Re: Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>> electrical systems too?
>
> Almost certainly
>>

That's the way I saw it also.

Here are a few pertinent questions:

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
glider?

If implemented, will the requirement for an electrical system kill
low-cost glider training operations?

Would the CAP glider training operations, which typically provide
winch launch and pattern work, be impacted?

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
Champ or Cub? Isn't their performance so marginal already, that they
will become impractical due to increased empty weight and drag, and
power reduction with the addition of an alternator, battery,
communications radio, transponder, antennas, wiring, switches, etc?

Would the work have to be done by an A&P and approved by the FAA for
each aircraft/glider modified?

Will aircraft/glider useful load be affected?

>
>> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>> this issue?
>
> Not at all.
>

So you don't believe there is any possibility that Part 121 or 135
operator advocate organizations have been lobbying the government to
increase the conspicuity of gliders or to enable their TCAS systems to
warn operators of glider proximity?

What is the possibility of NextGen ATC accommodating non-metallic
aircraft without electrical systems? Without transponders? Without
radio communications?

>
>Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
>and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>

It's difficult to deny that. But it doesn't address the issue of
liability.

>
>Right-of-way rules have two uses:
> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
>inclined to follow them).
>

Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

>
> And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
>methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>

So Right-of-way regulations provide a basis for aggrieved parties to
seek compensation from regulation violators, and assign responsibility
too.

>>
>> Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
>> if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>
> No more than they do now.
>

I would find ATC's responsibility for separating NORDO gliders that
paint no primary target to be nonexistent presently. If this proposal
is enacted, the situation will change.

>>
>> Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>
> It always has been a myth.
>

At the risk of tangential drift, isn't the BST currently employed by
the FAA to separate high-speed military aircraft on VFR low-level
Military Training Routs from civil flights? In light of the mythical
status of the BST, shouldn't that flaw in the NAS be corrected also?

>
>Vaughn
>

Thank you for your insightful comments.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
>>are
>>inclined to follow them).
>>
>
> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

Not so.

If the other plane does not see you, it can't be expected/trusted to behave
according to the ROW regulations, so you can't know what it is going to do.
There is usually little that you can do to get the other pilot's attention (you
have no horn in an aircraft). So it is up to the pilot that DOES see the other
to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision...regulations be dammed.

In that situation, I usually manuver in such a way that I never lose sight of
the other aircraft. If I happen to be driving a glider, my manuvering options
are limited to left, right, and down. I probably can't climb, and I certainly
can't outrun an oncoming airplane.

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:55:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
>>>are
>>>inclined to follow them).
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>
> Not so.
>

So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:55:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>>>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
>>>>are
>>>>inclined to follow them).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>>
>> Not so.
>>
>
> So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
> but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

I said no such thing. Kindly go back and read what I wrote.

Sorry, but I think you and I are done with this conversation.

Vaughn

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 6:55*am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
> >>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
> >>are
> >>inclined to follow them).
>
> > Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>
> * *Not so.
>
> * *If the other plane does not see you, it can't be expected/trusted to behave
> according to the ROW regulations, so you can't know what it is going to do..
> There is usually little that you can do to get the other pilot's attention (you
> have no horn in an aircraft). *So it is up to the pilot that DOES see the other
> to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision...regulations be dammed.
>
> In that situation, I usually manuver in such a way that I never lose sight of
> the other aircraft. *If I happen to be driving a glider, my manuvering options
> are limited to left, right, and down. *I probably can't climb, and I certainly
> can't outrun an oncoming airplane.

To give way you must turn to the right. You can certainly dive fast
and turn as well if you really wan't to generate a big separation. But
remember he won't see you as easily if you go below him.. Radio calls?

Cheers

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring Larry Dighera > wrote:
> So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
> but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

In my opinion, right of way is essentially useless when flying.

There are three relevant situations:

- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. You have the ROW.
- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. He has the ROW.
- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. Neither has the
ROW.

In all three situations the only reasonable thing to is the same: maneuver
to avoid by any means necessary.

Thus your inference is essentially backwards. Not only should the power
plane get out of the way of the glider, but the glider should get out of
the way of the power plane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[BT]

Larry.. DO you fly gliders?
From these statements it would appear that you do not.
Gliders may or may not have electrical systems, they do not "generate
power", but stored battery power of a limited life span.
Gliders are small, batteries are small, everything needs to be small.

NTSB "recommends", FAA cannot mandate without a comment period and a change
to many CFRs.
Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B. Why would
I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.
Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It can
be done.

My issue is not with TCAS equipped aircraft, but with smaller GA aircraft
that do not have TCAS, do not have a Garmin 430 with TIS (or equivalent) and
are not talking to ATC. It does no good to have a transponder, when the
aircraft causing the traffic conflict is not talking to anyone. Just sitting
there FDH and not even paying attention in the traffic pattern.

Last Saturday we had at least 4 transient aircraft attempt to land at the
airport with 15 to 20 knot tail winds, and against the flow of traffic.
They could not even listen up to the radio to figure out the runway in use,
or even look at a wind sock or a huge flag and see the 15knt winds and make
up their own mind about the landing runway.

What makes you think a transponder in a glider would make any difference.

And local ATC can see my non-transponder equipped glider just fine, when I
am high enough for radar coverage.
It's called raw radar skin paint. And yes, I am looking at the requirements
(Not Govt' requirement but electical and space in the aircraft requirements)
and feasibility for installing transponders in our gliders.

B

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>>> electrical systems too?
>>
>> Almost certainly
>>>
>
> That's the way I saw it also.
>
> Here are a few pertinent questions:
>
> What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
> glider?
>
> If implemented, will the requirement for an electrical system kill
> low-cost glider training operations?
>
> Would the CAP glider training operations, which typically provide
> winch launch and pattern work, be impacted?
>
> What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
> Champ or Cub? Isn't their performance so marginal already, that they
> will become impractical due to increased empty weight and drag, and
> power reduction with the addition of an alternator, battery,
> communications radio, transponder, antennas, wiring, switches, etc?
>
> Would the work have to be done by an A&P and approved by the FAA for
> each aircraft/glider modified?
>
> Will aircraft/glider useful load be affected?
>
>>
>>> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>>> this issue?
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>
> So you don't believe there is any possibility that Part 121 or 135
> operator advocate organizations have been lobbying the government to
> increase the conspicuity of gliders or to enable their TCAS systems to
> warn operators of glider proximity?
>
> What is the possibility of NextGen ATC accommodating non-metallic
> aircraft without electrical systems? Without transponders? Without
> radio communications?
>
>>
>>Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
>>and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>>
>
> It's difficult to deny that. But it doesn't address the issue of
> liability.
>
>>
>>Right-of-way rules have two uses:
>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to
>> avoid
>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations,
>>and are
>>inclined to follow them).
>>
>
> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>
>>
>> And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
>>methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>>
>
> So Right-of-way regulations provide a basis for aggrieved parties to
> seek compensation from regulation violators, and assign responsibility
> too.
>
>>>
>>> Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
>>> if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>>
>> No more than they do now.
>>
>
> I would find ATC's responsibility for separating NORDO gliders that
> paint no primary target to be nonexistent presently. If this proposal
> is enacted, the situation will change.
>
>>>
>>> Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>>
>> It always has been a myth.
>>
>
> At the risk of tangential drift, isn't the BST currently employed by
> the FAA to separate high-speed military aircraft on VFR low-level
> Military Training Routs from civil flights? In light of the mythical
> status of the BST, shouldn't that flaw in the NAS be corrected also?
>
>>
>>Vaughn
>>
>
> Thank you for your insightful comments.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

BT wrote:

> Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It can
> be done.

That's a great price! Where do you get these? What brand? The ones I
know about (Becker, Microair) are $1900 plus $200 for the encoder.

--
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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:27:54 -0700, "BT" > wrote
in >:

>Larry.. DO you fly gliders?

Not in several years.

>From these statements it would appear that you do not.
>Gliders may or may not have electrical systems, they do not "generate
>power", but stored battery power of a limited life span.
>Gliders are small, batteries are small, everything needs to be small.
>

None of the gliders I have flown have had electrical systems, small or
otherwise.

>NTSB "recommends", FAA cannot mandate without a comment period and a change
>to many CFRs.

True, but I'm thinking that it is in our best interest to provide some
guidance to the FAA before they draft their NPRM; hopefully proactive
will be better than reactive.

>Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B.

Are you able to provide any specific information about that
technology?

>Why would I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.

Of course, it's worse than that. There would need to be antennas,
cabling, batteries, switches, circuit breakers, ammeter, ... It
wouldn't be very cost effective to equip gliders used for training
with all that, not to mention the resulting degraded flight
performance and maintenance requirements.

>Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It can
>be done.

Can you provide more specific information about them?

>
>My issue is not with TCAS equipped aircraft, but with smaller GA aircraft
>that do not have TCAS, do not have a Garmin 430 with TIS (or equivalent) and
>are not talking to ATC. It does no good to have a transponder, when the
>aircraft causing the traffic conflict is not talking to anyone. Just sitting
>there FDH and not even paying attention in the traffic pattern.
>

I'm not sure if there is a solution to that issue short of having a
control tower at _all_ fields. Have you got any ideas?

>Last Saturday we had at least 4 transient aircraft attempt to land at the
>airport with 15 to 20 knot tail winds, and against the flow of traffic.

While not very smart, it's not a violation of regulations, is it?

>They could not even listen up to the radio to figure out the runway in use,
>or even look at a wind sock or a huge flag and see the 15knt winds and make
>up their own mind about the landing runway.

I find the level of competence, diligence, and responsibility of some
airmen to be disappointing, and it's not just the "hobby" pilots. One
wonders how they manage to pass their biennial flight reviews.

>
>What makes you think a transponder in a glider would make any difference.
>

Ha ha!

Hey, it's not me raising the transponder issue; it's the NTSB. :)
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2008/a08_10_13.pdf

>And local ATC can see my non-transponder equipped glider just fine, when I
>am high enough for radar coverage.

How much metal and/or carbon-fiber does your glider contain?

>It's called raw radar skin paint.

In you experience, doesn't the controller normally need to be asked to
set that mode on his scope? Wouldn't your glider be invisible to ATC
under normal circumstances without you calling and informing the
controller you are there?

>And yes, I am looking at the requirements
>(Not Govt' requirement but electical and space in the aircraft requirements)
>and feasibility for installing transponders in our gliders.
>

If the NTSB gets their way, there will be many more glider owners
doing the same.

[BT]

Thanx Eric.. it's been a while since I checked.. I remember 13 but that may
have been the crappy Becker Radio.
Had two.. both went back for repairs.. and I know at least one Becker
Transponder had to go back too.
BT

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:RIdRj.174$1m3.73@trndny02...
> BT wrote:
>
>> Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It
>> can be done.
>
> That's a great price! Where do you get these? What brand? The ones I know
> about (Becker, Microair) are $1900 plus $200 for the encoder.
>
> --
> 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

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"BT" > wrote:

>Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B. Why would
>I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.

I suspect that you mean "ADS-B Out"

Reference: http://tinyurl.com/33k9m2

You will see responses from me. I am adamantly against it.

Ron Lee

[BT]

Larry.. it's been a few years since I've been on the ATC side of the radar..
but "we" had to monitor "primary" returns when working low altitude sectors,
Below FL180. I've listened in on the local TRACON ATC frequency when flying
in the "airline approach area" and yes, they are issuing "traffic, altitude
unknown, could be a glider", and I did not call them first to give them a
heads up. This has been in Grob 103s and LS-4, fiberglass with metal pushrod
controls.

Becker Transponders are very popular with glider pilots, I missed on the
price.. it's closer to $1900 plus antenna and install.
http://www.beckerusa.com/products/detail/index3.php?search=557



B


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:27:54 -0700, "BT" > wrote
> in >:
>
>>Larry.. DO you fly gliders?
>
> Not in several years.
>
>>From these statements it would appear that you do not.
>>Gliders may or may not have electrical systems, they do not "generate
>>power", but stored battery power of a limited life span.
>>Gliders are small, batteries are small, everything needs to be small.
>>
>
> None of the gliders I have flown have had electrical systems, small or
> otherwise.
>
>>NTSB "recommends", FAA cannot mandate without a comment period and a
>>change
>>to many CFRs.
>
> True, but I'm thinking that it is in our best interest to provide some
> guidance to the FAA before they draft their NPRM; hopefully proactive
> will be better than reactive.
>
>>Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B.
>
> Are you able to provide any specific information about that
> technology?
>
>>Why would I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.
>
> Of course, it's worse than that. There would need to be antennas,
> cabling, batteries, switches, circuit breakers, ammeter, ... It
> wouldn't be very cost effective to equip gliders used for training
> with all that, not to mention the resulting degraded flight
> performance and maintenance requirements.
>
>>Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It
>>can
>>be done.
>
> Can you provide more specific information about them?
>
>>
>>My issue is not with TCAS equipped aircraft, but with smaller GA aircraft
>>that do not have TCAS, do not have a Garmin 430 with TIS (or equivalent)
>>and
>>are not talking to ATC. It does no good to have a transponder, when the
>>aircraft causing the traffic conflict is not talking to anyone. Just
>>sitting
>>there FDH and not even paying attention in the traffic pattern.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if there is a solution to that issue short of having a
> control tower at _all_ fields. Have you got any ideas?
>
>>Last Saturday we had at least 4 transient aircraft attempt to land at the
>>airport with 15 to 20 knot tail winds, and against the flow of traffic.
>
> While not very smart, it's not a violation of regulations, is it?
>
>>They could not even listen up to the radio to figure out the runway in
>>use,
>>or even look at a wind sock or a huge flag and see the 15knt winds and
>>make
>>up their own mind about the landing runway.
>
> I find the level of competence, diligence, and responsibility of some
> airmen to be disappointing, and it's not just the "hobby" pilots. One
> wonders how they manage to pass their biennial flight reviews.
>
>>
>>What makes you think a transponder in a glider would make any difference.
>>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
> but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?
>

So if you see a powered aircraft in you path while piloting a glider, but
its pilot doesn't see you, do you expect it to yield the right-of-way?