered all day. A non-issue, IMHO.

I just got my PCAS, so I can see the other VFR traffic (that isn't
talking to ATC but has to have a transponder), and a transponder is
next (when I figure out where to stick it in my panel).

Or, as MasterCard would put it:

Transponder and installation: $3000

Fancy battery to power said transponder: $100

Watching the Southwest 737 jinking out of your way as you core a 12
knot thermal just outside Phoenix's Class B airspace: Priceless!

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann]

If you want to hurt the sport of soaring, wait till we have a mid-air with
an airliner and 150 people are killed.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
...
> On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>> If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
>> above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
>> lawn chair... makes no matter.
>>
>> So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.
>>
>> BT
>>
>> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
>> >transponders always on.
>
> Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
> most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
> transponders in their ships. This might be especially true in older
> gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
> 20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
> buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
> growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
> US.
>
> Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
> install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
> comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
> the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
> not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
> operations in the US.........



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 1, 9:56 am, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> If you want to hurt the sport of soaring, wait till we have a mid-air with
> an airliner and 150 people are killed.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> >> If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
> >> above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
> >> lawn chair... makes no matter.
>
> >> So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.
>
> >> BT
>
> >> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> >I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
> >> >transponders always on.
>
> > Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
> > most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
> > transponders in their ships. This might be especially true in older
> > gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
> > 20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
> > buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
> > growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
> > US.
>
> > Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
> > install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
> > comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
> > the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
> > not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
> > operations in the US.........
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

If the FAA wants to mandate transponders and/or ADS-B for gliders, I'd
like VFR for gliders to FL245, like before, at least west of the
Kansas line as part of 'free flight'.

Frank Whiteley

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 1, 6:48 am, wrote:
> Good report. I think transponders will be necessary, and a good
> thing. Remember, it just makes them required above 10,000' or in the
> Class B 30 mile veil, not everywhere - just like everybody else! I
> would guess that most (not all, unfortunately) training flights would
> be outside the airspace where xponders would be needed.
>
> The cost issue? We pay almost 2K$ for parachutes, glider computers
> are over 2K$, etc. It just follows the trend of the sport - it isn't
> cheap flying anymore (unless you stay below 10k ft). If you want to
> run with the big dogs, etc..
>
> Batteries? I would think the new technology (Nimh, etc) would allow
> an Xponder to be powered all day. A non-issue, IMHO.
>
> I just got my PCAS, so I can see the other VFR traffic (that isn't
> talking to ATC but has to have a transponder), and a transponder is
> next (when I figure out where to stick it in my panel).
>
> Or, as MasterCard would put it:
>
> Transponder and installation: $3000
>
> Fancy battery to power said transponder: $100
>
> Watching the Southwest 737 jinking out of your way as you core a 12
> knot thermal just outside Phoenix's Class B airspace: Priceless!
>
> Kirk
> 66

I also don't see the problem with this. We knew it was coming, like
what else could the NTSB possibly do? They politically just can't not
take action, leave things how they are and hope that airliner
collision does not happen. I thought the letters were well written and
appropriate and I support the FAA removing the transponder exemption.

So a local N. Califonia/Nevada rant: I've seen/heard transponders work
at Reno with traffic being diverted and I've had a close call with a
GA aircraft that also convinced me that for where I fly the
combination of a transponder first and a PCAS second are useful tools.
And in our area it is not just Reno, I also fly south of the San
Francisco Bay Area and we have heavy traffic going overhead into San
Jose who are oblivious to gliders being in the area, an issue on wave
days when we get up to their altitudes. Many of the popular XC routes
also cross several VORs and there is lots of GA traffic in the area at
all altitudes flying radials into those VORs (the ones with student
pilots in them with a IFR visor on worry me most). PCAS and Tansponder
helps with these.

The Sacramento Delta area near Travis AFB is another problem area,
where gliders fly close to or occasionally cross the Sacramento delta.
Travis AFB is the busiest military airlift operation in the USA, it
does operate on weekends at times (unlike the sectional implies) and
heavy/fast military aircraft operate outside of the marked danger zone
and there are lots of transiting GA traffic *and* Travis approach who
provide ATC services for civilian traffic in the area (a much larger
area than the Travis alert area on the sectional) are completely blind
to all non-transponder equipped aircraft to their south east because
of radar reflections from electric power windmills on the ground. I
have found Travis approach to be very easy to work with and happy to
have gliders with transponders on flight following, and they seem to
get we are gliders (they will also take position reports from non-
transponder equipped gliders). The requirement above 10,000 feet or
the 30nm veil won't require gliders in this area to have transponders
but hopefully most folk in the area are already aware of the issues.

Flying last weekend many of the gliders had transponders and Zaon MRX
(seems Santa has been kind to some pilots) and it is great to hear the
enhanced awareness on the radio as people check off who else is close
to them. Yes they all are just tools and your mileage may vary, and
again the biggest thing is not destroying the sport overnight by
taking out an airliner.

Darryl

[kirk.stant]

> If the FAA wants to mandate transponders and/or ADS-B for gliders, I'd
> like VFR for gliders to FL245, like before, at least west of the
> Kansas line as part of 'free flight'.
>
> Frank Whiteley-

Yeah, that would be cool! VFR thermal climbs to 22k ft cloudbases
over the Grand Canyon...BTDT!

Break - how about a way to show IFR & jet arrival and departure routes
on our nifty moving maps? We show all kinds of airspace that we know
to avoid - if we had the arrival and departure routes depicted
(showing direction and approximate altitude), along with VORs (already
possible, of course), we would have another tool to know where to look
for traffic.

Time for a quick email to the SeeYou forum, i think...

Kirk
66

[Tim Mara]

the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> If you want to hurt the sport of soaring, wait till we have a mid-air with
> an airliner and 150 people are killed.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>>> If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
>>> above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
>>> lawn chair... makes no matter.
>>>
>>> So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.
>>>
>>> BT
>>>
>>> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> >I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
>>> >transponders always on.
>>
>> Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
>> most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
>> transponders in their ships. This might be especially true in older
>> gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
>> 20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
>> buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
>> growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
>> US.
>>
>> Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
>> install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
>> comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
>> the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
>> not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
>> operations in the US.........
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Bob]

So Tim,
You are saying that the Hawker shouldn't have been there right?

Bob

On Apr 1, 2:57*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
> been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
> were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
>
> tim
> Please visit the Wings & Wheels website atwww.wingsandwheels.com
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>
> .. .> If you want to hurt the sport of soaring, wait till we have a mid-air with
> > an airliner and 150 people are killed.
>
> > Mike Schumann
>
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> >>> If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
> >>> above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
> >>> lawn chair... makes no matter.
>
> >>> So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.
>
> >>> BT
>
> >>> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> >I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
> >>> >transponders always on.
>
> >> Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
> >> most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
> >> transponders in their ships. This might be *especially true in older
> >> gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
> >> 20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
> >> buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
> >> growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
> >> US.
>
> >> Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
> >> install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
> >> comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
> >> the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
> >> not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
> >> operations in the US.........
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 1, 11:57 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
> been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
> were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
>
> tim
> Please visit the Wings & Wheels website atwww.wingsandwheels.com
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> > If you want to hurt the sport of soaring, wait till we have a mid-air with
> > an airliner and 150 people are killed.
>
> > Mike Schumann
>
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> >>> If you read the NPRM for ADS-B, you'll remember that you cannot even get
> >>> above 10K MSL without ADS-B regardless of the aircraft, glider, balloon,
> >>> lawn chair... makes no matter.
>
> >>> So Transponders now, and ADS-B later.
>
> >>> BT
>
> >>> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> >I see they want to require transponders in all gliders, with the
> >>> >transponders always on.
>
> >> Assuming transponders become mandatory in gliders, what concerns me
> >> most is that we may find that folks may not be willing to install
> >> transponders in their ships. This might be especially true in older
> >> gliders that may have a value of anywhere from $5K to perhaps $ 15 or
> >> 20K. I can see folks selling their gliders (perhaps to overseas
> >> buyers) and giving up on the sport. We are having enough trouble
> >> growing the sport and I'm afraid this could really hurt soaring in the
> >> US.
>
> >> Some clubs, operating on the edge, might fold as they may have to
> >> install transponders in every 1-26 and 2-33. They may be unwilling to
> >> comply, and as a result, disband. I am a realist and I do understand
> >> the concerns of the NTSB, but this potential new requirement, though
> >> not unexpected, could really have an adverse effect on soaring
> >> operations in the US.........
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

No the problem is when you really look at it there is much more
traffic up there than we appreciate, and that is not just Reno but
many other places. See and avoid does not work, see and estimate the
traffic density does not really work either. People can underestimate
the density and overestimate their safety and continue to believe they
are doing a good job seeing and avoiding - pilots should try out a
PCAS and it may surprise them how how much stuff they missed before.
There are many places where you just can't go XC without significant
exposure to GA, commercial and military traffic but many glider pilots
are underestimating that traffic, live in a pilotage/VFR world, don't
have a feel for traffic flow with approach/departure procedures, and
without a transponder just do not fit into a radar managed traffic
control system.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 1, 9:33 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 6:48 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good report. I think transponders will be necessary, and a good
> > thing. Remember, it just makes them required above 10,000' or in the
> > Class B 30 mile veil, not everywhere - just like everybody else! I
> > would guess that most (not all, unfortunately) training flights would
> > be outside the airspace where xponders would be needed.
>
> > The cost issue? We pay almost 2K$ for parachutes, glider computers
> > are over 2K$, etc. It just follows the trend of the sport - it isn't
> > cheap flying anymore (unless you stay below 10k ft). If you want to
> > run with the big dogs, etc..
>
> > Batteries? I would think the new technology (Nimh, etc) would allow
> > an Xponder to be powered all day. A non-issue, IMHO.
>
> > I just got my PCAS, so I can see the other VFR traffic (that isn't
> > talking to ATC but has to have a transponder), and a transponder is
> > next (when I figure out where to stick it in my panel).
>
> > Or, as MasterCard would put it:
>
> > Transponder and installation: $3000
>
> > Fancy battery to power said transponder: $100
>
> > Watching the Southwest 737 jinking out of your way as you core a 12
> > knot thermal just outside Phoenix's Class B airspace: Priceless!
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> I also don't see the problem with this. We knew it was coming, like
> what else could the NTSB possibly do? They politically just can't not
> take action, leave things how they are and hope that airliner
> collision does not happen. I thought the letters were well written and
> appropriate and I support the FAA removing the transponder exemption.
>
> So a local N. Califonia/Nevada rant: I've seen/heard transponders work
> at Reno with traffic being diverted and I've had a close call with a
> GA aircraft that also convinced me that for where I fly the
> combination of a transponder first and a PCAS second are useful tools.
> And in our area it is not just Reno, I also fly south of the San
> Francisco Bay Area and we have heavy traffic going overhead into San
> Jose who are oblivious to gliders being in the area, an issue on wave
> days when we get up to their altitudes. Many of the popular XC routes
> also cross several VORs and there is lots of GA traffic in the area at
> all altitudes flying radials into those VORs (the ones with student
> pilots in them with a IFR visor on worry me most). PCAS and Tansponder
> helps with these.
>
> The Sacramento Delta area near Travis AFB is another problem area,
> where gliders fly close to or occasionally cross the Sacramento delta.
> Travis AFB is the busiest military airlift operation in the USA, it
> does operate on weekends at times (unlike the sectional implies) and
> heavy/fast military aircraft operate outside of the marked danger zone
> and there are lots of transiting GA traffic *and* Travis approach who
> provide ATC services for civilian traffic in the area (a much larger
> area than the Travis alert area on the sectional) are completely blind
> to all non-transponder equipped aircraft to their south east because
> of radar reflections from electric power windmills on the ground. I
> have found Travis approach to be very easy to work with and happy to
> have gliders with transponders on flight following, and they seem to
> get we are gliders (they will also take position reports from non-
> transponder equipped gliders). The requirement above 10,000 feet or
> the 30nm veil won't require gliders in this area to have transponders
> but hopefully most folk in the area are already aware of the issues.
>
> Flying last weekend many of the gliders had transponders and Zaon MRX
> (seems Santa has been kind to some pilots) and it is great to hear the
> enhanced awareness on the radio as people check off who else is close
> to them. Yes they all are just tools and your mileage may vary, and
> again the biggest thing is not destroying the sport overnight by
> taking out an airliner.
>
> Darryl

While heading off topic, I just checked the latest San Francisco
sectional chart and the warning about radar visibility only for
transponder equipped aircraft south east of Travis AFB is now on the
sectional. Travis AFB has been working with the FAA for a while to get
this warning on the sectional, good on them for doing so.

Darryl

[Tim Mara]

I agree completely.....PCAS would be a good and very affordable option for
glider pilots...
allowing (or forcing the FAA's hand)into making transponders mandatory in
gliders is going to be a real bump in the road for many (most) glider owners
and clubs...many who don't need to fly down the approach corridor of
international airports to get their kicks..
The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
board....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
major airports..
Transponders are not the fix all for the problem, but mandatory transponders
in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
"knew" it.
tim

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 1, 11:57 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>> the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
>> been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
>> they
>> were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
> No the problem is when you really look at it there is much more
> traffic up there than we appreciate, and that is not just Reno but
> many other places. See and avoid does not work, see and estimate the
> traffic density does not really work either. People can underestimate
> the density and overestimate their safety and continue to believe they
> are doing a good job seeing and avoiding - pilots should try out a
> PCAS and it may surprise them how how much stuff they missed before.
> There are many places where you just can't go XC without significant
> exposure to GA, commercial and military traffic but many glider pilots
> are underestimating that traffic, live in a pilotage/VFR world, don't
> have a feel for traffic flow with approach/departure procedures, and
> without a transponder just do not fit into a radar managed traffic
> control system.
>
> Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 1, 3:23 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> I agree completely.....PCAS would be a good and very affordable option for
> glider pilots...
> allowing (or forcing the FAA's hand)into making transponders mandatory in
> gliders is going to be a real bump in the road for many (most) glider owners
> and clubs...many who don't need to fly down the approach corridor of
> international airports to get their kicks..
> The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
> security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
> keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
> along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
> leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
> avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
> board....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
> only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
> major airports..
> Transponders are not the fix all for the problem, but mandatory transponders
> in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
> "knew" it.
> tim
>
> "Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Apr 1, 11:57 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> >> the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
> >> been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
> >> they
> >> were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
> > No the problem is when you really look at it there is much more
> > traffic up there than we appreciate, and that is not just Reno but
> > many other places. See and avoid does not work, see and estimate the
> > traffic density does not really work either. People can underestimate
> > the density and overestimate their safety and continue to believe they
> > are doing a good job seeing and avoiding - pilots should try out a
> > PCAS and it may surprise them how how much stuff they missed before.
> > There are many places where you just can't go XC without significant
> > exposure to GA, commercial and military traffic but many glider pilots
> > are underestimating that traffic, live in a pilotage/VFR world, don't
> > have a feel for traffic flow with approach/departure procedures, and
> > without a transponder just do not fit into a radar managed traffic
> > control system.
>
> > Darryl

Tim

I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.

I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
TCAS.

Darryl

[BT]

my club is inside the 30nm veil.. as are two other locations around PHX
BT

> wrote in message
...
> Good report. I think transponders will be necessary, and a good
> thing. Remember, it just makes them required above 10,000' or in the
> Class B 30 mile veil, not everywhere - just like everybody else! I
> would guess that most (not all, unfortunately) training flights would
> be outside the airspace where xponders would be needed.
>
> The cost issue? We pay almost 2K$ for parachutes, glider computers
> are over 2K$, etc. It just follows the trend of the sport - it isn't
> cheap flying anymore (unless you stay below 10k ft). If you want to
> run with the big dogs, etc..
>
> Batteries? I would think the new technology (Nimh, etc) would allow
> an Xponder to be powered all day. A non-issue, IMHO.
>
> I just got my PCAS, so I can see the other VFR traffic (that isn't
> talking to ATC but has to have a transponder), and a transponder is
> next (when I figure out where to stick it in my panel).
>
> Or, as MasterCard would put it:
>
> Transponder and installation: $3000
>
> Fancy battery to power said transponder: $100
>
> Watching the Southwest 737 jinking out of your way as you core a 12
> knot thermal just outside Phoenix's Class B airspace: Priceless!
>
> Kirk
> 66

[VARR]

>> the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
>> been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
>> were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing

Well, it certainly is not quite the same thing, but I can appreciate
Tim's point, from a certain perspective, if what he fully intends to
convey is that those who *do* chose to fly "there" (i.e., wherever a
transponder really would be a "good idea") should indeed be allowed to
do so, but then they really "should" chose to equip themselves
appropriately for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others.

Extending his analogy, those who do chose to stay in the water when
others are chumming for sharks nearby should be allowed to do so, but
then they really "should" take the opportunity, whenever feasible, to
chose to equip themselves appropriately (e.g., place themselves inside
a shark cage, etc.) when participating in such activity in order to
mitigate the risk to themselves as well as the risk to others (where
"others" is obviously more of a concern in the case of transponders in
gliders).

Perhaps the FAA will choose to only issue "stronger guidelines"
recommending transponder use under certain operating conditions and in
certain environments. Or, if they chose to make regulatory changes,
perhaps they might issue less of a blanket regulation, as recommended
by the NTSB, and something more conditional and specific to certain
operating environments. It seems reasonable that such conditions
could be defined which would mitigate the majority of the risk without
negatively impacting the majority of glider operations. Even better,
if the SSA were to perform well at issuing such guidelines and making
such recommendations to the community, then perhaps the powers that be
will consider the risk appropriately managed and not take burdensome
and inappropriate action (at least for now, at least not until, if
ever, low-cost and effective risk mitigating solutions are actually
available).

Taking into account (a) the recent widespread adoption of PCAS, and
(b) local operating agreements that do exist and continue to be
created nationwide between local soaring operations and local ATC,
there seems to be hope for a non-regulatory solution -- perhaps these
efforts just need to be more cohesive, better standardized, and better
"marketed?"

Here is hoping that rationality prevails at the FAA and that the sport/
industry/etc. (the SSA?) takes strong leadership action on the issue
and demonstrates to the FAA and others that the sport/industry/etc.
can indeed appropriately self-regulate.


On Apr 1, 4:08 pm, Bob > wrote:
>
> So Tim,
> You are saying that the Hawker shouldn't have been there right?
>
> Bob
>
> On Apr 1, 2:57 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> >
> > the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
> > been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where they
> > were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
> >
> > tim
> > Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

[J a c k]

Darryl Ramm wrote:

> On Apr 1, 3:23 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>> I agree completely.....PCAS would be a good and very affordable option for
>> glider pilots...
>> allowing (or forcing the FAA's hand) into making transponders mandatory in
>> gliders is going to be a real bump in the road for many (most) glider owners
>> and clubs...many who don't need to fly down the approach corridor of
>> international airports to get their kicks..
>> The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
>> security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
>> keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
>> along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
>> leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
>> avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
>> board....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
>> only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
>> major airports..
>> Transponders are not the fix all for the problem, but mandatory transponders
>> in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
>> "knew" it.


[....]


> I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
> talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
> at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
> this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
> fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
> correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
> anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
> cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
> guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.
>
> I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
> expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
> TCAS.


I think you and Tim are dealing with different ends of the same stick.
The people who NOW have xpndrs and/or PCAS are a different breed than
many who will have xpndrs only when they are forced to have them. Some
of these will take the same blindered approach to traffic avoidance then
that they take now, just with more equipment in the cockpit.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Mara wrote:

> The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
> security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
> keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
> along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight computer...this
> leads to more near misses and occasional hits than electronics can
> avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's flying with TCAS on
> board

How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by
a non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem?
Can it be addressed by training?

>....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they
> only turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of
> major airports..

Sounds like a good start, doesn't it? I mean, we wouldn't be having this
discussion if the Reno glider had turned the transponder in that
situation. Again, perhaps a training issue.

> Transponders are not the fix all for the problem,

In a sense, it would fix "all" the problem, if we think colliding with
airliners is our problem.

> but mandatory transponders
> in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have an impact on the sport as we
> "knew" it.

Yes, so I'm hoping any requirement for transponders recognizes that most
gliders aren't a hazard to airliners and other "controlled" traffic.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[[email protected]]

Kirk,

Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
(not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.

It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
around me or got TCAS alerts.

There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
hopefully will happen soon.

Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"

[Mike Schumann]

Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? TCAS is suppose to be the last line of
defense against a collision. If glider / jet traffic is regularly resulting
in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. This is a big issue that
needs to be brought up with the FAA.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
...
> Kirk,
>
> Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
> is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
> Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
> feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
> ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
> having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
> (not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
> 1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.
>
> It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
> few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
> with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
> into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
> the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
> around me or got TCAS alerts.
>
> There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
> safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
> Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
> airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
> hopefully will happen soon.
>
> Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who don't
get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or worse.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft (gliders,
balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode C
(an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders and
balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B transceivers,
which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should be
a lot lower than Mode C.

Mike Schumann

"VARR" > wrote in message
...
>>> the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has always
>>> been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
>>> they
>>> were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
>
> Well, it certainly is not quite the same thing, but I can appreciate
> Tim's point, from a certain perspective, if what he fully intends to
> convey is that those who *do* chose to fly "there" (i.e., wherever a
> transponder really would be a "good idea") should indeed be allowed to
> do so, but then they really "should" chose to equip themselves
> appropriately for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others.
>
> Extending his analogy, those who do chose to stay in the water when
> others are chumming for sharks nearby should be allowed to do so, but
> then they really "should" take the opportunity, whenever feasible, to
> chose to equip themselves appropriately (e.g., place themselves inside
> a shark cage, etc.) when participating in such activity in order to
> mitigate the risk to themselves as well as the risk to others (where
> "others" is obviously more of a concern in the case of transponders in
> gliders).
>
> Perhaps the FAA will choose to only issue "stronger guidelines"
> recommending transponder use under certain operating conditions and in
> certain environments. Or, if they chose to make regulatory changes,
> perhaps they might issue less of a blanket regulation, as recommended
> by the NTSB, and something more conditional and specific to certain
> operating environments. It seems reasonable that such conditions
> could be defined which would mitigate the majority of the risk without
> negatively impacting the majority of glider operations. Even better,
> if the SSA were to perform well at issuing such guidelines and making
> such recommendations to the community, then perhaps the powers that be
> will consider the risk appropriately managed and not take burdensome
> and inappropriate action (at least for now, at least not until, if
> ever, low-cost and effective risk mitigating solutions are actually
> available).
>
> Taking into account (a) the recent widespread adoption of PCAS, and
> (b) local operating agreements that do exist and continue to be
> created nationwide between local soaring operations and local ATC,
> there seems to be hope for a non-regulatory solution -- perhaps these
> efforts just need to be more cohesive, better standardized, and better
> "marketed?"
>
> Here is hoping that rationality prevails at the FAA and that the sport/
> industry/etc. (the SSA?) takes strong leadership action on the issue
> and demonstrates to the FAA and others that the sport/industry/etc.
> can indeed appropriately self-regulate.
>
>
> On Apr 1, 4:08 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>
>> So Tim,
>> You are saying that the Hawker shouldn't have been there right?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Apr 1, 2:57 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>> >
>> > the problem isn't gliders without transponders....the problem has
>> > always
>> > been flying where you shouldn't be .... I never went skin diving where
>> > they
>> > were chumming for sharks.... it's the same thing
>> >
>> > tim
>> > Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[kirk.stant]

On Apr 2, 1:07*am, wrote:
> Kirk,
>
> * *Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
> is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
> Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
> feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
> ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
> having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
> (not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
> 1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.
>
> * It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
> few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
> with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
> into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
> the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
> around me or got TCAS alerts.
>
> * There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
> safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
> Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
> airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
> hopefully will happen soon.
>
> * * Happy Soaring, *Dean "GO"

Dean,

I would set a slightly different priority: A PCAS - type device is
the absolute minimum required for XC (or local in busy areas). Out
west, where XC is flown at much higher altitudes, then the transponder
becomes important.

I currently fly east of St Louis, not far from the Class B but never
get high enough to conflict with airliners. Our main threat (aside
from the occasional bizjet or KC-135 out of Scott AFB) is VFR light
planes. Here, a transponder will not help much (if at all) for most
of the traffic, while a PCAS will help a lot. But a transponder
wouldn't hurt!

But I have a hard enough problem convincing members of my club for the
need for radios, much less transponders in gliders! Lots of
resistance to change in older club cultures, not surprisingly...

And let's not get started on altimeter settings! I've run into many
pilots who are more concerned with using the altimeter (set to QFE!)
to figure out their pattern altitude than with using a properly set
altimeter, along with a radio, to decrease the chance of a midair in
busy airspace. Scary, really...

Cheers,

Kirk 66

[Mike Schumann]

"Most gliders aren't a hazard to airliners or other controlled traffic"?????
What is the basis for that claim? There's IFR traffic everywhere. The
stuff you see isn't the threat, it's the targets you don't. Anyone who
thinks that they are immune from mid-airs because of where they fly is just
rolling the dice. Yes, the odds are different in different places, but the
risk is > 0 everywhere.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:PjEIj.3585$lV1.2099@trndny06...
> Tim Mara wrote:
>
>> The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
>> security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
>> keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
>> along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight
>> computer...this leads to more near misses and occasional hits than
>> electronics can avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's
>> flying with TCAS on board
>
> How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
> non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
> it be addressed by training?
>
>>....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they only
>>turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of major
>>airports..
>
> Sounds like a good start, doesn't it? I mean, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion if the Reno glider had turned the transponder in that
> situation. Again, perhaps a training issue.
>
>> Transponders are not the fix all for the problem,
>
> In a sense, it would fix "all" the problem, if we think colliding with
> airliners is our problem.
>
>> but mandatory transponders in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have
>> an impact on the sport as we "knew" it.
>
> Yes, so I'm hoping any requirement for transponders recognizes that most
> gliders aren't a hazard to airliners and other "controlled" traffic.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom Nau]

On Apr 2, 8:20*am, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? *TCAS is suppose to be the last line of
> defense against a collision. *If glider / jet traffic is regularly resulting
> in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
> transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. *This is a big issue that
> needs to be brought up with the FAA.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kirk,
>
> > * Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
> > is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
> > Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
> > feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
> > ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
> > having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
> > (not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
> > 1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.
>
> > *It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
> > few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
> > with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
> > into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
> > the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
> > around me or got TCAS alerts.
>
> > *There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
> > safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
> > Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
> > airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
> > hopefully will happen soon.
>
> > * *Happy Soaring, *Dean "GO"
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mike,

ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
Tom

[LOV2AV8]

I am concerned about the "transponders are the fix" attitude. Tucson
Soaring Club has bought transponders for all or our two place ships.
We talk with approach control before beginning operations and many of
us monitor if not talk to to approach while flying. We are also on
the ATIS for Tucson. Most club members think they are safe with the
transponders and are not as vigilant to "see and avoid". My closest
call has been with a Bonanza, overtaking me on a high speed descent
into Ryan field. All that I heard was the engine noise as he buzzed
by me at 1&1/2 wingspans at 9000'. He was not talking to approach
contol, had not listened to Tucson ATIS, did not have a TCAS and was
most likely not looking outside the cockpit for traffic. I would
rather exercise diligence myself with a Zaon MRX and have the
additional heads up to allow for me to "see and avoid". I already
will not do long straight runs without turning to clear myself of
traffic inbound or outbound from Tucson.

Randy "AV8"

[Tim Mara]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:PjEIj.3585$lV1.2099@trndny06...
> Tim Mara wrote:
>
>> The other problem with transponders in gliders is the false sense of
>> security it implies....to many it is "assumed" that this is like a shield
>> keeping everyone else aware of their presents as they go happily flying
>> along with their heads down looking at the wiz-bang flight
>> computer...this leads to more near misses and occasional hits than
>> electronics can avoid....I know of no Cherokee 140's or Cezna 172's
>> flying with TCAS on board
>
> How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
> non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
> it be addressed by training?


this sounds like an FAA response......sorry...but how many glider pilots
ahve ever even picked up a book after passing their parctical exam... I
"was" an FAA designated examiner....amazing how little most really know
about even the very basics in regulations or for that matter in the
gliders/airplanes they are flying...so don't simply think that "mandating"
some additional training is going to fit the bill....sorry...as a group we
are not all that smart!....seriously.... I'll ask you and everyone else to
take a "private" pilot written exam and see how many that are already flying
with that littel piece of paper that says "pilot certificate" that can pass
this today... I know I'd struggle!


>
>>....and I also know of a lot more glider pilots who will insist they only
>>turn on the transponder when they are flying down the glideslope of major
>>airports..
>
> Sounds like a good start, doesn't it? I mean, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion if the Reno glider had turned the transponder in that
> situation. Again, perhaps a training issue.
>
>> Transponders are not the fix all for the problem,
>
> In a sense, it would fix "all" the problem, if we think colliding with
> airliners is our problem.
>
>> but mandatory transponders in k6's, 2-33's and 126's will certainly have
>> an impact on the sport as we "knew" it.
>
> Yes, so I'm hoping any requirement for transponders recognizes that most
> gliders aren't a hazard to airliners and other "controlled" traffic.

"hoping" the FAA will look at any requirement to benefit "recreational"
aviation is pretty optomistic... The FAA and every other government agency
is more in tune with voters and what is on CNN, 60 minutes and
20/20....you'll have to remember just what a very small voice glider pilots
have in the larger scheme of things...we are a very (ultra) small voice ....

The very best secenario we could hope for would ultimately be more
restricted airspace....ya I know you don't want to hear this if it affects
where you fly....but, it may boil down to making certain high traffic aeas
completely off limits or TCAS equipped 126's!...
just the simple truth....
tim




>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Tim Mara]

> Tim
>
> I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
> talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
> at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
> this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
> fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
> correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
> anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
> cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
> guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.


I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
tim


>
> I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
> expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
> TCAS.
>
> Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 2, 6:57 am, Tom Nau > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 8:20 am, "Mike Schumann" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? TCAS is suppose to be the last line of
> > defense against a collision. If glider / jet traffic is regularly resulting
> > in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
> > transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. This is a big issue that
> > needs to be brought up with the FAA.
>
> > Mike Schumann
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Kirk,
>
> > > Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
> > > is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
> > > Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
> > > feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
> > > ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
> > > having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
> > > (not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
> > > 1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.
>
> > > It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
> > > few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
> > > with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
> > > into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
> > > the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
> > > around me or got TCAS alerts.
>
> > > There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
> > > safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
> > > Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
> > > airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
> > > hopefully will happen soon.
>
> > > Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mike,
>
> ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
> traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
> Tom

Ah do you fly much in high traffic areas, talk much to ATC? ATC
regularly issues traffic advisories to help separate all types of
traffic. If you fly a glider with transponder near places like Reno,
or Travis AFB, or ... traffic gets routed around you by ATC issuing
traffic advisories to other aircraft, wether IFR or VFR. The operating
procedures in place near Reno including for non-transponder equipped
gliders are intended to help ATC issue those advisories to IFR and VFR
traffic. That's why they are in place. Luckily people involved in the
Reno area seem to get that while important, see and avoid does not
work perfectly, and when you much high density fast traffic with those
invisible white gliders it works a lot less perfectly. And I'll repeat
again this applies to many more places than the Reno area.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> > Tim
>
> > I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
> > talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
> > at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
> > this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
> > fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
> > correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
> > anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
> > cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
> > guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.
>
> I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
> tim
>
>
>
> > I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
> > expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
> > TCAS.
>
> > Darryl


Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
PCAS who does not admit after a while there was lot more traffic out
there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.

Darryl

[Tim Mara]

> How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
> non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
> it be addressed by training?

does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this risk?
Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or won't? The
only way even with a transponder installed and operating to know what
traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply sending a
signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
tim

[Ron Gleason]

On Apr 2, 7:25 am, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who don't
> get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or worse.
>
> I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft (gliders,
> balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
> equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode C
> (an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
> deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders and
> balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B transceivers,
> which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
> benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should be
> a lot lower than Mode C.
>
> Mike Schumann

I think this idea is bad and wrong. Not all aircraft that flies above
10K can feasibly fly with a transponder. Where can store the
transponder when flying my hang glider or paraglider? The technology
is not there to cover all aircraft.

Ron Gleason
DG303 N303MR

[Tim Mara]

precisely why I do recommend PCAS and do not always recommend
transponders....
the PCAS more or less tell you to "look out"...the transponder by nature of
it's apparent shield of protection can leave you feeling pretty secure that
someone else is "looking out" for you..
tim

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>> > Tim
>>
>> > I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
>> > talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
>> > at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
>> > this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
>> > fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
>> > correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
>> > anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
>> > cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
>> > guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.
>>
>> I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
>> tim
>>
>>
>>
>> > I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
>> > expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
>> > TCAS.
>>
>> > Darryl
>
>
> Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
> PCAS who does not admit after a while there was lot more traffic out
> there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.
>
> Darryl

[Tom Nau]

On Apr 2, 1:03*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> precisely why I do recommend PCAS and do not always recommend
> transponders....
> the PCAS more or less tell you to "look out"...the transponder by nature of
> it's apparent shield of protection can leave you feeling pretty secure that
> someone else is "looking out" for you..
> tim
>
> "Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> >> > Tim
>
> >> > I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
> >> > talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
> >> > at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
> >> > this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
> >> > fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
> >> > correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
> >> > anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
> >> > cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
> >> > guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.
>
> >> I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
> >> tim
>
> >> > I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
> >> > expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
> >> > TCAS.
>
> >> > Darryl
>
> > Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
> > PCAS who does not admit after a while there was *lot more traffic out
> > there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I humbly submit that two PCAS-equipped aircraft have no protection
unless at least one has a transponder!
Tom

[kirk.stant]

On Apr 2, 1:22*pm, Tom Nau > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 1:03*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > precisely why I do recommend PCAS and do not always recommend
> > transponders....
> > the PCAS more or less tell you to "look out"...the transponder by nature of
> > it's apparent shield of protection can leave you feeling pretty secure that
> > someone else is "looking out" for you..
> > tim
>
> > "Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Apr 2, 8:09 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> > >> > Tim
>
> > >> > I do fly in high traffic density areas (with transponder and PCAS and
> > >> > talking to ATC when appropriate) and know many other pilots that also
> > >> > at least have a transponder in their ship and none that I know have
> > >> > this naive view of transponders and safety bubbles. If anything the
> > >> > fact that they have a transponder in their glider, tends to be
> > >> > correlated with an awareness of traffic, ATC, etc. and I suspect if
> > >> > anything these folks are more likely to have their heads outside the
> > >> > cockpit. And since many of those same pilots also fly with PCAS I can
> > >> > guarantee they understand the need to be looking outside.
>
> > >> I am glad you can "Guarantee" this.....that makes it a lot easier
> > >> tim
>
> > >> > I know of many light aircraft flying with PCAS (Zaon) and a few (new
> > >> > expensive ones) with the Avidyne/Ryan system that is between PCAS and
> > >> > TCAS.
>
> > >> > Darryl
>
> > > Tim you are welcome. :-) But if I do ever meet anybody flying with
> > > PCAS who does not admit after a while there was *lot more traffic out
> > > there than they thought I'll be sure to let you know.
>
> > > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I humbly submit that two PCAS-equipped aircraft have no protection
> unless at least one has a transponder!
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What we need is a combination PCAS/FLARM/Transponder...

Kirk 66

[Marc Ramsey]

kirk.stant wrote:
> What we need is a combination PCAS/FLARM/Transponder...

It's called "ADS-B". Seriously, at the SSA convention, a representative
from MITRE showed a proof of concept cigarette pack size ADS-B UAT
transmitter that is powered by 2 AA batteries. It is currently
undergoing flight testing on the east coast. Constructed primarily
using about $150 worth of cellphone RF components, the estimated retail
cost if produced would be $750 to $1000, and MITRE is willing to license
the design for a nominal cost. A transceiver is currently on the
drawing board. The major problem with this device is that it uses a
consumer GPS receiver module, and the FAA has apparently not given much
thought to the idea of VFR-only ADS-B devices, instead assuming that
everyone will be using certified GPS units at $3000 or so a pop.
Efforts are being made to counter this assumption, hopefully there will
be news on this front in a few months...

Marc

[Tony Verhulst]

>> ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
>> traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
>> Tom
>
> Ah do you fly much in high traffic areas, talk much to ATC? ATC
> regularly issues traffic advisories to help separate all types of
> traffic.


Tom is right. ATC does often issue traffic advisories to VFR traffic but
they don't *have* to. See section 4.1.16 (3)(e) of the Airman
Information Manual at
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0401.html.
They can, and have, denied me radar service when they're hip deep in IFR
traffic - not that I think that it's a good idea.

Tony V.

[Tony Verhulst]

LOV2AV8 wrote:
> ..We are also on
> the ATIS for Tucson.


Why? ATIS is a recorded message. Perhaps you mean CTAF?

Tony V.

[Tony Verhulst]

> .... ATC does often issue traffic advisories to VFR traffic but
> they don't *have* to. See section 4.1.16 (3)(e) of the Airman
> Information Manual at
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0401.html.
> They can, and have, denied me radar service when they're hip deep in IFR
> traffic - not that I think that it's a good idea.
>
> Tony V.


And be sure not to miss section 4-1-1.

T

[[email protected]]

Why can't the FAA implement something similar to mode-c veils (or
whatever the technology should be) around certain high risk areas?
Maybe a new "veil" designation for gliders above 10k?

[BT]

do you really want to be limited to 10K MSL?
Out here the airport elevations are 3-6K MSL, a 10K ceiling doe not give
much breathing room with land out areas few and far between.

Wait until ADS-B, you will be limited to 10K (according to the NPRM) if you
are not ADS-B capable.

B

> wrote in message
...
> Why can't the FAA implement something similar to mode-c veils (or
> whatever the technology should be) around certain high risk areas?
> Maybe a new "veil" designation for gliders above 10k?

[Mike Schumann]

MITRE is currently testing an ADS-B UAT transmitter that is the size of a
pack of cigarettes, runs for 14 hours and 4 internal AA batteries, and has a
parts cost of ~$150. With this kind of technology, there is no reason that
any aircraft, balloon, hang glider, or parachutist should be flying around
without one. Hopefully we'll see this commercialized within the next year
or so.

Mike Schumann

"Ron Gleason" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 2, 7:25 am, "Mike Schumann" >
> wrote:
>> Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who
>> don't
>> get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or
>> worse.
>>
>> I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft
>> (gliders,
>> balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
>> equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install Mode
>> C
>> (an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
>> deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders
>> and
>> balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B
>> transceivers,
>> which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
>> benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers should
>> be
>> a lot lower than Mode C.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>
> I think this idea is bad and wrong. Not all aircraft that flies above
> 10K can feasibly fly with a transponder. Where can store the
> transponder when flying my hang glider or paraglider? The technology
> is not there to cover all aircraft.
>
> Ron Gleason
> DG303 N303MR
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bruce]

We have a couple of problems here TIm.
One is that we are talking to tha converted - pretty much everyone in this forum
understands that transponders do not offer a panacea, and would have major
negative results if mandated for all aviation.
Two is that the propaganda value is against us.

Consider human nature - The transponder issue - is in my opinion another example
of intellectual laziness. Generally speaking people are inherently given to
doing the smallest amount of thinking they can. Our problem here is that is is a
very easy thing to "understand" that if everything in the sky carries a
transponder then we (the general public, sitting in the nth row)will be safe.
Unfortunately this also extends to the bureaucrats occupying the nth desk at
FAA, because it is an easy decision. The FAA types probably do understand the
issues, but from their perspective less random aviation means less risk. In fact
it is easy to conclude that it is actually better for the people who are
resisting this idea, because even if this prevents large parts of a sport from
operating - they are better off not flying, than flying without this technology.
Because we have already accepted that this technology already somehow magically
ensures there will be no mid-airs.

We know that a transponder without human attention is an expensive waste of
panel space. We know that the speed differentials make ACAS etc a nice idea but
unlikely to help in a real emergency. We know there are a few places where a
transponder will substantially improve safety, and by all accounts most glider
pilots operating in those areas have voluntarily started fitting them.

From an intellectual effort perspective all of our arguments are much harder
work. If we want to win this argument we have to present a simpler case.

Maybe one way is to look at the behavioural consequences of a blanket policy of
fitting transponders . The airliners can now "safely" assume that they can fly
point to point at, over any point in the country, and at any time, because
everything in the sky is now visible to ATC. Apart from the assumption about ATC
capacity to monitor and manage, I wonder how many of the general public are
thinking of the intrusion this could mean for them. In this world the airlines
start having the contest finish problem, of aircraft are approaching from all
directions, and need to be sent via a couple of control points to straighten out
the kinks.

Look at it from the positive side, at least the lives of the ALTPs will get a
whole lot more interesting.

When the predictable incident/accident ensues, it is unlikely that the NTSB will
conclude that probable cause included inappropriate behavioural change as a
result of complacency resulting from the mandatory fitting of transponders. Too
many thoughts in one sentence - pilot error is something everyone understands.

The long report that started this looks like someone was actually trying to
understand and explain, and ended up getting edited somewhat.

Tim Mara wrote:
>> How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by a
>> non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem? Can
>> it be addressed by training?
>
> does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this risk?
> Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or won't? The
> only way even with a transponder installed and operating to know what
> traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply sending a
> signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
> tim
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

How would transponders have "negative" results if mandated for everyone in
aviation? The only argument against transponders is the cost.

Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
control.

Mike Schumann

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> We have a couple of problems here TIm.
> One is that we are talking to tha converted - pretty much everyone in this
> forum understands that transponders do not offer a panacea, and would have
> major negative results if mandated for all aviation.
> Two is that the propaganda value is against us.
>
> Consider human nature - The transponder issue - is in my opinion another
> example of intellectual laziness. Generally speaking people are inherently
> given to doing the smallest amount of thinking they can. Our problem here
> is that is is a very easy thing to "understand" that if everything in the
> sky carries a transponder then we (the general public, sitting in the nth
> row)will be safe. Unfortunately this also extends to the bureaucrats
> occupying the nth desk at FAA, because it is an easy decision. The FAA
> types probably do understand the issues, but from their perspective less
> random aviation means less risk. In fact it is easy to conclude that it is
> actually better for the people who are resisting this idea, because even
> if this prevents large parts of a sport from operating - they are better
> off not flying, than flying without this technology. Because we have
> already accepted that this technology already somehow magically ensures
> there will be no mid-airs.
>
> We know that a transponder without human attention is an expensive waste
> of panel space. We know that the speed differentials make ACAS etc a nice
> idea but unlikely to help in a real emergency. We know there are a few
> places where a transponder will substantially improve safety, and by all
> accounts most glider pilots operating in those areas have voluntarily
> started fitting them.
>
> From an intellectual effort perspective all of our arguments are much
> harder work. If we want to win this argument we have to present a simpler
> case.
>
> Maybe one way is to look at the behavioural consequences of a blanket
> policy of fitting transponders . The airliners can now "safely" assume
> that they can fly point to point at, over any point in the country, and at
> any time, because everything in the sky is now visible to ATC. Apart from
> the assumption about ATC capacity to monitor and manage, I wonder how many
> of the general public are thinking of the intrusion this could mean for
> them. In this world the airlines start having the contest finish problem,
> of aircraft are approaching from all directions, and need to be sent via a
> couple of control points to straighten out the kinks.
>
> Look at it from the positive side, at least the lives of the ALTPs will
> get a whole lot more interesting.
>
> When the predictable incident/accident ensues, it is unlikely that the
> NTSB will conclude that probable cause included inappropriate behavioural
> change as a result of complacency resulting from the mandatory fitting of
> transponders. Too many thoughts in one sentence - pilot error is something
> everyone understands.
>
> The long report that started this looks like someone was actually trying
> to understand and explain, and ended up getting edited somewhat.
>
> Tim Mara wrote:
>>> How many transponder equipped gliders, transponder on, have been hit by
>>> a non-TCAS equipped general aviation aircraft? Is this really a problem?
>>> Can it be addressed by training?
>>
>> does that mean that having a transponder on board will eliminate this
>> risk? Does that then allow us to feel secure that it can't happen or
>> won't? The only way even with a transponder installed and operating to
>> know what traffic is around you is to be in contact with ATC....simply
>> sending a signal doesn't tell everyone around you that you are there.
>> tim
>>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[LOV2AV8]

On Apr 2, 4:44*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
> LOV2AV8 wrote:
> > ..We are also on
> > the ATIS for Tucson.
>
> Why? ATIS is a recorded message. Perhaps you mean CTAF?
>
> Tony V.

Not CTAF. That wouldn't do much in a Class C area with multiple
airports. On the recorded ATIS along with winds, runway in use,
contact approach control on XXX.XX it says "Caution, glider operations
in the vicinity of the Tucson VOR 297 radial at 28 miles up to
12,000'. This doesn't do much good as the commercial jets fly right
thru the area and even have a checkpoint near our field. I don't
think that these guys are doing too much "see and avoid" but are
counting on ATC and TCAS. I'm also not as concerned about two PCAS
gliders finding each other as a 200mph heavy metal airliner finding
me.

Randy "AV8"

[Bob Whelan[_2_]]

wrote:
> Kirk,
>
> Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
> is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
> Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
> feet!

This thread and (plus recent others, topically related) is a great
example of people at risk being more informed than regulators (e.g. FAA,
prodded over the years and at various times by the NTSB) and news types
(AP, MSNBC, ad nauseum, etc.). Being informed is a good thing, IMHO.

Its also well illustrates the very real absence of a technical 'panacea
fix' for traffic separation, despite everyone's fondest wishes. (Back
to this in a moment...)

Less good is inaccurate information and defeatism, both seen in this and
other recent threads.

The above-referenced mid-air brought Americans (so called) 'positive
control' for all commercial flights, NOT a reduction from 24.5K to 18K
for flights into the upper-air positive control airspace. That came
about in the late 1960's or early 1970's, as I recall. There was no
single act the FAA used to justify the lowering; it was a pure-n-simple
airspace grab 'in the interest of safety.'

As for 'defeatism' if you're in the "It's inevitable, so might as well
roll over and 'surrender' now before something REALLY bad happens camp,"
IMHO you're arguably contributing to the problem of under-informed,
politically-inspired, regulation. Personally, I'd rather go down in
(figurative!) flames fighting that depressing colossus, simply because I
believe doing right trumps doing the politically-expeditious thing.

Don't misunderstand. I'd love a (genuine) panacea fix as much as any
faceless, white-collar-welfare, bureaucrat. Where our approaches differ
is me being prepared to NOT do certain things IF those things arguably
make 'the regulateds' situations worse, without corresponding societal
(as distinct from political) benefit. 'Rolling over and surrendering to
the inevitable' certainly panders to a political approach more than it
reflects interactively working with the regulators to regulate sensibly.
I define 'sensibly' as blending risk amelioration (for the traveling
public), practicality, cost, technical reality, etc.

Who regulates air safety in the U.S.? Congress, via the FAA.

Who does NOT regulate air safety in the U.S.? The NTSB and the news
media...and anyone else not in Congress of the FAA.

Tangentially, diligent, chronological reading NTSB crash investigations
in "Aviation Week & Space Technology" will make it abundantly clear that
whenever the NTSB pressures the FAA to 'do something' in the wake of a
crash (i.e. after nearly every crash of a U.S. carrier), this is
'merely' a turf war between a wannabe regulating agency and a regulating
one. Not that I'm defending either one...merely pointing out facts.

My recommendation?
Since our particular interest group has not YET been threatened with an
imminent bureaucratic bludgeon, is to begin educating and interacting
NOW, rather then after the crisis has occurred. Thanks to computers,
the creation - and circulation - of accurate, necessarily-detailed,
educational letter(s) is trivially easy. Rationalizing your
congress-critters won't take the time to read such letters is
practically begging for them to join the panacea bandwagon when it rolls
into town. Ditto, the 'whomevers' in the FAA.

Just because your target isn't the 'panacea target' doesn't mean your
information doesn't have potential to bear fruit.

Unless you control a media typewriter, ignore the media...at best
they're a noisy agitator, with little likelihood to prove an ally in any
way. Their job is 'news,' the more 'scare-ific' the better. (If it
bleeds, it leads.) Nuance isn't their strong suit.

Time to start educating the regulatory world, folks...the choir already
knows!

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[Michael Ash]

Mike Schumann > wrote:
> How would transponders have "negative" results if mandated for everyone in
> aviation? The only argument against transponders is the cost.

The cost is certainly one negative result. A lot of people own machines
for which the cost of instaling a transpoder would make up a significant
fraction of the total value of the aircraft. A lot of owners couldn't
easily absorb such a cost. I don't know if there are other downsides, but
the cost shouldn't simply be dismissed.

> Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
> a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
> lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
> traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
> control.

It will *help* protect you, but ATC isn't perfect. Mid-air collisions have
occurred between aircraft equipped with transponders and under ATC
control. All things being equal I'd certainly rather have one than not,
but it won't always save you.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[J a c k]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you from
> a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either due to a
> lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing other
> traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is under ATC
> control.


"Should"?

ATC _may_ give traffic information involving VFR traffic if they have
time. In other circumstances "protection" would come from the fact that
the IFR traffic _may_ have TCAS.

Mandating transponders is only a partial solution. Until every aircraft
also has a collision avoidance system of some type TCAS, PCAS, etc., the
regulatory push for more, and more expensive, equipment will never stop.
And in fact it will not stop until we have positive control of all
aircraft at all times in all places. We do not want to go there.

If the traffic that worries you is likely to have a transponder, then
spend a few hundred bucks and get a PCAS unit so you know where that
traffic is. And whether you add such equipment or not, learn how to scan
visually. It isn't something that comes naturally, even though you think
you are doing a great job. When you operate with a PCAS for a short
time, you will find out how much traffic you've been missing. As always,
we don't know what we don't know.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> "Most gliders aren't a hazard to airliners or other controlled traffic"?????
> What is the basis for that claim? There's IFR traffic everywhere. The
> stuff you see isn't the threat, it's the targets you don't. Anyone who
> thinks that they are immune from mid-airs because of where they fly is just
> rolling the dice.

"Most" was too strong, so let me replace that with "At least half the
gliders aren't a hazard...". It is a guess, but a reasonable one, I
think. By "hazard", I mean that an IFR pilot might actually pause for a
seconds before deciding to make the flight anyway, once he is informed
about where the glider is. In other words, the risk to IFR traffic is so
low, no one is worried about it.

That situation describes a lot of training operations, ride operations,
and even cross-country flights. The risk can be low for several reasons:

*there aren't any airliners going through the area when the gliders are
operating, and very few other IFR flights.
*Or, operations are conducted in a manner where installing a transponder
wouldn't change the risk significantly. For example, where procedures
such as contact with the tower at the nearby field ensure separation.

> Yes, the odds are different in different places, but the
> risk is > 0 everywhere.

There are many places without airliners or IFR traffic. Lots and lots of
small airfields, even municipal airports, simply don't attract that kind
of traffic. I think it's important to recognize that not every airfield
is not just outside a Class B airspace.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Mike Schumann]

If you are flying cross country, or even local, on a good day and are
getting up to 8-10K MSL, I don't care where you are in the country, there is
a >0 chance that you may end up in the vicinity of an airliner or someone
else flying IFR who thinks that ATC is protecting them from everyone else.
Without a transponder, you have no protection.

Outside of the $ involved, why would you not want everyone to have a
transponder on board?

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:JugJj.1492$at6.1201@trndny01...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> "Most gliders aren't a hazard to airliners or other controlled
>> traffic"????? What is the basis for that claim? There's IFR traffic
>> everywhere. The stuff you see isn't the threat, it's the targets you
>> don't. Anyone who thinks that they are immune from mid-airs because of
>> where they fly is just rolling the dice.
>
> "Most" was too strong, so let me replace that with "At least half the
> gliders aren't a hazard...". It is a guess, but a reasonable one, I think.
> By "hazard", I mean that an IFR pilot might actually pause for a seconds
> before deciding to make the flight anyway, once he is informed about where
> the glider is. In other words, the risk to IFR traffic is so low, no one
> is worried about it.
>
> That situation describes a lot of training operations, ride operations,
> and even cross-country flights. The risk can be low for several reasons:
>
> *there aren't any airliners going through the area when the gliders are
> operating, and very few other IFR flights.
> *Or, operations are conducted in a manner where installing a transponder
> wouldn't change the risk significantly. For example, where procedures such
> as contact with the tower at the nearby field ensure separation.
>
>> Yes, the odds are different in different places, but the risk is > 0
>> everywhere.
>
> There are many places without airliners or IFR traffic. Lots and lots of
> small airfields, even municipal airports, simply don't attract that kind
> of traffic. I think it's important to recognize that not every airfield is
> not just outside a Class B airspace.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

I don't know what the rules or current procedures are. I suspect that
virtually 100% of pilots flying IFR, and certainly 100% of the passengers on
commercial jets, expect ATC to vector IFR traffic around, and provide
separation from, every aircraft that has an identifiable location and
altitude (i.e. Mode C transponder equipped), regardless if that aircraft is
also flying IFR or VFR.

If this is not what the current rules say, or what is current procedure is,
then that needs to be changed as a 1st step. As a second step, we should
try to get all aircraft equipped with transponders. The argument should not
be on whether that is worthwhile doing, etc., but rather how we can make it
affordable so that it is not unduly burdensome to do so.

Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible in
the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no longer
fly. Can you imagine the uproar if there was an airliner collision with a
non-transponder equipped glider with thousands of dollars worth of flight
recorders and other goodies, and the justification for not having a
transponder was the lack of willingness to spend another $1K? That would
put a quick end to our sport.

A more productive track than trying to stop a transponder mandate, is to
negotiate an agreement to require transponders in all gliders in exchange
for increased ATC separation of IFR traffic from glider targets and VFR
access to higher altitudes. This is an argument we can win, that doesn't
make us all look like a bunch of whiners.

Mike Schumann

"J a c k" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>> Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you
>> from a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either
>> due to a lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing
>> other traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is
>> under ATC control.
>
>
> "Should"?
>
> ATC _may_ give traffic information involving VFR traffic if they have
> time. In other circumstances "protection" would come from the fact that
> the IFR traffic _may_ have TCAS.
>
> Mandating transponders is only a partial solution. Until every aircraft
> also has a collision avoidance system of some type TCAS, PCAS, etc., the
> regulatory push for more, and more expensive, equipment will never stop.
> And in fact it will not stop until we have positive control of all
> aircraft at all times in all places. We do not want to go there.
>
> If the traffic that worries you is likely to have a transponder, then
> spend a few hundred bucks and get a PCAS unit so you know where that
> traffic is. And whether you add such equipment or not, learn how to scan
> visually. It isn't something that comes naturally, even though you think
> you are doing a great job. When you operate with a PCAS for a short time,
> you will find out how much traffic you've been missing. As always, we
> don't know what we don't know.
>
>
> Jack



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[J a c k]

Mike Schumann wrote:


> ...we should try to get all aircraft equipped with transponders.

This is not sufficient, even if practical.



> ...negotiate an agreement to require transponders in all gliders in exchange
> for increased ATC separation of IFR traffic from glider targets and VFR
> access to higher altitudes. This is an argument we can win, that doesn't
> make us all look like a bunch of whiners.

How much separation do you want?

How likely are you to get _any_ more separation in a system which is
already overburdened and has every expectation of becoming more so in
terms of personnel, equipment, and airspace? The response of the US.gov
to requests for more separation for gliders will be to restrict gliders
and no one else. We already have wave windows. A raising of the national
floor of Class A airspace is not in the cards.



Jack

[[email protected]]

There have been many excellent and thoughtful comments from many on
this important subject. Does anyone know if the SSA is working this
issue with the FAA? If so, do we have information on what "position"
and/or approach that they will be taking on this subject?

I would also hope that the SSA is coordinating their efforts with
AOPA, EAA and other interested organizations....
Thanks - Renny




On Apr 3, 9:12 pm, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> I don't know what the rules or current procedures are. I suspect that
> virtually 100% of pilots flying IFR, and certainly 100% of the passengers on
> commercial jets, expect ATC to vector IFR traffic around, and provide
> separation from, every aircraft that has an identifiable location and
> altitude (i.e. Mode C transponder equipped), regardless if that aircraft is
> also flying IFR or VFR.
>
> If this is not what the current rules say, or what is current procedure is,
> then that needs to be changed as a 1st step. As a second step, we should
> try to get all aircraft equipped with transponders. The argument should not
> be on whether that is worthwhile doing, etc., but rather how we can make it
> affordable so that it is not unduly burdensome to do so.
>
> Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible in
> the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no longer
> fly. Can you imagine the uproar if there was an airliner collision with a
> non-transponder equipped glider with thousands of dollars worth of flight
> recorders and other goodies, and the justification for not having a
> transponder was the lack of willingness to spend another $1K? That would
> put a quick end to our sport.
>
> A more productive track than trying to stop a transponder mandate, is to
> negotiate an agreement to require transponders in all gliders in exchange
> for increased ATC separation of IFR traffic from glider targets and VFR
> access to higher altitudes. This is an argument we can win, that doesn't
> make us all look like a bunch of whiners.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "J a c k" > wrote in .. .
>
>
>
> > Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> >> Having a transponder is not a panacea, in that it will not protect you
> >> from a 172 or other VFR traffic that doesn't happen to see you, either
> >> due to a lack of attention, or due to the inherent difficulty of seeing
> >> other traffic. However, it should protect you from IFR traffic that is
> >> under ATC control.
>
> > "Should"?
>
> > ATC _may_ give traffic information involving VFR traffic if they have
> > time. In other circumstances "protection" would come from the fact that
> > the IFR traffic _may_ have TCAS.
>
> > Mandating transponders is only a partial solution. Until every aircraft
> > also has a collision avoidance system of some type TCAS, PCAS, etc., the
> > regulatory push for more, and more expensive, equipment will never stop.
> > And in fact it will not stop until we have positive control of all
> > aircraft at all times in all places. We do not want to go there.
>
> > If the traffic that worries you is likely to have a transponder, then
> > spend a few hundred bucks and get a PCAS unit so you know where that
> > traffic is. And whether you add such equipment or not, learn how to scan
> > visually. It isn't something that comes naturally, even though you think
> > you are doing a great job. When you operate with a PCAS for a short time,
> > you will find out how much traffic you've been missing. As always, we
> > don't know what we don't know.
>
> > Jack
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible in
> the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no longer
> fly.

If transponders were only $1000 instead of $3000+, we would not be
having this conversation. Almost every glider pilot would have one.

If you really believe that a $1000 ADS-B will happen "soon", then you
can relax and wait for it to show up in Aircraft Spruces catalog. I
guarantee they will fly off the shelves so fast you'll hear sonic booms
as tens of thousands aircraft owners rudely push their way to the front
of the line to buy one.

In fact, you don't have to wait for it to hit $1000. If it was available
at the same price as a transponder, a lot of glider pilots that are
thinking about transponders would do it right now. At $2000, there would
be flood of orders. There wouldn't be any left to sell for $1000.

I listened to the MITRE presentation for the low cost ADS-B, but I think
it's years before it can get past the regulatory hurdles that produced
the current Garmin unit that is the size of a shoebox, weighs six
pounds, takes over 1.5 amps, and sells for $7000.

But I sure hope you are right. I'd gladly toss out my transponder and
put an ADS-B in it's place, even at $2000.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible in
> the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no longer
> fly.

There is another way to mitigate the cost of transponders that can be
done right now, without waiting for what may be the "too distant
future": the FAA sells them to glider pilots and other currently exempt
aircraft for, say, $1000. That's what New Zealand did 10-15 years ago,
and it was apparently a very successful plan.

Perhaps someone familiar with that plan can explain it in detail.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Mike Schumann]

You hit the nail on the head. The main obstacle to a $1,000 ADS-B
transceiver is not technical, it's all the regulatory stuff. My personal
belief is that if instead of fighting mandatory transponders, we partner
with the NTSB to cut through the current certification / regulatory BS, we
could actually be successful, and everyone would be happy and a LOT safer.
The current approach that the SSA and AOPA, etc. seem to be taking to try to
hold off mandatory deployment makes us all look bad, particularly when we
have a major fatal accident, which is guaranteed to happen eventually in the
current airspace environment.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:aTiJj.4376$fq2.3352@trndny03...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>> Once we get the price down under $1K, which I firmly believe is possible
>> in the not too distant future with ADS-B, the price argument will no
>> longer fly.
>
> If transponders were only $1000 instead of $3000+, we would not be having
> this conversation. Almost every glider pilot would have one.
>
> If you really believe that a $1000 ADS-B will happen "soon", then you can
> relax and wait for it to show up in Aircraft Spruces catalog. I guarantee
> they will fly off the shelves so fast you'll hear sonic booms as tens of
> thousands aircraft owners rudely push their way to the front of the line
> to buy one.
>
> In fact, you don't have to wait for it to hit $1000. If it was available
> at the same price as a transponder, a lot of glider pilots that are
> thinking about transponders would do it right now. At $2000, there would
> be flood of orders. There wouldn't be any left to sell for $1000.
>
> I listened to the MITRE presentation for the low cost ADS-B, but I think
> it's years before it can get past the regulatory hurdles that produced the
> current Garmin unit that is the size of a shoebox, weighs six pounds,
> takes over 1.5 amps, and sells for $7000.
>
> But I sure hope you are right. I'd gladly toss out my transponder and put
> an ADS-B in it's place, even at $2000.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Philip Plane]

In article <NZiJj.14286$gS1.4095@trndny07>, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> There is another way to mitigate the cost of transponders that can be
> done right now, without waiting for what may be the "too distant
> future": the FAA sells them to glider pilots and other currently exempt
> aircraft for, say, $1000. That's what New Zealand did 10-15 years ago,
> and it was apparently a very successful plan.
>
> Perhaps someone familiar with that plan can explain it in detail.

Well, the bulk buy of transponders happenned just as I was getting
back into gliding so I wasn't heavily involved, but it went something
like this:

CAA organised a good price for suitable transponders. I guess there
would have been over 100 going into gliders. They provided drip feed
payment too, I think.

CAA made a bunch of promises/claims about how it would benefit gliders.
Some of these things happenned, some didn't.

It was very successful from the point of view of the Airways Corp who
run the ATC. They have lots of transponder mandatory airspace.

Mixed blessing for gliders. If you're in controlled airspace ATC talk to
you less because they know where you are. Reduced your workload considerably.
But there's a lot more controlled airspace now.

After the initial batch, we're on our own. We just had a transponder
installed in a new club glider. It cost NZ $5000. It requires extra
battery power. It takes up valuable panel space.

Some places you can't fly without a transponder. Some places you can
easily get along without one.

It hasn't made any difference to the rate of collisions between gliders
and airliners in NZ. We've never had one.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:15:28 +1300, Philip Plane wrote:

> It hasn't made any difference to the rate of collisions between gliders
> and airliners in NZ. We've never had one.
>
I heard that the NZ transponder requirement had nothing to do
with a collision or near miss, but everything to do with the desire
of some Aussy GA pilots to fly into airports with full CTA rules. This
somehow became applicable to all GA aircraft, forcing them to fit
transponders. Because of ANO harmonisation this also applied to NZ's GA
fleet. Somehow gliding got caught up in it too, hence the transponders in
NZ gliders.

Is this a fair summary?

The irony is that within a month of of the rule coming into effect there
was a near miss inside the Sydney CTA between a transponder-equipped GA
plane and an airliner. I believe this was the first such incident on
Australia.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[user]

I heard a much higher price on this unit... more like $1500. Of course,
cheap or not, it has to be approved. Are the chances real???


"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> MITRE is currently testing an ADS-B UAT transmitter that is the size of a
> pack of cigarettes, runs for 14 hours and 4 internal AA batteries, and has
> a parts cost of ~$150. With this kind of technology, there is no reason
> that any aircraft, balloon, hang glider, or parachutist should be flying
> around without one. Hopefully we'll see this commercialized within the
> next year or so.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Ron Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Apr 2, 7:25 am, "Mike Schumann" >
>> wrote:
>>> Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who
>>> don't
>>> get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or
>>> worse.
>>>
>>> I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft
>>> (gliders,
>>> balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are transponder
>>> equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install
>>> Mode C
>>> (an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
>>> deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders
>>> and
>>> balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B
>>> transceivers,
>>> which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
>>> benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers
>>> should be
>>> a lot lower than Mode C.
>>>
>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> I think this idea is bad and wrong. Not all aircraft that flies above
>> 10K can feasibly fly with a transponder. Where can store the
>> transponder when flying my hang glider or paraglider? The technology
>> is not there to cover all aircraft.
>>
>> Ron Gleason
>> DG303 N303MR
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Shawn[_5_]]

Anyone seen what the price of jet fuel is? Airlines are going TU all
over, and the US is now officially (by everyone's account except W's) in
a recession. Hi perf. piston aircraft won't have fuel in six months.
Why not just do some foot dragging until the entire civil aviation
system collapses, and we'll be arguing winch sites and airspace
separation with the hang and paragliders?

Cynically Yours,
Shawn

[Mike Schumann]

There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there should
be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost effective, and
does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels needed for parallel
instrument approaches in Class B airspace.

My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is that
we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of device can be
sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically, it would help a lot
of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position that universal deployment
would be acceptable, if equipment was available to the GA community at this
price point.

Mike Schumann

"user" > wrote in message
. ..
>I heard a much higher price on this unit... more like $1500. Of course,
>cheap or not, it has to be approved. Are the chances real???
>
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> MITRE is currently testing an ADS-B UAT transmitter that is the size of a
>> pack of cigarettes, runs for 14 hours and 4 internal AA batteries, and
>> has a parts cost of ~$150. With this kind of technology, there is no
>> reason that any aircraft, balloon, hang glider, or parachutist should be
>> flying around without one. Hopefully we'll see this commercialized
>> within the next year or so.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> "Ron Gleason" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Apr 2, 7:25 am, "Mike Schumann" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Voluntary compliance is great. However, there are always people who
>>>> don't
>>>> get it and create situations that give the rest of us a black eye or
>>>> worse.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that it is unreasonable to require that all aircraft
>>>> (gliders,
>>>> balloons, etc.) who fly above 10K or near major airports are
>>>> transponder
>>>> equipped. I would hope that rather than forcing everyone to install
>>>> Mode C
>>>> (an antiquated technology), that we could get the FAA to accelerate the
>>>> deployment of ADS-B ground stations in strategic areas, and let gliders
>>>> and
>>>> balloons meet the transponder requirements with low cost ADS-B
>>>> transceivers,
>>>> which will hopefully be available within the next year or so. A side
>>>> benefit of this, is that the power draw for ADS-B UAT transceivers
>>>> should be
>>>> a lot lower than Mode C.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>>
>>> I think this idea is bad and wrong. Not all aircraft that flies above
>>> 10K can feasibly fly with a transponder. Where can store the
>>> transponder when flying my hang glider or paraglider? The technology
>>> is not there to cover all aircraft.
>>>
>>> Ron Gleason
>>> DG303 N303MR
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
> biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there should
> be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost effective, and
> does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels needed for parallel
> instrument approaches in Class B airspace.
>
> My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is that
> we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of device can be
> sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically, it would help a lot
> of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position that universal deployment
> would be acceptable, if equipment was available to the GA community at this
> price point.

I sent the following comment out to various parties back in February, as
a response to a proposal by a manufacturer to build 25 of the MITRE
designed UAT transmitters for research and development purposes:

===
What if there was a highly publicized proposal by the SSA, USHPA, EAA,
AOPA, etc., to test these transmitters in a high traffic density area
with UAT ground station coverage (say Maryland or Virginia) in a range
of sport aircraft including hang gliders, ultralights, LSAs, sailplanes,
Cubs/Champs, etc.? It might encourage the FAA to address the VFR-only
issue in the near term...
===

The intent is to get the ball rolling. If you think this might be
useful, contact me, I'd like to get enough of a working group together
to insure that the proposal actually happens...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized.
> The biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that
> there should be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be
> cost effective, and does not provide the accuracy and reliability
> levels needed for parallel instrument approaches in Class B airspace.
>
> My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is
> that we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of
> device can be sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically,
> it would help a lot of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position
> that universal deployment would be acceptable, if equipment was
> available to the GA community at this price point.

Certainly, AOPA is already doing that. See this for their position on
ADS-B implementation:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/ads-b.html

Some highligts from that page:

> 4. The cost of the ADS-B datalink system must be at or below today's
> price of a Mode C transponder.

> 5. Once the ADS-B mandate becomes effective, aircraft should not be
> required to be equipped with a Mode C transponder.

> The AOPA-preferred UAT datalink is capable of providing pilots with
> three separate but related services:

> 3. FIS-B (Flight Information Services). FIS-B data includes graphic
> Nexrad weather radar and textual METAR/TAF data. In the future, FIS-B
> services may include graphic TFR data.

I believe all glider pilots should also be members of AOPA. I've been
one for more than 25 years. They do a lot heavy lifting that the SSA can
not, related to airplanes (think towplanes), airspace, required
equipment (ADS-B is the focus now), and pilot rights. The magazine is
ocasionally interesting, and the dues are reasonable.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Mike Schumann]

I don't think that AOPA has gone as far as supporting mandatory ADS-B
deployment in aircraft without electrical systems, gliders, and balloons.
They have been primarily focused on eliminating the current FAA strategy to
require both Mode C and ADS-B on aircraft in Class B airspace and above 10K
MSL.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:2XVJj.99$PJ3.18@trndny02...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
>> biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there
>> should be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost
>> effective, and does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels
>> needed for parallel instrument approaches in Class B airspace.
>>
>> My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is
>> that we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of
>> device can be sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically,
>> it would help a lot of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position
>> that universal deployment would be acceptable, if equipment was
>> available to the GA community at this price point.
>
> Certainly, AOPA is already doing that. See this for their position on
> ADS-B implementation:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/ads-b.html
>
> Some highligts from that page:
>
>> 4. The cost of the ADS-B datalink system must be at or below today's
>> price of a Mode C transponder.
>
>> 5. Once the ADS-B mandate becomes effective, aircraft should not be
>> required to be equipped with a Mode C transponder.
>
>> The AOPA-preferred UAT datalink is capable of providing pilots with three
>> separate but related services:
>
>> 3. FIS-B (Flight Information Services). FIS-B data includes graphic
>> Nexrad weather radar and textual METAR/TAF data. In the future, FIS-B
>> services may include graphic TFR data.
>
> I believe all glider pilots should also be members of AOPA. I've been one
> for more than 25 years. They do a lot heavy lifting that the SSA can not,
> related to airplanes (think towplanes), airspace, required equipment
> (ADS-B is the focus now), and pilot rights. The magazine is ocasionally
> interesting, and the dues are reasonable.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

I think that this is a great idea. Rob Strain at MITRE would be a key
player to get on board with getting something like this organized.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> There are obviously some challenges in getting this commercialized. The
>> biggest challenge is to get the FAA to accept the notion that there
>> should be a VFR only version of ADS-B that is designed to be cost
>> effective, and does not provide the accuracy and reliability levels
>> needed for parallel instrument approaches in Class B airspace.
>>
>> My gut instinct (I don't have any experience dealing with the FAA) is
>> that we can get the FAA to provide a mechanism so that this type of
>> device can be sold commercially at a ~$1K price point. Politically, it
>> would help a lot of the SSA, AOPA, and the EAA took the position that
>> universal deployment would be acceptable, if equipment was available to
>> the GA community at this price point.
>
> I sent the following comment out to various parties back in February, as a
> response to a proposal by a manufacturer to build 25 of the MITRE designed
> UAT transmitters for research and development purposes:
>
> ===
> What if there was a highly publicized proposal by the SSA, USHPA, EAA,
> AOPA, etc., to test these transmitters in a high traffic density area with
> UAT ground station coverage (say Maryland or Virginia) in a range of sport
> aircraft including hang gliders, ultralights, LSAs, sailplanes,
> Cubs/Champs, etc.? It might encourage the FAA to address the VFR-only
> issue in the near term...
> ===
>
> The intent is to get the ball rolling. If you think this might be useful,
> contact me, I'd like to get enough of a working group together to insure
> that the proposal actually happens...
>
> Marc



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a traffic
advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the IFR
traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid
the VFR traffic.

In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.

Mike Schumann

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 2, 6:57 am, Tom Nau > wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 8:20 am, "Mike Schumann" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why is anyone getting TCAS alerts? TCAS is suppose to be the last line
>> > of
>> > defense against a collision. If glider / jet traffic is regularly
>> > resulting
>> > in TCAS alerts, then ATC isn't providing enough separation between
>> > transponder equipped gliders and IFR traffic. This is a big issue that
>> > needs to be brought up with the FAA.
>>
>> > Mike Schumann
>>
>> > > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > > Kirk,
>>
>> > > Ironic that you talk about 22k cloudbases over Grand Canyon! That
>> > > is about the altitude of the midair on June 30, 1956, that got
>> > > Positive Control Airspace(now Class A) lowered from 24,000 to 18,000
>> > > feet! I put a transponder in my DG303 years ago. Most of the glass
>> > > ships at Warner Springs have transponders. There is no excuse for not
>> > > having a transponder if you do cross-country. The same excuses I hear
>> > > (not from you) are the ones I heard when I started power flying in
>> > > 1973. Too expensive, blah blah blah.
>>
>> > > It was extremely lucky no one was killed in that Minden midair. The
>> > > few times I have soared there(in rental ships) I have had close calls
>> > > with 121 carriers on the localizer for Reno or corporate jets going
>> > > into Minden. Flying wave the other day at Warner I was on LA Center
>> > > the whole flight. It was amazing the amount of carriers that vectored
>> > > around me or got TCAS alerts.
>>
>> > > There is lots of traffic out there folks. Transponders are a great
>> > > safety device. The 0440 vs. 1200 has nothing to do with power output.
>> > > Per LOA with Reno the 0440 identifies you as a glider rather than an
>> > > airplane. It should be an FAR to have a discrete code for gliders and
>> > > hopefully will happen soon.
>>
>> > > Happy Soaring, Dean "GO"
>>
>> > --
>> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide
>> > quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> ATC is tasked only with separating IFR traffic from other IFR
>> traffic. Even when VMC, IFR traffic is supposed to "see and avoid".
>> Tom
>
> Ah do you fly much in high traffic areas, talk much to ATC? ATC
> regularly issues traffic advisories to help separate all types of
> traffic. If you fly a glider with transponder near places like Reno,
> or Travis AFB, or ... traffic gets routed around you by ATC issuing
> traffic advisories to other aircraft, wether IFR or VFR. The operating
> procedures in place near Reno including for non-transponder equipped
> gliders are intended to help ATC issue those advisories to IFR and VFR
> traffic. That's why they are in place. Luckily people involved in the
> Reno area seem to get that while important, see and avoid does not
> work perfectly, and when you much high density fast traffic with those
> invisible white gliders it works a lot less perfectly. And I'll repeat
> again this applies to many more places than the Reno area.
>
> Darryl
>


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
> heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a traffic
> advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the IFR
> traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid
> the VFR traffic.
>
> In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
> avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
> providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.

Did they explain why they used this procedure? One possibility is that
encoders used for VFR are not required to meet the same calibration
standards as encoders used for IFR, and if they are not in contact with
the VFR traffic, they can't confirm the altitude matches the encoder
output. Without knowing the altitude accurately, perhaps they are unable
to vector the IFR traffic safely around it, and must rely on "looking
out the window".

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Jack[_10_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
> heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a traffic
> advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the IFR
> traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid
> the VFR traffic.
>
> In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
> avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
> providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.



"They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid the VFR traffic."
--and vice versa.

There are provisions for IFR traffic to request vectors to avoid known
traffic. If the IFR pilot wants it, he can get it.

On the other hand, give some thought to exactly how separation could be
guaranteed from all other traffic when only one of the aircraft is under
the control of ATC. Your answer to the problem will be that there should
be no aircraft which is not under positive ATC control. Good luck with
that, and good bye to gliding--and a great many other uses of aircraft,
both pleasure- and business-oriented. If the solutions were simple,
simple people like us would have solved the problem long ago.


Jack

[Mike Schumann]

Granted, if ATC is only talking to one aircraft, it isn't as easy to provide
separation as when they are talking to both. However, it is not impossible.
If the VFR target is moving in a straight line, all you need to do is make
sure that the IFR traffic is at a different altitude, or vector them, so
they pass behind the VFR traffic. If the VFR traffic is a glider (which ATC
would know if the NTSB recommendation for a uniform nationwide glider squawk
code was implemented), the appropriate response would be to give the VFR
traffic a wide birth, both latterly and vertically.

Mike Schumann

"Jack" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
>> heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a
>> traffic advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the
>> IFR traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see
>> and avoid the VFR traffic.
>>
>> In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
>> avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
>> providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.
>
>
>
> "They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see and avoid the VFR
> traffic." --and vice versa.
>
> There are provisions for IFR traffic to request vectors to avoid known
> traffic. If the IFR pilot wants it, he can get it.
>
> On the other hand, give some thought to exactly how separation could be
> guaranteed from all other traffic when only one of the aircraft is under
> the control of ATC. Your answer to the problem will be that there should
> be no aircraft which is not under positive ATC control. Good luck with
> that, and good bye to gliding--and a great many other uses of aircraft,
> both pleasure- and business-oriented. If the solutions were simple, simple
> people like us would have solved the problem long ago.
>
>
> Jack


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Mike Schumann]

The failure to provide separation services between VFR and IFR traffic is
the way the system has been run since day one. The rules haven't been
changed to account for increases in aircraft speed and traffic density. VFR
altitude encoders, while not meeting the standards of IFR systems designed
for reduced separation environments, still have to meet FAA standards. Any
lack of accuracy should be reflected in the separation provide to the IFR
traffic.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:hF8bk.213$9W.210@trndny04...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> According to the guys at our local TRACON, when they have IFR traffic
>> heading directly towards a mode C equipped VFR target, they issue a
>> traffic advisory to the IFR traffic, but do NOT make an adjustment to the
>> IFR traffic's flight path. They rely on the IFR pilot to visually see
>> and avoid the VFR traffic.
>>
>> In my opinion, this is crazy. We all know how difficult it is to see and
>> avoid traffic visually. The FAA's rules need to change. They should be
>> providing separation between all IFR traffic and any other known target.
>
> Did they explain why they used this procedure? One possibility is that
> encoders used for VFR are not required to meet the same calibration
> standards as encoders used for IFR, and if they are not in contact with
> the VFR traffic, they can't confirm the altitude matches the encoder
> output. Without knowing the altitude accurately, perhaps they are unable
> to vector the IFR traffic safely around it, and must rely on "looking out
> the window".
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jack[_10_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:


> ...since day one. The rules haven't been changed to account for increases in aircraft speed and traffic density.


An absurd claim. You will have to qualify your statements a great deal
more carefully if you expect whatever value your suggestions may have to
be recognized.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> The failure to provide separation services between VFR and IFR traffic is
> the way the system has been run since day one. The rules haven't been
> changed to account for increases in aircraft speed and traffic density. VFR
> altitude encoders, while not meeting the standards of IFR systems designed
> for reduced separation environments, still have to meet FAA standards. Any
> lack of accuracy should be reflected in the separation provide to the IFR
> traffic.

My understanding is it's not the lack of basic accuracy of the encoders,
but the lack of confirmation that the encoder is working properly. An
IFR aircraft is in contact with ATC, and ATC knows it's altimeter and
encoder show the same pressure altitude. ATC is not in contact with the
VFR aircraft, and can not do this cross-check of the altimeter and
encoder readings.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Mike Schumann]

So just because there is a chance that the encoder on a VFR aircraft is not
working, you go ahead and let an IFR aircraft head right towards the
target??? That certainly doesn't make sense. If there is a legitimate
concern that the VFR encoder is not accurate, the logical conclusion would
be to make sure you have extra separation vertically between the IFR
aircraft than you otherwise might.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:_SUgk.205$oU.75@trnddc07...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> The failure to provide separation services between VFR and IFR traffic is
>> the way the system has been run since day one. The rules haven't been
>> changed to account for increases in aircraft speed and traffic density.
>> VFR altitude encoders, while not meeting the standards of IFR systems
>> designed for reduced separation environments, still have to meet FAA
>> standards. Any lack of accuracy should be reflected in the separation
>> provide to the IFR traffic.
>
> My understanding is it's not the lack of basic accuracy of the encoders,
> but the lack of confirmation that the encoder is working properly. An IFR
> aircraft is in contact with ATC, and ATC knows it's altimeter and encoder
> show the same pressure altitude. ATC is not in contact with the VFR
> aircraft, and can not do this cross-check of the altimeter and encoder
> readings.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 21, 6:14*am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> *If there is a legitimate
> concern that the VFR encoder is not accurate, the logical conclusion would
> be to make sure you have extra separation vertically between the IFR
> aircraft than you otherwise might.

In a system where the transponder and encoder are separate units, the
encoder to transponder altitude interface is typically implemented by
multiple ground/open discretes. Something as simple as a dirty
contact may result in a discrete being assumed open instead of ground
state. A single bit error may result in an encoder reporting an
altitude several thousands of feet in error. The Gilham Grey code
used for altitude encoders has no parity check and, with few
exceptions, no other means of error checking except correlation with
the pilot's altitude report. One exception is transponders that
display the reported altitude and allow the pilot to check it.
Nevertheless the controller has no way to know the reported altitude
is accurate unless verified against a pilot altitude report.

In this context accurate does not mean plus/minus 200 feet (the
resolution is only 100ft) but perhaps plus/minus 5000ft or more.

Of course the same non error checked, low integrity, transponder/
encoder systems are the basis for TCAS conflict resolution.

ref http://www.airsport-corp.com/dot_faa_ct-97_7.pdf

"The results of this study indicate that most of the transponders
carried
by GA aircraft fail to meet all of the performance criteria specified
in national
standards documents, and that a number of these failures may be
serious enough
to significantly affect their performance with secondary surveillance
radar
systems and TCAS collision avoidance equipment. In addition, the data
showed
that performance failures on key transponder parameters were unrelated
to the
time that had elapsed since a transponder had received its last
biennial
inspection."

Anyone ready for ADS-B yet.

Andy

[Mike Schumann]

ADS-B is definitely the way to go. But this ignores the most basic problem,
which is that the FAA is ignoring the data that they already have. Even if
they get have VFR ADS-B target that they know is accurate, their current
procedure is to give the IFR traffic an advisory, but generally not any
deviation to avoid the known traffic.

Mike Schumann

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 6:14 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> If there is a legitimate
> concern that the VFR encoder is not accurate, the logical conclusion would
> be to make sure you have extra separation vertically between the IFR
> aircraft than you otherwise might.

In a system where the transponder and encoder are separate units, the
encoder to transponder altitude interface is typically implemented by
multiple ground/open discretes. Something as simple as a dirty
contact may result in a discrete being assumed open instead of ground
state. A single bit error may result in an encoder reporting an
altitude several thousands of feet in error. The Gilham Grey code
used for altitude encoders has no parity check and, with few
exceptions, no other means of error checking except correlation with
the pilot's altitude report. One exception is transponders that
display the reported altitude and allow the pilot to check it.
Nevertheless the controller has no way to know the reported altitude
is accurate unless verified against a pilot altitude report.

In this context accurate does not mean plus/minus 200 feet (the
resolution is only 100ft) but perhaps plus/minus 5000ft or more.

Of course the same non error checked, low integrity, transponder/
encoder systems are the basis for TCAS conflict resolution.

ref http://www.airsport-corp.com/dot_faa_ct-97_7.pdf

"The results of this study indicate that most of the transponders
carried
by GA aircraft fail to meet all of the performance criteria specified
in national
standards documents, and that a number of these failures may be
serious enough
to significantly affect their performance with secondary surveillance
radar
systems and TCAS collision avoidance equipment. In addition, the data
showed
that performance failures on key transponder parameters were unrelated
to the
time that had elapsed since a transponder had received its last
biennial
inspection."

Anyone ready for ADS-B yet.

Andy


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> ADS-B is definitely the way to go. But this ignores the most basic problem,
> which is that the FAA is ignoring the data that they already have.

The FAA isn't ignoring any data, they just aren't using it the way you
think they should. They do give the information to the IFR pilot, who
can request a new vector if the pilot thinks the present one is unsafe.

You aren't getting the detailed reasoning or procedures from RAS that
you seem to be looking for, so I suggest you discuss the situation with
a controller as the next step. That should get you the procedures, but
not necessarily the reasoning, for which you will likely have to dig
further.

Practically speaking, the current procedures seem to work well. If you,
as a transponder equipped VFR pilot, want to improve upon them, you can
contact ATC so they can confirm your altitude. You can also request
flight following. Contacting ATC will usually help even if you are not
transponder equipped.

> Even if
> they get have VFR ADS-B target that they know is accurate, their current
> procedure is to give the IFR traffic an advisory, but generally not any
> deviation to avoid the known traffic.

We are at the beginning of the transition to ADS-B. The procedures will
change as it's use expands, and I don't think even the FAA knows what
the detailed procedures will be 10 or 20 years from now, but no one
suggests they will the same.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[jb92563]

> We are at the beginning of the transition to ADS-B. The procedures will
> change as it's use expands, and I don't think even the FAA knows what
> the detailed procedures will be 10 or 20 years from now, but no one
> suggests they will the same.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA


When is ADS-B going to be implimented?

Do you think it will be any better for gliders from the power/size/
cost standpoint?

Perhaps the FAA /SSA can help fund/steer development of ADS-B for use
in gliders
to meet our specific limitations and concede on some points for
Gliders not using them below some agreed upon
altitude to conserve power. It could simply be desinged to turn on
automatically at the preset altitude.

Im sure we could get these things made to mil spec by some Chineese
company at a greatly reduced price.

Ray

[5Z]

On Jul 22, 2:14*pm, jb92563 > wrote:
> Perhaps the FAA /SSA can help fund/steer development of ADS-B for use
> in gliders

Your questions are answered in this month's and last (or a bit older)
month's issues of Soaring.

-Tom

[Mike Schumann]

The NTSB report on the mid-air over Minden indicates that there are quite a
few TCAS advisories being generated between IFR traffic and transponder
equipped VFR aircraft, both powered and gliders. This indicates that the
system is NOT working well. A TCAS advisory should be considered just as
serious as a runway incursion. The reason that we are getting all of these
TCAS advisories is because we are relying on see and be seen for IFR traffic
to avoid VFR aircraft, instead of having ATC automatically vector IFR
traffic around known targets.

Mike Schumann

651-208-3791

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:Kgnhk.323$oU.266@trnddc07...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> ADS-B is definitely the way to go. But this ignores the most basic
>> problem, which is that the FAA is ignoring the data that they already
>> have.
>
> The FAA isn't ignoring any data, they just aren't using it the way you
> think they should. They do give the information to the IFR pilot, who can
> request a new vector if the pilot thinks the present one is unsafe.
>
> You aren't getting the detailed reasoning or procedures from RAS that you
> seem to be looking for, so I suggest you discuss the situation with a
> controller as the next step. That should get you the procedures, but not
> necessarily the reasoning, for which you will likely have to dig further.
>
> Practically speaking, the current procedures seem to work well. If you, as
> a transponder equipped VFR pilot, want to improve upon them, you can
> contact ATC so they can confirm your altitude. You can also request flight
> following. Contacting ATC will usually help even if you are not
> transponder equipped.
>
>> Even if they get have VFR ADS-B target that they know is accurate, their
>> current procedure is to give the IFR traffic an advisory, but generally
>> not any deviation to avoid the known traffic.
>
> We are at the beginning of the transition to ADS-B. The procedures will
> change as it's use expands, and I don't think even the FAA knows what the
> detailed procedures will be 10 or 20 years from now, but no one suggests
> they will the same.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jack[_1_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:


> The reason that we are getting all of these TCAS advisories
> is because we are relying on see and be seen for IFR traffic
> to avoid VFR aircraft, instead of having ATC automatically
> vector IFR traffic around known targets.


Mike,

Are you just venting, or are you willing and able to offer a suggestion
about how that could be done?


Jack